Speeches June 2007

Monday 25 June 2007at 3 p.m.

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

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – The preliminary findings and conclusions of the international election observing missions on the elections in Armenia were that improvements were made compared with previous elections, which were strongly criticised by the international community. The authorities understood very well that those elections held on 12 May were a crucial touchstone for Armenia to demonstrate its political will to organise real, democratic elections in line with the commitments it undertook when Armenia became a member state of this Organisation.

These were the improvements: a more balanced composition of election commissions on each level; a more balanced coverage in the media of the activities of the different parties; the staff of polling stations were better trained; and for the first time there was a central, computerised voters list.

During election day, voting took place in a mostly calm atmosphere, as was observed at the vast majority – 94% – of the observed polling stations, although there were of course some problems, as we all know. Previously there were widespread rumours of vote-buying and other means of fraud. However, during election day only two cases were identified, although some of our observers had a strong feeling that more was wrong than could be proved.

The counting of the votes was a very complicated and bureaucratic procedure which took many hours. Many of the international observers were not able to fulfil their mission until the final protocol was made up. As far as the counting was concerned, more problems were observed. In 20% of the observed polling stations, the commissions had problems with completing the protocols, and significant errors were reported in 8% of cases.

Due to the slow counting procedure at the polling station level, the conclusions of the observation of the tabulation of the votes at the higher levels could not be taken into account for the joint statement at the press conference. It is very regrettable that during the tabulation process the situation deteriorated. The conduct of tabulation was assessed negatively in 35% of the observed territorial election commissions. That is an unacceptably high figure.

The publishing of the results on the internet was very slow, especially those in Yerevan, where there was a gap of eight hours between the completion of the tabulation at the level of precinct election commission and publishing on the Internet. The final results were announced by the Central Election Commission a week after election day. Three members of that CEC, all members of opposition parties, refused to sign the final results protocol.

Which conclusions are to be drawn and which proposals are to be made? I shall mention only some. The shortcomings and irregularities during the crucial vote count and tabulation process cast a dark shadow over the preliminary positive assessment. Improvements in the Election Code have still to be made, especially in relation to the complaints and appeals procedure. The big problems at the territorial election commission level not only undermine public confidence in the electoral process but fuel the flames of the rumours of fraud. Immediate publication on the Internet of the precinct election commission results is necessary to guarantee transparency. Legal measures should be taken to ensure transparency of party and campaign financing, and to avoid business money ruling the elections.

Mr MELNIKOV (Russian Federation) wanted to draw attention to a very topical issue, namely the proposal by the Americans to base an anti-missile system in Europe, particularly in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Standing Committee needed to address that issue and put it before the Assembly at the next part-session in October.

The reason given for the anti-missile system was the supposed threat of North Korea and Iran. That seemed to be a logically flawed argument. Some 56% of Poles and 77% of those living in the Czech Republic, according to opinion polls, were against the idea. Most of those living in Czech Republic thought that there should be a referendum on the matter. Moreover, some 200 villages and towns close to proposed sites for the anti-missile systems had shown opposition. Surely municipal authorities needed to press that point with the national authorities.

The Parliamentary Assembly needed to show support for those who called for referendums on the matter. If American plans came to fruition, there was a real danger of a new arms race and a dividing line across Europe occurring. Nobody in Europe wanted that. The continent had been through it in the 1960s, 1970s and the 1980s as the two super-powers had pointed nuclear weapons at each other. Such actions should be avoided.

Address by Mr Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Mr President, it is good to have you here. Neighbours should meet once in a while, and we are neighbours, although it sometimes looks as though you are not metres but light years away from us. It is clear from your speech that that is not your fault, but it sometimes happens that we are more like competitors than neighbours, and it would be good to change that situation.

I have three questions to ask you in addition to what Mikhail Margelov said. The problem is that, although we are two parliamentary bodies, you get the money that we lack. For example, the Fundamental Rights Agency will get more money than we in the Assembly will have. It is not easy to give away money that you have got yourself, but would you elaborate a bit on that? How should we make that situation more reasonable?

This morning, Federal Chancellor Gusenbauer told us that, yes, the European Constitution was developed at the peak of what you called the Euro-integrationist movement, but you told us that things have changed. However, you think that things have not changed that much, because you say, “We demand the acceptance of the constitution and demand that it will be in the new treaty, otherwise we won’t accept it.” Would you explain the difference between Chancellor Gusenbauer and, for example, my Prime Minister, Balkenende, and the European Parliament? Could it be that there is a developing gap between the European Parliament, government leaders and quite a lot of citizens in Europe? Perhaps your Euro-integrationist is something that belongs more to the past than to the future. Of course, you will say something different, but I would like to hear your answer on that.

My next question is about whether you are right and the substance of the constitution will remain in the treaties. For example, there is an argument in my country that there must be a referendum, because there are constitutional elements. What do you think about that? Should there be more referendums in Europe when there are constitutional elements in the new treaty – or would it be better not to do that, given the results in the past?

Tuesday 26 June 2007 at 10 a.m.

The image of women in advertising

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – I am new to this area. This is my first meeting. It is a pleasure to be here. Some would say it is about time, after twenty-four years in the Icelandic Parliament.

The Group of the Unified European Left welcomes the report and the proposals that it makes. As our colleague from Sweden said, many others are working in this area, but we must face the fact that there have been few results and that therefore there is a need for the Council of Europe or another organ to drive the issue forward. We still see many examples of the humiliating treatment of women in advertising.

This report is an important part of the fight for full equality between women and men. We must combat the humiliating treatment of women wherever it exists, and the advertising world is one of those areas. It is about as negative as you can get when women are portrayed as sexual objects selling cars, beer or whatever. It is a symbol of the humiliating situation that they are often faced with. Think about the symbolic effect when a huge company such as Coca-Cola starts its advertising campaign for Zero Coke in some countries using humiliating pictures of women.

The fight for full equality between men and women is a freedom fight. It is a human rights issue and these are all cases of the violation of human rights. It is important that we do not leave out any area where we are faced with such treatment of women. There is a thin line between nudity and showing women as a relatively harmless sexual object, and pornography and even worse things. There is a thin line between showing grown-up people and minors. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to use younger and younger people in advertisements. That does not apply just to women. It applies to young men and boys, too. However, by and large, it is overwhelmingly women who are being shown in that way. The report is right to emphasise women’s role in that respect.

As a feminist, I welcome the initiative. I think that the Council of Europe is on the right track to tackle the issue as part of the overall picture, where we fight and strive for equality and human rights in general.

The feminisation of poverty

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – I have similar observations to those of Mr Hancock. If you compare the list of speakers in this debate with the one for the previous debate, the difference is amazing. Perhaps the glamour of inequality, so to speak, is a more popular subject in this Hemicycle than the feminisation of poverty, which is not glamorous at all, of course.

Equal opportunity of education and of work is, of course, a good thing. It is a good thing that our committee exists and publishes such reports. Discussion about the outcome is necessary. We talk about equal salaries for the same work. The report shows that there is structural feminisation of poverty, which should be condemned, but I agree with Mr Hancock that condemnation is not enough. However, the report contains some good proposals to try to combat that.

I think that we all agree that poverty shapes the conditions for children and affects their ability to have a good education and a good life. It is a threshold for women to participate in many fields of life. It makes women vulnerable as well. We should ban discrimination in all kinds of fields, including pensions, getting a loan and salaries. The report is explicit about that.

I want to comment on the remarks of the rapporteur on those issues. All the proposals are directed at what our governments and parliaments should do. Of course much can be improved. As Mr Hancock said, if you talk about the poverty of women, you are also talking about the empowerment of women to change that and their struggle to do so. You are also talking about the politics of the trade unions and the empowerment of women movements that try to fight unequal salaries in court and to use the mechanisms that exist in many countries that forbid unequal pay for the same work. That kind of empowerment is lacking in the report and it is important to stress those issues.

There are men and women working in private companies and in authorities of the state. Should there be some analysis of the responsibility of the state itself in respect of equal opportunities and equal salaries? Should we look at that issue? If you are talking about the struggle for equal opportunities, the state has to set a good example and to prevent inequality.

If you are talking about overcoming the feminisation of poverty, you also have to talk about the social struggle for equal rights to strengthen the position of ordinary people and of the deprived men and women in the social and economic context.

Europe’s social dimension: full implementation of the revised European Social Charter and evaluation of new labour regulations and minimum wages

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said that yesterday the Assembly had listened to the Federal Chancellor of Austria and the President of the European Parliament, both of whom had had lots of praise for the new European treaty. The previous week’s European summit had been necessary because of the rejection of the European Constitution by French and Dutch citizens. Those citizens had felt that their social rights and interests were not attended to in the constitution. The new treaty should have taken those issues seriously, but it had not. The human rights and social charters in the treaty would have been very important for Europe, but those aspects had been watered down.

Europe was very different from other continents, particularly North America, because of its historical social systems and achievements. Social justice was a key value for Europeans and had had an important influence on their quality of life. Such values should not be taken for granted: in the last century they had had to be fought for.

He regretted the new neo-liberal politics and free marketeering that typified today’s Europe. It had led to many monopolies: for example, in Germany 90% of the flow of goods was controlled by four companies. Citizens should also profit from privatisation, but the example of energy markets throughout Europe and the increases in prices since privatisation had shown that they had not.

The Group of the Unified European Left wanted social rights and values outlined clearly, with equal rights for immigrants and condemnation of conflict throughout the world also highlighted.

Tuesday 26 June 2007 at 3 p.m.

Promotion by Council of Europe member states of an international moratorium on the death penalty

Mrs SINISCALCHI (Italy) drew attention to a resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1997 which had sought to abolish the death penalty. Since then the number of states that had used the death penalty had halved. Now, each year 5 000 people were condemned to be executed and hundreds were executed.

She was proud of Italy’s role in bringing about the abolition of the death penalty. The role of non-governmental organisations needed to be appreciated. For example, Amnesty International had played a key role and many NGOs had met in Paris to call on the United Nations General Assembly to take up the issue. NGOs were often the only hope for people in countries such as China. The Council of Europe had in the past played a helpful role in supporting and highlighting the role of NGOs.

National parliaments could also play a role in the process. There was a need for new objectives that could contribute to new international legal order which would underpin democracy more generally.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD): focus on eastern and south-eastern Europe

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, like the World Bank and other regional development banking institutions, mainly focuses on a strategy of privatisation and liberalisation of financial and trade markets.

Most countries that apply to the EBRD for a loan and financial aid in general are heavily in debt. As is known, a loan by the EBRD is usually granted with a lot of conditions; they are imposed, whether the applicant is an individual, an enterprise or a country.

Sometimes, most of the conditions imposed by the EBRD have a lot of drawbacks for poor people of poor countries. Institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the EBRD usually require spending cuts, which means that state workers are left without a job, giving rise to higher unemployment. That leads to lower spending on state services such as health and education. Furthermore, those conditions lead sometimes to harsh financial problems for agricultural and small enterprises. Taking that into account, we can say that the less fortunate countries worldwide are obliged to cut their tariffs and subsidies and to compete with subsidised imports from the United States or Europe. It is a paradox that rich countries sometimes do not have to follow the trade rules that the poorest countries follow, with negative consequences for their economies, mainly stemming from unfair competition.

Having said all that, we do not want to eliminate or to undermine the role that the EBRD plays in development, particularly in eastern countries. Despite the drawbacks and negative aspects that I have pointed out, regarding the EBRD’s way of implementing some of its policies, it does assist countries to develop one way or the other. We consider, however, that it is paramount, in order for that organisation to be able to carry out its policies and perform its functions without any drawbacks and negative consequences for less fortunate countries, to encourage further the development of proper and just financial systems, to eliminate discrepancies in taxation and to adopt specific measures that will reduce unemployment and reinforce countries’ social and health systems. Otherwise, we run the risk of witnessing – as we have already done on certain occasions – a dangerously growing phenomenon of modernised industries and free market economies, and at the same time poor people becoming poorer, and the social system and prospects of laying a strong foundation for the development of a healthy and prosperous society being seriously endangered, with detrimental consequences for the well-being of society and people at large.

Wednesday 27 June 2007 at 10 a.m.

Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report

Mr LUND (Denmark). – In December 2003, Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen, was kidnapped in Macedonia. He was on his way to a holiday, but when he did so he went on a very different kind of holiday because he was kidnapped and sent to Afghanistan. There he was gaoled, tortured and held incommunicado for five months.

The El-Masri case is mentioned in the report and it is now well known, as are many other cases. As the single most important human rights body in Europe, the Council of Europe has been crucial in raising awareness of horrible torture, interrogations, deaths, the breaking of international law and violations of human rights.

To do the dirty job and to carry out the so-called “extraordinary rendition” or detainee programme, the CIA has several undercover airline companies. The aircraft are camouflaged as civilian aircraft and their owners are companies called, for example, Premier Executive Transport Service or – as in the Polish case in the report – Jeppesen International Trip Planning. Lovely names for awful activities! They seem to be ordinary civilian aircraft, but they are contracted by the CIA to carry out their secret mission, violating human rights and international law.

Last year on 26 June 2006, I said in this Assembly on behalf of the Unified European Left, “In our group… there is no doubt that secret detention and rendition flights are reality”. That has now been proven. The report also proves that secret detention facilities are also a reality. That is one principal conclusion of the report. Another important piece of information in the report concerns NATO’s active role. Paragraph 83 in section 2 of the report refers to “the CIA’s key operational needs on a multilateral level” being developed “under the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”. Paragraph 39 states: “all knew that CIA practices for the detention, transfer and treatment of terrorist suspects left open considerable scope for abuses and unlawful measures; yet all remained silent and kept the operations, the practices, their agreements and their participation secret.”

On behalf of the Unified European Left, I have tabled some amendments to the draft resolution and the draft recommendation which will take into account the report conclusions concerning NATO’s role. I hope that the Assembly will be in sympathy with those amendments.

Many governments – not only in Poland and Romania – have been very reluctant to co-operate fully with the Council of Europe in this matter. We therefore have to continue with the work of throwing light on the secret flights and the secret detentions. This report is one more step in the right direction, but it also shows that a good piece of work is still to be done before we can tell everything about the secret flights and the secretion detentions. Therefore we must continue until the whole truth is disclosed. The Unified European Left is looking forward to playing a very active role and to supporting this work 100 per cent.

Wednesday 27 June 2007 at 3 p.m.

Combating anti-Semitism in Europe

Mrs MEULENBELT (Netherlands). – Mr President, dear colleagues, I want to express our great appreciation for Mr Margolev’s report on anti-Semitism in Europe. We agree completely that we should be vigilant in combating old and new anti-Semitism. We know about the dark days of European persecution of our Jewish populations, and we are responsible for taking care that it never happens again. For that reason, we should monitor any expression of political or populist aggression against Jews as individuals or a group, just as we should with any expression of intolerance and racial abuse.

We also agree that Mr Margelov makes a distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism when he quotes Mr Thomas Hammerberg: “Aggression against a Jew cannot be justified by the actions of Israel or its army. But that does not mean that every criticism of Israel’s methods or military actions is anti-Semitic.” As a socialist who stands for justice and human rights and also for the Palestinian people, I have personally been accused of anti-Semitism, when in fact I criticised Israel and questioned Zionism. We should not forget that Zionism is a political movement. It is not the same as Judaism, although it is one expression of the justified wish of the Jewish people for a safe place free from persecution.

Early well-known Jewish thinkers, such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber, expressed their doubts. There are religious Jews who never acknowledged the state of Israel. My friend, Michael Warschawski, the son of a former chief rabbi of Strasbourg, now living in Jerusalem, calls himself a post-Zionist, since the idea of a Jewish state, in the present circumstances, does not offer Jews more safety, does not help in the least to end anti-Semitism and is inherently unjust to non-Jews living in Israel, as others agree – for instance, the European Jews for a Just Peace. I do not think that we should call these people anti-Semites.

I would like to ask Mr Margelov whether he thinks that it is more important to make an even more clear distinction between criticism of Zionism and of Israel and anti-Semitism than he has done in his report. He writes about the anti-Semitism on the extreme left, but does not quote any concrete cases. Honestly, I wish to hear them.

If that is true, I am on Mr Margelov’s side in wanting to combat anti-Semitism on the left, but I wish to hear of concrete cases. Are we allowed to ask whether a state – Israel – that bases its citizenship on an ethnic or religious principle can be called a democracy? Are we allowed to argue for that state to treat all its citizens equally without being accused of wanting to destroy Israel? Are we allowed to ask questions about human rights in Israel and the different ways in which it treats Jews and Arabs? Are we allowed to stand up for the human rights of Palestinians without being suspected of hating Jews?

There are two reasons why it is important to draw a distinction between real anti-Semitism – hatred and distrust of Jews – and anti-Zionism, which is a criticism of Israel. The first reason is important for the Council of Europe and for all people dedicated to justice. If we want to be taken seriously in our work in promoting human rights and equality, we should not allow ourselves to be distracted by false accusations. The second reason is if we call too many things anti-Semitic, the genuine fight against anti-Semitism will be weakened. I can promise that I will support the fight against anti-Semitism with all my heart, just as I fight for justice for all people.

Situation of longstanding refugees and displaced persons in south-east Europe

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – I always find it a bit difficult to congratulate the rapporteur on an issue that is a big humanitarian tragedy: the problems of longstanding refugees, displaced persons and missing persons who have suffered as a result of conflicts in our continent. That has rightly had a lot of attention from our Assembly. Four years ago, a report and recommendation were adopted by the Assembly. It was proposed by Ans Zwerver, who is present to follow the debate and who worked in Bosnia and Herzegovina, on behalf of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

While international politics and media focus on new issues, the after-glow of those conflicts draws deep scars in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. In Europe, the southern Caucasus and the western Balkans, that after-glow is still burning and it is good that with this report we are focusing on the situation of refugees and displaced persons in the former Yugoslavia.

It is well known that refugees and IDPs are in the main vulnerable people, whose voices are hardly heard. The report makes good proposals to speed up the implementation of the mechanisms and instruments that already exist, but that are ignored by the countries involved. The authorities should be fully aware that they are responsible for solving the problems that result from those conflicts. Crucial is the shaping of the conditions under which a successful return of refugees and IDPs is possible.

Until now, the progress on returns has been limited, as Amnesty International has underlined in its annual report. Local resettlement can be successfully achieved only if there is adequate housing, return of properties, fair compensation and a common-sense approach. Living peacefully together is the only sustainable solution.

The draft recommendation delivers the tools for that mission, but the political will to use them should be in the heads and the hearts of politicians in the countries involved. The parliaments of those countries are represented in this Assembly and a positive reaction from their side is the first necessary step. I see that colleagues from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina will take the floor in the debate, but that colleagues from Croatia, Macedonia or Montenegro will not. I regret that.

The next step should be that those parliaments discuss the report and ensure that their governments take concrete steps on the proposals that are made in the recommendation. Of course, according to the procedures, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers urge the governments of those states to take measures, but it would be good if the parliaments did the same. In that way, the report will have the optimal result.

The parliaments of our member states should stay away from the political struggle and no longer use history as a weapon for their own benefit. Instead they should concentrate on a political agreement to solve this humanitarian tragedy. That is the only way to handle the matter. They must take responsibility for the safety of their own people.

Thursday 28 June 2007 at 10 a.m.

Prosecution of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Mr KOX (Netherlands).– Fourteen years ago, the United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The tribunal was, according to the UN Security Council’s decision, necessary to respond to the threat to international peace and security caused by the violations of international humanitarian law within the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Mass killings, massive detentions, large-scale rape of women, ethnic cleansing – it all happened, provoked or supported by political and military leaders. All this had to be addressed by the tribunal by prosecuting persons suspected of violating humanitarian law, including crimes against humanity and genocide, in order to bring justice to the victims and foster a process of reconciliation between the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.

The tribunal made history when, for the first time ever, it initiated the trial of a former president, Slobodan Milošević, and tens of others who were principally responsible for the terrible tragedies that occurred during and after the dissolution of Yugoslavia – a dissolution that we must remember was provoked, or at least supported, by some western European governments which, unfortunately, will probably never be tried for that adventurous and irresponsible act. Only history will judge them.

So far, 48 people have been convicted by the tribunal. They do not include Milošević himself, as he died before the tribunal could convict him, as it probably would have, for his part in what happened in the former Yugoslavia. He left behind thousands of victims, who, as the rapporteur says, felt betrayed by the injustice of an uncompleted trial. Injustice will remain for as long as the four accused remain at large – among them Karadžić and Mladić, the political and military heads of the Bosnian Serbs during the war in which so many atrocities happened, the Srebrenica massacre being the darkest event.

The rapporteur speaks of a blatant lack of political will on the part of the Serbian authorities and the authorities of the Republika Srpska, a lack of will that was often mentioned by the tribunal prosecutor. The new Serbian Government promised to perform better, and there are some signs of good will. Nevertheless, it will be unacceptable if the Serbian Government that now chairs the Council of Europe does not deliver, and bring the accused Karadžić and Mladić to The Hague. In the Standing Committee in Belgrade, Foreign Affairs Minister Jeremić referred to the problems experienced by the Americans in trying to find Osama bin Laden. What he said was true, but also far too simple. I told the Minister that six months must be enough time in which to prove that there is now a clear and concrete commitment to comply with the tribunal in The Hague. If that is not done, there could be serious consequences for the Serbian Government.

All states involved should do their utmost to prevent people who have committed crimes against international humanitarian law from getting away with it. So far, there have been too many signals that governments do not do what they should do if they are to comply with international law and human rights. That is a shame, and it is right to blame those governments.

We agree with the rapporteur that it should be impossible for the tribunal to close its doors while some fugitives are still at large. It is the United Nations that should find a solution, and the Council of Europe and the Assembly should press it to do so.

It is clear that an international tribunal cannot prosecute all those involved in the many crimes against international humanitarian law. National courts must do their share as well, and the international community should help them. That is far from guaranteed at this stage, as the rapporteur discovered. Courts and prosecution services lack resources, there are far too few comprehensive court outreach programmes, and the prisons in which convicted persons must serve their sentences lack the capacity to handle high-profile offenders.

The Group of the Unified European Left supports the draft resolution and recommendation. We should do our utmost to ensure that justice is done, for – in the words of the former president of the tribunal – justice is the indispensable ingredient of the process of national reconciliation, and essential to the restoration of peaceful and normal relations between people who have had to live under a reign of terror for far too long.

Debate under urgent procedure: how to prevent cybercrime against state institutions in member and observer states

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Let me be frank. I am not an expert on this issue, and I have replaced the person who was going to speak. I read Mr Sasi’s report as a parliamentarian, not an expert, and I have to admit that I am not too impressed by it. He has produced many other reports that were of high quality. The excuse this time could be that this is an urgent debate, and there was not much time to prepare. The same goes for those of us who prepare speeches. However, we have discussed better-based reports during this part-session.

When we strip the report of its less relevant aspects, what remains is the fact that cybercrime exists, that it is far more than a theoretical matter, and that – as was shown by the recent events in Estonia – if and when it is carried out in an organised way, it will be capable of threatening important parts of society. It is therefore important, as the rapporteur says, for our member states to sign and ratify the Convention on Cybercrime of 2001, which is the only binding and the most comprehensive international treaty on cybercrime. We in the Group of the Unified European Left support the proposal that governments that have not signed it should do so as soon as possible, and that all parliaments take the matter seriously and ratify the convention at an early stage.

Cybercrime can threaten Internet-based systems, and if systems do not function properly people can be threatened. That is, of course, what should worry us most. However, there is no reason to panic. The Estonian authorities proved capable of addressing the threat. Nothing serious happened, and no damage was caused. Small Estonia appeared to be stronger than those who had attacked it, wherever they came from, and I presume that other countries will have the same capability. What we should do is stay calm, and provide a level playing field on which all member states can address the threats that do exist.

This is the advice from my group: do not panic, stay calm, ratify the convention, and do not place too much trust in the Internet. It is better to trust people than to trust electronic cyber-space.

Thursday 28 June 2007 at 3 p.m.

Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly

Mr Kox,

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

What is, in the view of the Committee of Ministers, the situation in Serbia with regards to human rights today.”

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – It was a good idea when Serbia acceded to the Council of Europe, but it took some time. I applaud the recent political developments in Serbia. At the same time we are seeing the influence of so-called oligarchs grow in political and social life. That is a new threat to democracy and human rights. What are you going to do to address that development?

Honouring of obligations and commitments by Monaco

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – Monaco is one of the smallest member states in the Council of Europe, and some say that small is beautiful. It is a remarkable state: just a small town with many millionaires, a rather small minority of Monegasques, no unemployment, a state budget, 17.5% of which is funded by gambling revenues, and a kind of democracy in which the Prince is the real boss.

Monaco entered the Council of Europe in 2004, but there were still commitments to be fulfilled. The two most important issues to be addressed were France’s big influence on the composition of the government and the lack of power of the Monaco Parliament. Since then Monaco has signed or ratified a number of conventions, but on those two main issues there is still much to be done. They are crucial to a member state that should be sovereign and a democracy.

Let me deal first with the relationship with France. The treaty of 2002 between France and Monaco replaced the treaty of 1918, but five years later it has still to be ratified by the French Parliament. Important functions, such as that of a minister, are still reserved for French nationals. As the new treaty comes into force, there is still too strong a French connection. In the case of unfilled public posts, French nationals are still in the picture. France must be consulted about senior posts in the civil service.

The Monaco Parliament still lacks the essential tools of power. It cannot change the budget and it cannot control the government, while the government is not obliged to answer questions from parliamentarians. It has not the full right to change laws. All those powers are still in the hands of the Prince, and will continue to be – as well as other powers such as the right to give sovereign orders on such matters as naturalisation, incorporating international conventions into domestic law and the establishing of criminal offences and penalties.

The former chief of the Prince’s cabinet put it very bluntly in a recent interview. He said that the nation was built around the Prince, who was more than just the head of state – he was an inspiration for all the people of Monaco. That may be the case, but we would only know for sure if that head of state were elected.

The report gives a full overview of what is lacking, but tougher wording is needed in the draft resolution. That is why I support the amendments tabled by Mr Jurgens. It could, of course, be said that Monaco is just a micro-state. It could be asked why we should bother. That, however, would be to operate double standards. Whether we are talking about Monaco or Russia, the Assembly should apply the same democratic standards.

Iran’s nuclear programme: the need for an international response

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – On Monday, my colleague Ivan Melnikov announced in this Chamber our intention to propose an urgent debate in October on the dangers to European society associated with the construction of a so-called rocket shield in Europe by the United States and NATO, and the possible response from Russia – all as a result of Iran’s nuclear programme. To deal with one potential danger, Iranian nuclear arms, by creating another one – a rocket shield and perhaps a new arms race – is not wise in our opinion. We therefore hope to have an intelligent debate in October on the possible American-Russian-European military reaction to Iran’s nuclear programme. Today, we are talking about the rapporteur’s proposal to react to this programme through other means.

Let me be clear: when and if Iran succeeds in developing nuclear arms, it will be a serious threat to countries in Europe and Asia. However, even without those arms, Iran’s Government has for decades been a threat to its own citizens. We should never forget that. Oppression of Iranian citizens, killings, tortures, disappearances, oppression of oppositional forces – all that has been there for a long time. Many people in Iran are longing for what we consider essential elements to a civilised society: democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of organisation and all other recognised human rights.

It is the internal situation in Iran that is causing great concern about developments that could threaten people outside Iran. To be honest, my group does not know whether it is the best body to address the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme. Other bodies and countries– the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United States, the European Union and Russia – are dealing with that. We do not know whether it is wise to seek, as the rapporteur proposes, a dialogue with the Iranian Parliament on matters relating to the core values of the Council of Europe and to this issue. We propose to begin with a dialogue with all the political and social forces that are committed to striving to end the dangerous and authoritarian fundamentalist rule of the mullahs in Tehran, and to demanding the democratisation of Iran and respect for the human rights of Iranian citizens. Let us take care that we stop hindering the democratic Iranian opposition forces; let us help them to be removed from the so-called terrorist lists. Let us help them as much as possible, and ask them to inform the Iranian people about the great dangers of Iran’s having a nuclear programme.

It is our conviction that we should not plan dangerous military operations in response to Iran’s nuclear programme, and nor should we develop a policy of appeasement regarding that programme, as it sometimes seems that the European Union prefers. We should support the development of democratic society in Iran, because that is the best protection for society outside Iran. The best way to achieve that is to support those democratic forces inside and outside Iran that would and could promote the democratic development of Iran. That approach surely suits this Assembly best, and it is our conviction that it also suits the people of Iran best.

Friday 29 June 2007 at 10 a.m.

Intercultural and inter-religious dialogue

Mrs MEULENBELT (Netherlands). – Mr President, dear colleagues, we express our appreciation for both these reports. The way that European countries deal with religion is an important issue, especially because many countries face tensions between people within their borders, and we need to rethink our principles on the separation of church and state. We appreciate the report’s conclusion that no country’s way of separating church and state is completely rational and principled – more often, it is a case of historical evolution.

We would plead for a pragmatic approach. In many countries, the new waves of immigrants bring with them the wish to keep their religions. Religion is one principle on which immigrants organise themselves. Therefore, supporting and working with religious and non-religious organisations of the migrant population is very important in combating one problem: the seduction of young people into extremism by means of the Internet.

We also have experience of how valuable working with religions organisations, such as mosques, is in combating domestic violence, forced marriages and issues such as honour killings – just to name a few problems. As we have seen, the most valuable contribution that religious organisations can make is in helping migrants to sort out the difference between conservative tradition and religion itself. As we know, religion itself does not need to contradict democracy, equality and equal rights – not by definition anyway.

The new migrant communities do not always receive the support that they deserve to find their place in society. Part of the problem is a misunderstanding of religion in the receiving country. To exercise a little self-criticism, the left, which by tradition has been supportive of migrants, has had some difficulties in accepting their religion, since many people on the political left have experienced the social movements of the past century, such as the women’s movement, the gay movement, anti-racism and socialism, and consider them contrary to the conservatism of western churches. For many leftists, to be progressive is to be secular. We now have to reconsider such views, because many migrants show us that it is possible to be progressive in politics and still keep their religion.

We appreciate the statement in the report that education is key to combating ignorance, stereotypes and the misunderstanding of religions and their leaders. We have witnessed in several European countries – including my own, the Netherlands – the tendency to see the integration of new groups as a one-sided process: they must adapt to our ways. In fact, successful integration and the full participation of new people in any country needs to be a mutual process; it needs to include dialogue.

On the issue of religious insult and hate speech, it is obvious that we are faced with two principles that are equally important to us. On the one hand, we value our freedom of expression, which includes the right of citizens to be critical of religion and its expressions. We should certainly stick to the principle that religious tolerance will never mean giving up on human rights and equality. On the other hand, it is obvious that using the term “criticism of religion” often hides a new form of racism – the mistrust and discrimination of citizens who are considered to be foreign even if they are born in the country. Expressions that are critical of religion are more likely to be considered as threatening when immigrant communities feel threatened on many levels, not just on those to do with religious expression.

The line between criticism that is permitted and insults that cross that line and become hate speech is thin, and we need to continue discussing that issue. My proposal would be to pay more attention to the question of why migrant populations feel threatened at all. There can be many reasons, and they are not just to do with religion.

The way to overcome that dilemma is to work on two fronts at the same time. Not only should we stand up for freedom of expression and freedom of religion, including the right not to believe, but we should seriously face up to the problem of the new racism that takes the form of Islamophobia. Only if the new communities really feel supported by us in combating discrimination can we expect that they will truly value our freedom of expression, which includes criticism of their religion.