Speeches January 2008

 

Monday 21 January 2008 at 11.30 a.m.

 

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

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – I want to start by complimenting our former President and now rapporteur, Mr van der Linden, on his report. It is the conviction of my group that he did a great job for us all in making our Assembly more visible, in realising the annual democracy and human rights report, in improving the position of our Assembly in the Council of Europe, and in applying the rule in this Assembly that we are all different but all equal, so that all groups are equal. He also improved relations with the European Union, with Russia and other countries. In the Netherlands he is known in his province as “Us Reneeke”, but in the past few years he has been “Our René”. I thank him very much for all that he has done.

Observing elections is one of the main tasks of the Parliamentary Assembly, and we should never underestimate that. The task is not to criticise governments, parties and politicians in public, but to improve democratic structures and democratic rights of citizens in the whole of Europe and, if possible, even outside Europe. We observed two elections in the past period – in Russia and in Georgia – and it is sad that we had to conclude that both elections did not meet our standards. We have to tell the truth here – that is important. Mike Hancock said that if the result fits, then everything fits, but it is more important than that. It is not only the result that counts, but how governments, political parties and citizens behave during elections.

We have to say that both elections did not meet our criteria. As the report of Mr Van den Brande said, they were free elections but not fair, and that is not good enough. As Mr Mātyās Eörsi said, the performance of Georgia was worse than he expected. That truth has to be said, in order to support the people in those countries who support the conclusions reached by this Assembly. They need, and are entitled to have, our support. It is also necessary to warn the governments of these countries. This Assembly should say clearly to Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev, “You have to perform far better in the coming presidential elections if you want to have the support of this Assembly for how you perform regarding democracy.” We should also say to Mr Saakashvili when he comes here on Thursday to meet us, “Listen, Mr President, this is not a reward for your way of handling elections. This is a moment when we should confront you with our conclusion that you did not perform well – that you performed worse than we expected – and that you have to perform far better in the coming parliamentary elections.”

As I said, this Assembly’s duty is to observe elections and to come to conclusions, and to make it clear that the conclusions reached on these two elections is that they did not meet our criteria. As Mr Wilshire and Mr Hancock said, the election of a President of this Assembly could use some improvement, and free and fair elections would be the best solution – I am very much in favour of that. But as long as the best solution is not possible, the second best solution is, in effect, the best one. We reached a new agreement, signed by the political leaders of five political groups, that all will be now equal, and we have a new schedule. We could have had a Russian in the seat of the presidency, but it is more important that we have now agreed that in future, nationality can never be a reason not to have someone in the Chair of this Assembly. It would be a shame if that happened once more.

 

Monday 21 January 2008 at 3 p.m

 

Address by Mr Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Thank you, Mr Prime Minister, for the good news that your government is giving priority to the European Court of Human Rights. However, could you also give some priority during your period to the financial situation of this Assembly, in order to end the financial and budgetary anorexia that we have suffered for some years? Please give us another good news message.

 

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call you to reply, Prime Minister.

 

Mr FICO did not want to make any distinction between the different institutions of the Council of Europe. Each played an irreplaceable role and this was why, in meetings that very day, the Slovak Republic had confirmed its interest – by means of a special letter from its foreign minister to his counterparts – in dealing with the question of funding for the European Court of Human Rights. As a lawyer, he had experience of the Court, which was a unique system for the protection of human rights. It would be a grave mistake to impair this unique system in any way.

Furthermore, the Assembly was playing a unique role in promoting and sustaining democracy and the rule of law. In 1993 and 1994, the Slovak Republic had seen a monitoring system put in place by the Council of Europe of which it had initially been nervous, but this system had, in the end, helped to build democratic institutions in the Slovak Republic. For these reasons, the Council of Europe was a very important body for the Slovak Republic.

 

 

Address by Mr Timmermans, Minister for European Affairs of the Netherlands

 

Mrs STRIK (Netherlands). – I fully agree, Mr Minister, with your plea for a consistent policy throughout the world. I have two questions, one about the Israeli energy cuts in Gaza and one about involving Hamas in the peace process.

According to the United Nations, the current energy cuts will deepen the humanitarian distress of the Gaza residents. It is the next step in Israel’s determination to punish Palestinians collectively for the actions of certain groups. Is the Dutch Government prepared strongly to condemn the current energy cuts and to insist that the Israeli Government stops this policy? Is the Dutch Government prepared to act firmly in this regard in the European Union and the Council of the European Union?

Hamas has won fair and free elections, whether we like it or not. Is the Dutch Government prepared to involve Hamas as one of the relevant parties in the peace process aimed at achieving a durable solution?

 

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Timmermans.

 

Mr TIMMERMANS. – Thank you for your question, Mrs Strik. The Dutch Foreign Minister is in the region this week because this subject is very high on our agenda. We fully support the declaration prepared by the EU presidency which calls on all parties to exercise restraint in this escalating situation – and we mean all parties, on all sides. We have not only seen what you have talked about in Gaza, we have seen an increase in terrorist attacks within Gaza on Israeli territory. What we need now is restraint, an effective start to the process begun at Annapolis.

On the second question that was raised, there is a clear precondition to be met before we can start talking to Hamas. It has to stop using terrorism and to say so clearly and to abide by that declaration. It has to refrain from its position of saying that Israel should be destroyed and swept off the map. This is not an acceptable position. This is not an organisation with which one can negotiate while it holds such a position. That is the clear stance of the Dutch Government and the EU and I stand by it.

 

Tuesday 22 January 2008 at 10 a.m.

 

Developments as regards the future status of Kosovo

 

Mr LECOQ (France) said that the report concluded that the most realistic outcome would be independence for Kosovo, but the United Left did not support that conclusion. Any such decision should be approached with prudence and great caution. United Nations Resolution 1244 demanded that all states abided by the eventual agreement but the European Union and NATO were playing with fire. This was highly dangerous for international law. The current situation was also causing increased tension in the region. He asked whether this was what Europe really wanted to achieve. There was a need to find a solution for Kosovo that was just and sustainable. The Council of Europe could not withdraw from its international commitments and had to be involved in this issue. A unilateral solution should not be the only one available and his political group firmly rejected any such unilateral solution.

 

Ms KONEČNÁ (Czech Republic). – I shall begin my speech by reminding you that my country has experienced the imposed separation of part of its territory in the past. Violent separatist efforts were supported from the outside and boosted by pressure from a segment of the international community. We know it under the name of the Munich agreement. Let me also note that the politics of appeasement did not result in peace.

The solution of the status of Kosovo must be within the boundaries of international law. We cannot impose agreements on a sovereign country. Kosovo is a part of Serbia not only according to all current norms of international law, but following Security Council Resolution 1244 and the Helsinki Final Accord. The claim that the European Union mission in Kosovo has not been approved by Serbian authorities in compliance with Resolution 1244 is not true. In fact, that is in sheer contradiction of the idea behind international law, which supposes that all agreements should be interpreted in good faith.

It is startling that the proponents of separatism use and abuse the suggestion of a renewal of violence and armed conflict in the Balkans region. That is sheer blackmail, which cannot be tolerated in times in which we face the threat of international terrorism. The reassurance that the separation of the province of Kosovo from Serbia would not be perceived as a precedent by other countries is more dream than reality, and it means applying the politics of the double standard yet again. If it is possible for the Albanians to separate from Serbia, why should it not be possible for Serbians to separate from Bosnia and Herzegovina? And how should we approach all other separatist claims in Europe and in ex-Soviet territory?

Paragraph 6 of the draft resolution, which says that “the potential for finding a compromise has now been exhausted”, merely reiterates the opinion presented by the European Council, and I find such a claim absolutely unacceptable. It reflects the incompetence and reluctance of EU negotiators, who were to mediate the agreement between Pristina and Belgrade. How can anyone say that the potential for agreement has been exhausted? Setting artificial deadlines is another form of blackmail. Have all the possibilities for the future of Cyprus or Palestine been explored? Why should we always feel obliged to conform to the will of such individuals as the High Representative for Common, Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, whose approach to the Balkans is led by the need to justify the part he played in the killing of more than 2 000 innocent civilians during the barbarian bombing of Yugoslavia?

Those factors have led me to propose a resolution in my home parliament, which deals with the integrity of Serbian territory. We in the Council of Europe should refuse to act under pressure, and the final resolution should respect the two following principles: first, that we have not exhausted all the possibilities of finding a compromise; secondly, the principle stressed by the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, that the potential independence of the province of Kosovo should be proceeded by the approval of all parties involved.

 

Tuesday 22 January 2008 at 3 p.m.

 

Statement by Mr Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – We have had speeches from the Prime Ministers of Slovakia and Hungary, who told us that they were willing to co-operate in improving the financial situation and the political effectiveness of our Organisation and this Assembly. In your opinion, what should we do to encourage the creation of such a coalition of the willing – willing governments and willing parliaments – to improve our situation so that we can do our job? What could you contribute as Secretary General to such a coalition of the willing?

 

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Kox. You have the floor, Mr Davis.

 

Mr DAVIS. – I can tell the Assembly what I am doing. Whenever I visit member countries, I always have meetings with senior people in government: sometimes, the president, sometimes the prime minister or the foreign minister, it depends on their constitution. Whenever such people come here, I have a meeting with them. I was delighted to hear what the Prime Minister of Hungary, and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Slovakia have had to say during the past two days. I listened to their remarks with great interest, and I followed that up in meetings that I had with them subsequently. I gave them a few ideas and hints on the way in which they and their ambassadors could help, not only their ambassadors here, but elsewhere, especially their ambassadors in Brussels. I do not know, but perhaps their ambassadors are doing a great deal. They may be fighting very hard for the Council of Europe in Brussels, but that is for them to decide. We need allies in Brussels, especially at ambassadorial level as well as having allies in the capital cities.

You first of all asked for my suggestions based on my experience as a member of parliament for 28 years with 12 years’ service in this Assembly. I respectfully encourage you to do what I think you, Mr Kox, are already doing – as do a number of other members of the Assembly – which is to raise issues in your own parliament that involve the Council of Europe. For example, I have been thrilled by the number of people from all parties in the United Kingdom who have been pressing their government to get on with the ratification on the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, about which I feel very strongly. I have raised the issue with ministers on several occasions in London and outside when I have met them.

From time to time, Members of Parliament and some members of the Assembly, perhaps because they know me, send me information about the questions they have asked or speeches they have made in the United Kingdom in the House of Commons or the House of Lords. That is always very helpful to me. Please do not assume that I have the time to read the proceedings of every one of our 47 parliaments in order to see when the Council of Europe is mentioned. I rely on you to let me know about that, because it is very helpful to me. I know that you do that, Mr Kox, and so do many others. The French are very active, and people in other parliaments sometimes send me information about their activities in relation to the Council of Europe. I encourage you to keep on doing that, because you are there all the time and I am not.

 

Developments as regards the future status of Kosovo (resumed debate)

 

Mrs NAROCHNITSKAYA (Russian Federation) .– I join my voice to those alarmed colleagues who have described the would-be resolution as a Pandora’s box. This is a test for the Council of Europe. The report and the document contain so many dubious and dangerous provisions that, if not widely amended, they cannot, in my opinion, be adopted.

What is Kosovo to Serbia and what is Kosovo to the Atlantic Alliance? It is the alliance that is behind the strategy of dismembering Serbia, a founder of the United Nations and a signatory to the Helsinki Act. Kosovo is the cradle of Serbian statehood, the motherland of the first dynasty of Serbian czars, the Nemanjić and the motherland of the Serbian saint, St Sava.

Our colleague, Mr Milo, introduced himself as a former Foreign Minister of Albania and he quoted Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Minister at the beginning of the 20th century, whose works I know, as an historian, very well. I also know well almost all the books of the patriarch of British Balkan studies, Seton-Watson and the modern Oxford Slavist, Robert Burns. Our distinguished colleague misinterpreted the quotation, because Sir Edward Grey said that in the protocol of Florence and at the London conference of ambassadors in 1912, where the modern borders of Albania were drawn by the great powers, Albania claimed much more – half of Montenegro and Serbia – and was not satisfied. The great powers gave Albania territory beyond its borders, commenting that it was the wrong decision but was necessary for balance.

Kosovo was considered by everybody to be the cradle of Serbian statehood. It was Old Serbia – Das Alte Serbien – on Austro-Hungarian maps for centuries. Kosovo is the only plain, flat land in the Balkans where the tanks can go directly to Thessaloniki. That is the main reason why there is so much fuss about Kosovo and the strategy of secession was modelled according to textbooks on inter-ethnic conflict. I can hardly name any European country that will not be affected by the consequences of this unwise and premature decision. Those that will be affected include Macedonia, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada – you name it.

I beg members of the Assembly to think twice before agreeing this Anglo-Saxon suggestion for immediate secession and the proclamation of Kosovan independence, because it is a Pandora’s box. The Kosovar Albanian type of international terrorism is the most dangerous, because it is terrorism aimed at changing borders, and that endangers Europe, not the United States from whom terrorists demand only non-interference in the affairs of other countries, the end of the United Nations charter and adherence to the principles of international law. Please think twice.

 

GLOBAL WARMING

 

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – I welcome this work and these reports on behalf of my group. We are of the opinion that work in this field should have a high priority in the Council’s work in the coming months and years. Among other things, it touches on important and sensitive questions of principle in human and ethical terms, as well as on ecological and nature issues.

I welcome what the report says about global warming, especially the critical remarks made about the USA and the Bush regime. It cannot be too strongly emphasised how shameful it is that the most powerful and richest country in the world, which is also the country contributing the most pollution, is dragging its feet and hindering international co-operation. But much of the same applies to many other rich countries. As the last speaker said, it is very much up to us to contribute. The difference between us and the developing world is that we are responsible, and we have the means – the wealth – to do something about it if we want to.

It is obvious to everyone living in the Arctic area, as I do, how global warming is changing our nature year by year. In Greenland, a huge amount of continental ice is being diminished, thereby contributing to the rising sea levels. The traditional hunting grounds on the ice are becoming open sea month after month. In Iceland, we watched the biggest glacier in Europe, Vatnajökull, retreat very fast. We are seeing changes in the sea. Fish stocks are migrating north toward colder waters. Sea birds are dying of starvation on the cliffs. The work of scientists trying to deal with the changing circumstances in nature and the effects of over-fishing becomes extremely complex and difficult in this situation.

The report rightly highlights the work of the Arctic Council and frequently mentions the good bilateral co-operation between Norway and Russia. I agree with both points, but it is fair to mention also the long-standing Nordic co-operation in this field and the pioneering work of the Nordic Council, which was the initiator of, and motor behind, the foundation of the Arctic Council.

All of Europe should take responsibility for what is happening in the Arctic and the consequences for the indigenous people living there. The biggest danger is that many take more interest in taking advantage of new possibilities of using resources or sailing routes, but are not as concerned about what happens to nature and the human factor. If things go the worst possible way, we might be faced with not only an ecological or natural catastrophe, but a human catastrophe – a huge cultural catastrophe. The indigenous people in the area maintain a great cultural richness and knowledge of the nature and habitats. Their lifestyle is in close harmony with nature, and they should by no means be held responsible for the climate change caused by industrial pollution that they have not contributed to. We must all take responsibility for what is happening and take the necessary measures.

 

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – Thank you, Mr President. We have here two well-produced and timely reports that are interconnected. I will concentrate most of my remarks on the first, although they will partly refer to the second report also.

Alan Meale has produced a good report and even if there are some minor improvements – and this applies to any other paper – that could be made, these are not really important. Personally, I would put the reduction of emissions first and adaptation to climate change second, but given the simple truth that we will have to do both, this is a secondary matter. The report is almost too good to be true and I am strongly opposed to the only amendment that has been tabled because I do not believe that nuclear energy can be clean and sustainable. The possibility of decreasing emission by radical improvements in energy efficiency is much more cost-efficient.

Instead of looking at the possibility of making the text even better, it is even more important to think of how we can translate this report into action. The EU is making significant commitments already, but more has to be done. How can we urge EU countries to do more? How can we influence non-EU members of the Council of Europe, including oil giants such as Russia or Azerbaijan, to do at least as much as EU countries are doing? Furthermore, how can we lure the observer countries, such as the greatest polluter in the world – the United States – into real action? Last but not least, how can we help the rapidly growing “pollution tigers”, such as China and India, to a more sustainable path?

The Council of Europe has no powers to back its recommendations by force. It does not even have the power to exert economic pressure against those who do not want to stop polluting our atmosphere with greenhouse gases. However, we have the power of the word, and that is an important power. If the words remain inside parliamentary documents adopted here, few people will ever read them and they will be of little effect. What can be done? The Council of Europe has a good track record of campaigning for human rights. I think of the campaign against domestic violence or that against trafficking of human beings. That is one of the ways in which the Council of Europe’s texts have been put into practice. The right to a normal environment is one of the human rights so let us launch a campaign for this, too.

A major campaign needs to be launched to reduce the wasting of energy resources, as that is the most cost-efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is well known that investments in energy saving are freeing up more so-called “negawatts” than investments in the energy sector of the same amount of money generate megawatts.

Let us make a start by doing our small bit. The Council of Europe could greatly improve the energy efficiency of its buildings, and it should promote that as an example. Very few other public bodies would be able to resist that approach. Of course, modern society has to generate energy, so we must also launch a campaign for sustainable energy production.

Let me again stress that this is a good and timely paper, and I call on this Assembly to act to make its content real.

 

Wednesday 23 January 2008 at 10 a.m.

 

United Nations Security Council and European Union blacklists

 

Mrs POSTOICO (Moldova) congratulated Mr Marty on the content of his report, which she considered an in-depth report on a most horrific subject.

She agreed with the rapporteur that the system of blacklists represented a threat to fundamental human rights. The debate that day was an important opportunity to examine and discuss the report and to focus on the shortcomings of blacklists, especially in relation to their abuse of fundamental human rights. She hoped that looking at the problems of blacklists at Assembly level would in fact help to resolve them.

Blacklists were outside the normal judicial process: there was no mechanism for judicial review or control and she wanted a much more transparent system for individuals to lodge complaints about sanctions imposed by the European Union or by the United Nations.

Terrorism was a global threat and combating it was a necessity for all states. But states had to combat terrorism without turning away from their basic principles: human rights always had to be protected. Not to do so was very dangerous and could destroy the whole system of fundamental human rights for which the Council of Europe had worked so hard. Joint efforts had to be taken by all governments to prevent this from happening. If a state set up a blacklist process, it was essential for that process to include a right of appeal for any individual put on the list. As well as having access to a judicial process to remove themselves from the list, those found to have been wrongly included on a blacklist had to be eligible for compensation.

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – As Chairman of the Group of the Unified European Left, I want to say that this has been a very inspiring debate. It is the sort of debate that this Assembly is for, as it involves seeing whether we can unite and overcome political differences. That is the core business of the Council of Europe. I appreciated very much the fact that Dick Marty drew attention to the relationship with his other report. He also said, importantly, that when we criticise Guantánamo, we should also consider what is happening in Europe.

This is a day of hope – hope that a large majority will adopt the analysis, conclusions and recommendations of our rapporteur. This is also a day of hope in respect of Iranian resistance, for example. This matter has featured on the list for a long time for unjust reasons, without the possibility of its getting off the list. Furthermore, this is a day of hope for the individuals – we do not always know them – who are subject to the circumstances we are trying to deal with.

I ask all my colleagues to take this report back home. In the Dutch Senate, we said, “Listen. You have to discuss this report. It is important and you paid for it, because you pay for the Council of Europe.” Please, colleagues, not only vote in favour of this report, but take it home to your national assemblies and continue your work on it there. Everybody realises that this is only the beginning and that far more things remain to be done.

 

Address by Mr Bamir Topi, President of Albania

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands).In your speech, Mr President, you called this Assembly the conscience of Europe. Yesterday, we accepted a report on the future status of Kosovo which read, after being amended, “As a consequence, the Assembly concludes that … alternative ways should be envisaged to secure the continuation of the talks on the basis of the UNSC Resolution 1244 and the attainment of a compromise solution”. How will you respect that statement by the conscience of Europe?

 

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Mr Topi, you have the floor.

 

Mr TOPI appreciated the role of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and its respect for diverse opinions. On the question of independence for Kosovo, he said that Albania had encouraged the process of dialogue. Albania had allowed the 120-day discussion period on independence and he had hoped that the United Nations would find a solution. Albania had not, however, moved from its position that the independence of Kosovo would offer the best prospects for long-term security in the Balkans. That position was now supported by the United States and by the majority of European Union member states.

 

Wednesday 23 January 2008 at 3 p.m.

 

External relations of the Parliamentary Assembly

 

Mr LECOQ (France) said that the Mediterranean region was experiencing a period of deep-seated problems. There had been an increase in poverty and unemployment at the same time as serious violations of human rights. He questioned whether the Assembly should agree with the occupation of the area inhabited by the Saharans. His group was struck by the haste with which the Assembly had called for a solution in Kosovo when, at the same time, there had been no condemnation of Israel breaking international law. This was a case of double standards and his group could not accept such a discrepancy.

The European Union had links with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both of which were considering the resources of the countries in the region. The people of these countries had been victims of unacceptable European colonialism. The Assembly had to foster appropriate conditions to enable these colonised peoples to re-establish their histories.

With regard to migration, the report recognised migration to Europe but did not consider migration throughout the area. The report also did not mention the oppression of the region’s people, nor xenophobic legislation within the region: these had however been recognised by the United Nations Security Council. Things had improved but not sufficiently. The Assembly needed to set conditions, including human rights conditions, and should work towards enabling the area to be able to move forward. This was particularly important in the field of human rights, where the Council of Europe had established a record of trust and dedication in ending violations of fundamental rights.

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands) . — I should like to comment on David Wilshire’s report on the Council of Europe and its observer states. I agree with the rapporteur that we need less chaos and more structure in this area. Therefore, I endorse many of his recommendations. We should have a set of standards with which new observer states are willing to comply. It is also a good idea to have more inclusion of observer states in the structures of the Council of Europe.

I also agree that there should be an improved parliamentary dimension in our co-operation with observer states. Canada has already been praised for being present during our sessions. I add my compliments to those already made. Now and then parliamentarians from Israel and Mexico are present, and sometimes also from Japan, but we never see any representatives from the United States of America. It would be good to have parliamentarians from the United States. There are no parliamentarians in the Holy See, but I gather that we have invited Pope Benedict, so perhaps when he is here we can ask him about the parliamentary dimension of the Holy See.

We share many common values with our observer states, but we should not be silent about the fact that we do not share all our values. For example, some of our observer states do not share our views on the death penalty, the Geneva Convention, some of the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, the concept of a unilateral war, the illegal occupation of neighbouring areas, the oppression of citizens, human rights above all else, and the norms of democracy. I agree with many of the ideas put forward by the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee to improve David Wilshire’s report, especially on such issues as the death penalty, the war on terrorism, and respect for human rights and democracy. I am looking forward to our debate in June on human rights and democracy. It would be great if all observer states could be involved.

I agree with David Wilshire that it is wise not to have new candidates yet. We should clean up our act first, and when we have resolved the issues in the report we can discuss whether to have new observer states. We endorse the report, and we also endorse many of the improvements made by the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee. I hope the Assembly agrees. We like to have parliamentarians from observer states, but we should not be silent on matters that really count to the Council of Europe and the Assembly.

 

Procedural guidelines on the rights and responsibilities of the opposition in a democratic parliament

 

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said that the rapporteur was to be thanked for a competent piece of work. He had, however, two additions to the report. The separation of power had been the main achievement of the French revolution: the legislature provided an oversight of the executive. He asked members of the Assembly to think about the oversight of their parliaments. Opposition should scrutinise governments. Governing parties were often protected against legitimate criticism by the majority party, so any criticism had the most modest effect. There was a need to address this issue to make parliamentary democracies more effective and to make sure parties in parliament could exercise scrutiny over government.

He questioned what part political parties played in this process: without political parties, there would no functioning democracy. Democratic structures were in turn vital to political parties. There was a need to address democracy within the structures of political parties. He questioned whether there was proper control of members of political parties. If a political party was too authoritarian, then the party would take decisions, leaving individuals with little freedom of expression. These fundamental issues had to be addressed.

 

Thursday 24 January 2008 at 10 a.m.

 

Disappearance of newborn babies for illegal adoption in Europe

 

Mr MARMAZOV (Ukraine) said that subject of the report was highly important and would echo loudly around Europe: he expressed his thanks to the rapporteur. The draft recommendation was balanced and progressive as currently drafted and his group would support it.

The explanatory memorandum made serious allegations about the Ukraine: those facts were being checked and investigations were already under way. It was, however, clear that there were indeed shortcomings in the Ukrainian system.

The report had concentrated on just four countries but the issues which it raised were pan-European. Issues related to illegal adoption were as important. The report did not, for example, deal with the issue of harvesting organs from new-born babies: this was something that was happening in some of the world’s most developed nations. He was also concerned that the report went beyond its remit to some extent.

 

The need to preserve the European sport model

 

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands). – As I am new here – this is my first session – I am honoured to participate in this debate. I thank you for that.

In our countries, almost everyone – as I now understand, this is thanks to the European sport model – can participate in any sport of his or her choosing. However, in many other countries, that is not the case. Workers who have to work under difficult conditions for between 60 and 80 hours a week to earn a minimum wage usually lack the energy actively to participate in any sport, although one could argue that their jobs are a top sport.

Under the European sport model, top sport is under risk of commercial exploitation. Commercial interests, the influx of enormous amounts of money and EU laissez-faire policies are a threat to fair competition. The reputation of team sports is threatened by money-pocketing middlemen. We read about that in the report and, like Mr Platini, I could not agree more.

Who would not agree with the rapporteur that it is about time that the Dutch top soccer club Ajax won the European Champions League again? Nevertheless, I disagree with him that we should welcome the part of the EU Treaty of Lisbon that includes sport in EU primary law. I think that Ajax should itself take care of victory.

From Ajax, that hero of Greek antiquity, it is just a small step to Olympia. What I really miss in the report is the obvious link with the Olympics in Beijing, which is only just over six months from now. The report states that the Assembly has been fundamental in upholding the values of the Council of Europe: democracy, human rights, the rule of law and respect for cultural diversity. Those values are also present in the way that sport is organised in Europe. I automatically link those values to the Olympic ideal of fair play.

Commercial interests may spoil the Olympics. The Beijing Olympics could well become the most profitable games ever. A profit of more than €200 million is expected on sales of the official mascot alone. Unfortunately, the workers making all the souvenirs with the official Olympic logo do not see much of that. Some of them earn no more than half the official minimum wage. They work under conditions that pose health and safety risks and work excessive overtime on top of their already very long working day. I would not call that fair play. Could the rapporteur please tell us how many days one of those Chinese workers must work to earn enough to buy one ticket to any Olympic event?

In my working life, I am a trade union activist, and I organise international trade union solidarity events. I work closely with global union federations in the Play Fair 2008 campaign. The Play Fair group urges the International Olympic Committee to act, because up till now the IOC has not done much to prevent this exploitation and abuse of workers on behalf of the Olympics. A solution can be sustainable only if workers themselves are at the heart of any effort to improve their working conditions. Therefore, they need to represent their own interests freely through freedom of association and collective bargaining. Those trade union rights, as well as other social, economic and human rights, are part of the core business of the Assembly. Although I do not believe that sport, or even the European sport model, is the core business of the Council of Europe, I think that it is a missed opportunity that the report does not call on the governments of member states to urge the IOC to take far greater responsibility.

I call on my fellow parliamentarians actively to participate in the international Play Fair campaign.

 

Thursday 24 January 2008 at 3 p.m.

 

Address by Mr Mikheil Saakashvili, President of Georgia

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Mr President, when you addressed us the first time, you were our hero. When you addressed us the second time, we applauded your peace plans. Now it is the third time, and we must express our worries and ask critical questions. What will be the main difference between your first and second presidencies on matters such as the state of democracy, frozen conflicts and social questions, so that you can regain the Assembly’s trust and we can applaud you during your fourth address as loudly as we did the first time?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Would you like to reply, Mr Saakashvili?

Mr SAAKASHVILI. – I think that the applause this time was pretty loud, and I am grateful. When I came here the first time, I had nothing to show but promises. When I came the second time, I had huge peace plans, which unfortunately still have not been achieved.

Show me any other country that lost 70% of its export market but still has 12% growth. Show me any other country that was behind Nigeria on corruption and is now ahead of the Netherlands. Show me any other country that has managed in such a short period to transform itself from a failed state to a state in which institutions have the trust of 60% to 70% of the population, which is as high as in Scandinavian countries. Show me any other country that has defied so many doomsday scenarios. We were told that there would be war in one or two months’ time and that there would be turmoil – that this young and inexperienced country would make a mess of the situation. That has not happened. On the contrary, a country divided into three parts by separatist movements has shown remarkable changes through reforms.

These are all results. We are getting higher per capital investment than any other eastern European country. Four years ago, when I came here for the first time, I was told that I was your personal hero. I would rather be the hero of those people who now get $4 200 per capita, rather than $600. That is much more important for me. I would rather be the hero of those people who have benefited from a 100% decrease in poverty, of those people who had zero trust in the institutions and who now can see results of the change. I would rather be the hero of those young people who, in the last few years, have got into university on their merits when before they would only do so through bribery or via special acquaintances. We have overcome corruption that was there. I would rather be the hero of those people who have found justice when they were in a system that had no place for justice for individual citizens and that was instead ruled immorally and corruptly for many years and was basically part of this post-Communist nomenclature.

Basically, Georgia is a remarkable success story and I am very proud of it. Of course, I am also aware of the challenges that we are facing in the years to come. One of the main challenges is that of reducing poverty. The other challenge is that we manage to find a way to integrate the opposition so that it becomes much less radical, more engaged, involved, empowered to find its own place and is not merely interested in undermining and destroying the country.

These are the challenges and the more that we do with them, the more there is that needs to be done. That is how it is in a normal democracy. The more you do for your people, the less is the tendency for them to vote for you on the next occasion. That is normalcy. It is something that we have to face. I am more than happy to rejoice in this normalcy in my second term. My legacy after the next four years would be to leave behind a Georgia where all of these changes will become universal. This involves efforts being made by all parts of society, the majority as well as the opposition.

 

Honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia, Document 11502 rev.

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – I do not know whether it would be within the rules, but it would have been great if President Saakashvili, who is one of the best political debaters on this continent, had participated in this debate. That would have allowed Mr Wodarg to attend this debate, but he left with President Saakashvili.

I thank the rapporteurs for the report. I think that they will agree that it would have been great if we could have saluted the Georgian authorities with great enthusiasm for the successful honouring of their obligations and commitments with regard to Georgian membership of the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, that is not the case, as we all know. It is the opinion of my group that there are reasons to be seriously worried about recent developments in that member state. I propose to discuss those developments openly, because it is in the interests of all, and first and foremost in the interests of Georgian citizens, that we help Georgia to meet its obligations and commitments as soon as possible.

I shall describe our main worries. First, the way in which the presidential elections were organised was “worse than expected”, in the words of our rapporteur. Secondly, the level of poverty in Georgia, although it has fallen, is threatening the lives of many Georgian citizens and the country’s social structures. Thirdly, a solution to the frozen conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia still seems far away.

Fortunately, there is also good news. First, Georgia has signed and ratified several major conventions of the Council of Europe. Secondly, Georgia has worked closely with the Council of Europe on anti-corruption measures. Thirdly, Georgia has adopted a fair amount of relevant legislation in the past few years.

However, I return to the bad news to ask for some explanations from the rapporteurs. On the presidential elections, the rapporteurs have told us about the violent dispersal of peaceful demonstrations, the silencing of the media and the decision to declare a state of emergency for part of the election period. All those events seriously conflict with the Council of Europe’s values. There are also still many doubts about the elections themselves.

Do the rapporteurs agree with my group that there should be a prompt and proper investigation into allegations of electoral violations?

Secondly, the level of poverty in Georgia is scarily high. Do the rapporteurs agree with my group that the Georgian Government should seriously reconsider the harsh social effects of its economic policy, and take care that economic growth as such benefits all citizens, and that therefore a substantial increase in the income of the poor must be realised, as promised by all candidates, including President Saakashvili, in the presidential elections?

Thirdly, it is important to note that we are still speaking about frozen conflicts. President Saakashvili kept his promise not to use violence to solve those frozen conflicts, but solutions must nevertheless be examined and developed. Do the rapporteurs see any serious progress in that field?

Now, some questions about the good news. So far, Georgia has signed and ratified 53 Council of Europe conventions, which shows that it is committed to this institution and to the values that it promotes. Will the rapporteurs tell us which major conventions have yet to be signed? The anti-corruption strategy and action plan are also good news – Georgia’s position is clearly improving, as the President kept stating – but what more can we expect on the matter? As a lot of relevant legislation has been adopted – that is more good news – what important legislation is still to come to further improve the rule of law, the level of democracy and the human rights of Georgian citizens? I underline the rapporteur’s proposal that monitoring of Georgia should continue until tangible progress has been made.