Speeches June 2008

PROGRESS REPORT

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – I thank the rapporteur, on behalf of our group, for his progress report. I repeat the compliments of the Swedish Riksdag to the Standing Committee for coming to Sweden, and the compliments to Mrs Malmström. However, I was not amused that, although everything was prepared, the Chair of the Committee of Ministers, Mr Bildt, was not there. He thought that it was more important to be present at another conference. The Chair of the Committee of Ministers should have been there with us. His absence sends the wrong signal. We agreed to meet in his country, and he should have been there. That negative point should be made with the compliments to those who were there. In the past few months, we have observed three elections as Parliamentary Assembly representatives. As the rapporteur said, we should thank all members of the Assembly who participated in that. It is very important work. It is even more important than it was in the past so we should show our gratitude to all those who participated. There is good and bad news about the elections. The bad news is that both the Macedonian and Georgian elections did not meet our standards. Of course, Mr Eörsi is an optimistic man and says that at least the elections were better than the presidential elections. Thank God for that, but I also remember him telling us that the presidential elections were even worse than expected, so if these elections were better than the presidential elections but the presidential elections were worse than expected, how far have we developed? I underline the critical comments by Mrs Strik; the chairperson of the mission, Mr Eörsi, also said that the elections did not make full use of the democratic potential in Georgia. I know that sentence because it is familiar from the declaration following the presidential elections in Russia. We must judge elections on the same basis. On that basis, the Georgian parliamentary elections were not better than the Russian presidential elections and that must worry us a lot. The Macedonian elections also did not meet international standards, as Mr Çavuşoğlu said. Results in over 100 polling stations had to be annulled. There was so much violence that one person died. It must make us feel ashamed that in Europe that still happens. I am glad to hear that the second round was far better than the first. Nevertheless, it happened and we must bear in mind that the Armenian elections and what followed was also shameful. That is the bad news. The good news – it is worth repeating it here; I also made the point in Stockholm – is that the Serbian elections, which took place in difficult circumstances for the Serbian political parties, the government and the people after the split of Kosovo, were, of all the elections that we observed, the best, I think. That is another positive thing to mention: that country, with all its differences, conflicts and bad history, was able to have serious elections. The other good news is that we are to have a meeting of the chairpersons of the election observation missions in October. That was postponed and I endorse the proposals made by Mr Wille and Mr Margelov that we should use all the evidence that we have gained in all the missions, because new members should be involved in the work and they should be professionally briefed, using the experience that we have already gained. Therefore, I endorse that proposal and I would like to hear the rapporteur’s comments on it.

DEBATE WITH THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS, MR. CARL BILDT, SWEDEN

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – There are two parts to my question. First, the organisation that deals with more fundamental matters is going to continue its work. What are you going to do to end our budgetary anorexia from which that organisation suffers? What initiatives will you introduce to do so? Secondly, how do human rights relate to the recent Swedish law on Internet tapping? It will be interesting to hear the answer to that, too.

Mr BILDT. – On the latter question, there is no such law. The only thing that has happened in Sweden is something that is good for the country, in contrast to the position in the past, and perhaps in contrast to other countries. We now have a very firm law setting out what can be done in foreign signals intelligence, and what cannot be done. We have a signals intelligence law that applies to what our respective authorities can do concerning traffic that crosses our borders. It was done before, but without any law. Now we have a law with safeguards and oversight, and I think that that shows our commitment to human rights. Whether the same applies in all countries is a different issue. What was the first question, Mr Kox?

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – On the budget.

Mr BILDT. – Yes, the budget: I was trying to avoid that as you know, but I failed. That is obviously a different issue. As we know, most governments concerning most international organisations – not only this one – want zero growth. I do not think that it is wrong to take a stringent approach to the way in which we spend taxpayers’ money. Some of us, in view of things that I spoke about, think that leeway should be given to certain activities. We shall continue dialogue with different governments on that matter. We are careful when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money, but when we talk about fundamental values and interests, safeguarding them might not always come for free.

POLLUTION OF THE BLACK SEA AREA

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, we welcome the report and congratulate the rapporteur. The information in the report is very alarming. The amount of pollutants in the rivers is tremendous and shocking. That information alone goes to show how urgently action needs to be taken. We note with concern that existing bodies and conventions, such as the Bucharest Declaration, are mainly geared towards measuring and monitoring pollution but are not directly aimed at stopping it, or at least reducing the amounts being dumped. We in the group therefore suggest that stronger measures be taken, and an authoritative body be established based on a binding convention and provided with the financial means to take drastic action. We have guidelines on the Rio principles such as the “polluter pays” principle, and the principle that nature should enjoy the benefit of the doubt but, given the urgent situation in the Black Sea, we need stronger measures. We need to go to the source of the pollution and stop it, not just measure it, monitor it and have the polluter pay. In that case it would just continue. Perhaps because I am from Iceland I was particularly struck by the shocking state of fishing in the Black Sea, the formerly rich fishing grounds. The report states that 21 out of 26 species are extinct in terms of commercial fishing. We already have examples of fish stocks being restored and pollution being stopped. In that way we re-established eco-systems that were on the verge of collapsing or had already collapsed. Therefore, there is a lot to gain in terms of future resources. We have the knowledge, the technology and the management systems. We need to make use of that knowledge and take action. Therefore, we welcome the report and support the recommendations but we suggest that even stronger action be taken. Of course there are other land-locked seas, lakes and river systems in the Council of Europe area that are in bad shape and need our attention desperately and where firm action is required, but the Black Sea is very important and deserves our help. The destruction of eco-systems and the depletion of resources is directly linked to the wellbeing of people and communities so it is highly relevant that the Council of Europe Assembly deals with those issues. We did so as regards the pressing issues in the Arctic. We should look at other regions such as the Black Sea. They deserve our attention.

FUNCTIONING OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS IN AZERBAIJAN

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – There is no doubt that this is the right time for a debate on the functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan. When we look back, we see that over the past five years many resolutions on Azerbaijan have been adopted to allow Azerbaijan to fulfil its commitments to the principles of the Council of Europe. Looking to the future, I cite our former colleague, Mr Leo Platvoet, who ended his speech to the Assembly on 16 April 2007: “The presidential elections in 2008 will be a new touchstone, we cannot, however, have an endless row of touchstones.” Of course, there is a link between developing democracy in Azerbaijan and the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but lack of democracy is more likely to hinder the ability to resolve that conflict than the other way around – that well-functioning democratic institutions in Azerbaijan should hinder anything at all in Nagorno-Karabakh. In Norway, we had one bit of historical luck. We discovered democracy before we discovered oil and gas. There is so much money in oil and gas that it is not only democracy that is needed to distribute those goods for the benefit of all the citizens of a country – anti-corruption work is essential too. For all energy-producing countries, the management of petroleum resources and the question of transparency is important. To ensure that both present and future generations benefit from petroleum revenues we need to ensure transparency and accountability in the management of those resources. That includes openness about the income generated and how it is spent. The creation of the State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan – SOFAZ – is a good start. The fund will protect the economy against the distortions and inflation that could result from excessive public spending over a few years. SOFAZ has made a promising start. It was awarded a UN prize for excellent public management last year. On transparency, I stress the fact that Azerbaijan was among the first countries to join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – EITI. The basic idea is simple. Payments of money to the state coffers from international petroleum companies, as well as the total government revenues from oil and gas companies, are to be made public. Azerbaijan is a regional leader in applying EITI criteria. That praise goes not only to the authorities and the major petroleum countries but to civil society, which is playing an essential role as a watchdog in the coalition between the EITI and non-governmental organisations. It is clear to me that once a country subscribes to the EITI, it also endorses the EITI basic principles of transparency and political accountability. Those principles should underlie all administrative reform, be it in Azerbaijan or elsewhere. Perhaps a new start for democracy in Azerbaijan will be where anti-corruption starts – in the oil sector, which was intended to secure democracy because all should benefit equally. The UEL Group fully supports the Monitoring Committee’s list of urgent steps that have to be taken.

EMPOWERING OF WOMEN

Mr LECOQ (France) thanked his fellow speakers, and the rapporteurs for introducing this important topic. He noted that women were not the same as men and were subject to a variety of different policies. Around 51% of the European population were women but they were not empowered to the same level as men. The fortunes of women had improved over the last 50 years; but even so their roles in society were still limited. Only around 23% of members of the European Parliament were women, and women only constituted around 10% of board members in the top 50 companies in Europe. Appointing men was the default position in many areas, both stereotypically and in practice. There was a general feeling that women’s roles had been distorted over the last 50 years. Some felt that women had abandoned the home and this had been the cause of many of society’s problems. However, there was now a backlash against these views. Many laws highlighted the inequality between men and women. The Council of Europe had recently examined abortion, which obviously only affected women. Many women often worked part time and so therefore only received partial pensions. There was now a growing feeling that these inequalities needed to be addressed. Europe had created an environment in which women were subordinated. The fundamental charter of human rights had addressed many inequalities but the position of women had still not been fully addressed. Legal standards could be applied to empower women but the culture of society also had to be addressed. The Council of Europe had recently led a number of campaigns on this subject which should be applauded; but many more should be undertaken. This, he felt, was in the spirit of the report and the resolution, which he supported.

STATE OF DEMOCRACY

Mr KESKIN (Germany) expressed his thanks to the President and his dear colleagues, Mr Greenway and Mr Gross, whose reports he had much appreciated. In his report, Mr Greenway had noted the importance of citizenship in promoting participation in the political process. Mr Keskin agreed that nationality played a central role in enabling people to become fully involved with the democratic process. Only through citizenship and nationality could migrants feel fully integrated into society; without this, migrants continued to remain feeling, and being treated as, foreigners in their new home and consequently enjoying fewer and less robust human rights and freedoms. He clarified that he was not talking about people who were resident on a temporary basis, or those who had only recently moved into a country. He was concerned about the great number of people who had lived in countries for several decades after immigration but still seemed to benefit less from systems of rights and freedoms than those who were originally born in those countries. Millions of such people had yet to be given full access to the same level of protection of fundamental rights than indigenous people. Germany alone had 7 million people who were still classified as foreigners or aliens; these people where not even allowed to vote in local authority elections if they had not originated in a European Union member state. Countries should not continue to exclude these millions of people as this was, in fact, a form of discrimination. The lack of citizenship or nationality for migrants in their adopted countries stood in the way of integration and meant that migrants could not truly identify with their society or form a full allegiance to that country. Full integration required migrants having the same rights in all sectors of society. He felt that the standards set for acquiring citizenship or nationality could be set too high. For example, some countries required migrants to renounce their original citizenship and it was time for these countries to realise that this was an unreasonable requirement. In contrast, some countries had allowed migrants to adopt dual nationality, and other countries should now follow this example. He supported the comments made by Mr Niessen that integration must be the touchstone of the quality of a democracy, and it was now time to implement measures to ensure that migrants could fully integrate into their adopted societies.

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – Mr President, dear colleagues, diversity has always constituted a major challenge for democratic societies, irrespective of its origins and irrespective of whether it involved cultural, religious, sexual or ethnic elements. Diversity undoubtedly constitutes a major feature in contemporary societies and therefore should be given the utmost importance, especially as it becomes decisive to the well-being of people on many occasions.

Migration undoubtedly influences the internal socio-economic structures of many countries around the globe and has become an increased trend of our times given increased globalisation. Globalisation is a process that creates favourable conditions for increased mobility and therefore the increased diversification of migration flows.

Economic and demographic imbalances, wars and/or conflicts, political instability, social disparities and human rights abuses are the main factors behind migration flows. Therefore, we all have a duty in reconciling respect for diversity in society and in ensuring that the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all the people who live in a host country are fully respected – irrespective of whether those people are its own nationals, nationals of other European countries or nationals of third countries.

At this point, I would like to agree with the rapporteur that migrants from European countries and migrants from third countries should not be treated differently, as they are all human beings in search of a better future. Therefore, they should all be treated equally and with respect and given equal opportunities in order to integrate as best as possible into the societies that they live in and not to become outcasts.

My country, Cyprus, is a recipient of large migratory flows, both legal and illegal ones, mainly from Asia and Africa. Furthermore, according to statistics from the European Union, Cyprus has the most applications from asylum seekers given its population – it holds first place in that respect. Therefore, the Cypriot Government has been continuously revising its migration policies for many years now so that it can adequately handle this growing challenge and take into account the country’s best interests while protecting the migrants’ best interests. That is certainly not an easy job.

Cyprus suddenly had to cope with huge migratory flows, both legal and illegal ones, especially after the country’s accession to the European Union. For those reasons, the Government of Cyprus is currently working on a new migration policy that will focus on taking specific measures to achieve the maximum and smoother integration of legal migrants into Cypriot society. That policy will also convey to Cypriots the crystal-clear message that the integration of migrants into our society does not take away any rights from the indigenous population of the country.

Dear colleagues, I strongly believe that the philosophy governing this issue should be based on full respect of human life and dignity. We have a non-negotiable duty to respect the human rights and fundamental freedom of both legal and illegal immigrants for as long as they remain in the country concerned. After all, let us not forget that true democracy means, among other things, full respect for human rights and all forms of diversity.

Last but not least, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs most warmly on their excellent reports on such an important issue. Thank you.

Mr DEL ROIO (Italy) said that it seemed as though politics in Europe had fallen victim to schizophrenia. The two reports under consideration today represented a valuable attempt to deal with the problems of the lack of integration of migrants into civic society in Europe. But he could not help to reflect on the fact that, just one week ago, and less than 100 metres from here, the European Parliament had voted to adopt a directive on the repatriation of migrants. This directive would only serve to force migrants into the hands of criminal gangs and human traffickers. It would legalise the detention of minors; sometimes without their parents. Another directive, which had been passed by the European Parliament, would make it legal to work up to 62 hours per week. There was just no coherence between these sorts of decisions and the considerations under examination here, in the home of European democracy.

There were already 8 million irregular migrants in Europe and it was simply not possible to reduce the numbers through such draconian measures. There was a widening gulf between Europe, on the one hand, and Africa and developing nations in other parts of the world. Recent events in Latin America were a good illustration of this.

Given these circumstances, what credibility would the discussions of the Assembly on the rights of migrants and the desirability of integration and political participation of migrants have?

Mr LECOQ (France) thanked the President and said that today’s debate provided a healthy jolt, reminding us of the triptych of: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The clear objectives for a modern assembly were outlined in the report. Joining the Council of Europe was not an end-point; there had to be involvement of members on a daily basis. Monitoring was there to ensure that we were in tune with modern democracy. This applied to all members – no doubt France would be part of a future report. He wondered whether there was a need to reinforce the monitoring process. The system was liberal, but democracy constituted a perpetual work-in-progress. Popular sovereignty was of great topicality. The Council of Europe should look at its own experience; the purpose of the exercise was not to exclude or isolate the states concerned. All the efforts should be seen as contributions to an improved system for the future. Also, careful attention should be paid to the feedback from the affected states. If there was found to be cynicism there, it would be necessary to be aware of it, and to act. He thanked Mr Holovaty for the recommendations, and invited the Assembly to think about what action was necessary. Although it was efficient, there was some fragility in the monitoring process, and modernisation was needed.

FUNCTIONING OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS IN ARMENIA

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – We passed a resolution here in April. Something has happened since then; there has been a little progress. This afternoon we are giving more time to Armenia to take another step towards democracy. Six months is not much time when you consider that it can take centuries to develop democracy, but with the help of the Council of Europe and others, it is possible. I have visited Armenia twice. It is a beautiful country with a people who are enthusiastic about creating democracy. I hope that politics in Armenia will be about how to solve everyday problems for the people, and not a struggle between political elites. I do not want to take up much more time because it will be interesting to listen to other colleagues and members of the Armenian delegation in this afternoon’s debate. Perhaps we will make a good start already this afternoon, with real evidence of a willingness to support reconciliation and to put democracy into practice. After all, the Council of Europe is the training centre for democracy for all. The group welcomes the report.

SITUATION IN CHINA

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands). – Thank you. I would like to stress that we are today discussing an important report, for which I thank the rapporteur. It could be a real step towards more substantial ongoing dialogue between the Council of Europe member states and the People’s Republic of China. That dialogue is important; it should be sincere dialogue for our mutual benefit, and should include discussion of human rights. That could improve the lives of many, many millions of people. We have some common ground: both China and the 47 member states of the Council of Europe have ratified the UN Charter. China deserves our attention because our economic activities are increasingly interrelated. All our economies seek to better their trade relations with China, as there are benefits for both sides, especially China. China has seen tremendous economic growth over the past few decades. In the past 25 years, China has taken more people out of poverty and has enrolled more children in school than any other country, according to a recent report by the International Labour Organization. Those are beautiful results, at least suggesting that China also takes its ratification of the ILO convention on minimum working age seriously. Unfortunately, China has not yet ratified all core ILO standards and conventions, and does not fully respect those that have already been ratified. That is also the case with regard to the UN Charter. The report deals with many issues and rightly expresses concerns about many human rights violations, including recent ones in Tibet and neighbouring provinces. More generally, issues that deservedly receive attention in the report include: discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, women and rural migrants; the death penalty; and the harassment, imprisonment and torture of human rights activists, lawyers and journalists. However, I have suggested one amendment – No. 4 – which would mean that the resolution would mention labour activists at least once. Their role is crucial for change in China. We talk about the downside of China’s economic growth and our cheap imports. Extremely long working days, a seven-day working week, low wages and people sometimes not being paid are pretty common. Unsafe and unhealthy working conditions are rather the standard, mainly in the cities and special economic zones. That leads to a large number of labour-related accidents. In the factories, you will find many young women working, many of whom are migrant workers who come from rural areas. They face the hardest conditions because they have fewer rights once moved to a different district. They lose rights related to social housing and education, and that leads to migrant workers living in factories and sleeping in dormitories. Sometimes there are eight to 10 women in one small room. I know, as an international labour activist myself, that unfortunately the loss of the right to education among rural migrants leads to an increase in child labour in some areas. There are child workers; they make up to 20% of the work force in certain industries. Workers are increasingly protesting against all that. According to official statistics, in 2005 alone, China counted 87 000 massive social disturbances, and according to the only trade union allowed, which is state controlled, the number of labour-related social disturbances grows by 30% a year. The Communist Party is trying to take the needs of workers seriously, and has approved new labour laws, raising the bar for employment standards and labour rights, but it does not dare to empower the workers themselves. Workers who try to organise themselves risk hard oppression, resulting in many imprisoned labour activists. I spoke of common ground; China is a member of the ILO, but to date it has not yet ratified important conventions on free association in an independent trade union, on collective bargaining, and on unforced labour. Human rights include core ILO standards. I hope that the report will lead to a developing dialogue between Europe and China in which Europe will keep addressing human rights issues until China ratifies all major conventions and fully respects the UN Charter. Thank you.

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – As I have the honour of being the last speaker, I have the problem of finding something to talk about that has not been mentioned yet. Several speakers discussed whether we should have had this debate on the situation in far away China. After two hours of debate there is probably no need to argue any more about that. The debate has happened and I welcome it. I have no problem with using time in the Council of Europe to discuss human rights violations, the state of democracy and the rule of law, whatever the part of the world under discussion. China is a huge player in the field of investment, and a huge investor and trading partner with Europe. That means that politicians, businessmen and not least consumers are directly linked and responsible for things that are happening in China that we cannot overlook. The cheap clothes or toys that we happily buy for ourselves and our children may be produced by workers in China, or even children, who are kept under unacceptable conditions. The report and the debate are put forward in a spirit of dialogue and in the belief that a frank and honest dialogue and exchange of views is always the right way to proceed. As I see it, we are offering China a dialogue, but we would do that dialogue no service if we were not honest in our formulations as regards the violation of human rights and other such issues. I welcome what is said in the report in general but I would like to stress several points. I strongly second the comments of my colleague, Tuur Elzinga, about labour rights. It is important to make improvements in that sector in China. It is important to improve the working conditions of the single biggest work force in the world. If we are to fight social dumping in the globalised economy, China is very important in that context. I also agree wholeheartedly with what the report says about Tibet. It was shocking, heartbreaking and shameful to see the brutal violence used against people guilty of nothing but wanting to exercise their right to demonstrate and to make their point. It does not matter who started it – the use of force in such a way can never be justified. The report is rather weak when it mentions the death penalty. I would like to see a much stronger formulation condemning the extensive use of the death penalty in China. The fact that China is in the same boat as another superpower, the United States, makes it no better. I also mention the forced removal of people from their home towns and other areas to make way for the building of big dams or other construction sites. I refer specifically to the Three Gorges dam. People were moved in their millions from the local area by force. It was a violation of human rights. Considering the environmental concerns, that makes it even worse. I welcome the dialogue and I hope that our Chinese friends will accept our offer to engage in it with us.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TURKEY

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – The current political situation in Turkey and the smouldering confrontation between the military and the political leadership of the country date back further than the closure case opened against the Justice and Development Party. Let us also bear in mind the fact that the country’s projected aspiration to accede to the European Union has caused Turkey to take some positive steps in the right direction. However, much more needs to be done until it fully abides by the principles, norms and values of the European family. The European course taken by Turkey has caused some internal reactions. Various circles reacted because they feared that Turkey’s European dimension could change the character of the country irreversibly. Of course we respect each country’s diversity and different opinions. After all, one of the main goals of the big European family to which we belong is to accommodate different ethnic, cultural and religious variations, and those variations enrich the multicultural character of Europe. All member states of the Council of Europe have to respect and abide by certain non-negotiable principles, norms and values, which form the cornerstone of this Organisation. Democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law are only some of the core values that this organisation represents. Turkey is currently undergoing a deep political crisis, a crisis that seriously threatens the country’s European course and aspirations. Indeed, some of the actions by the Turkish Prime Minister, such as the lifting of the ban on the wearing of the headscarf in universities through a constitutional amendment, led to severe tensions on the political scene. It also added to the worry felt in certain sectors that the AKP was gradually Islamising Turkey. However, Mr Erdogan’s party, which now faces the threat of closure, gained a large absolute majority in the 2007 elections. We are concerned that political stability in the country will be seriously affected, regardless of the party closure law suit outcome. It will also seriously undermine the democratic functioning of state institutions and hold up urgent economic, political and social reforms. Let us remember that if the law suit finally succeeds, it will not be the first time that something like that has happened in Turkey. The Group of the Unified European Left therefore expresses its deep and serious concern about the future. I also point out that in Turkey it is nearly considered to be a crime to state that you are of Kurdish origin. Turkey is a member state of this Organisation, and a candidate state for accession to the European Union. It is therefore essential that it abides by and respects all democratic rules and norms. Last but not least, I would like to remind colleagues that when the monitoring procedure for Turkey was closed back in 2004, the Assembly, through Resolution 1380, resolved to continue a “post-monitoring dialogue”. Let us now think about whether we should consider re-opening the monitoring procedure for that country, not as a form of punishment but to assist Turkey in undertaking the urgent reforms that she has to make. That would also resolve the doubts in anyone’s mind about whether this Organisation has a double standards policy when it comes to derogation by any member state from the Council of Europe’s core values and fundamental principles. Thank you.

Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – This is a paradoxical situation for me because, during the past 18 years, I have used many critical words concerning Turkey’s development. Today, I am in the position of defending the Turkish Government, and this is one of the first times that I have done so.

This is also a paradoxical situation for me because I am not a religious person. I am not religious, but now I am defending a government that is accused of being led by a religious party. At the same time, when I am critical today about certain aspects of the development of Turkish society and certain developments in Turkey’s international policy, such as the continuous occupation of a part of Cyprus. In such discussions, I have to defend the Turkish Government.

I have followed the policy of different Turkish Governments for years – for example, while in the Council of Europe. The prime ministers and presidents were always representing the policy of promises. They were saying that they must make some progress and change the constitution, penal code, party legislation and so on in future. But now we have the first government that is implementing its promises. That is something different. At the same time, we can also notice that there are very dissatisfied forces with the present government. They also tried to involve the public prosecutor in their political purposes to create an atmosphere in which the old policy of dissolving political parties could be put into practice again.

We in the Council of Europe must be a little bit self-critical. During the time when many parties faced dissolution in Turkey, we were not quiet, but we had a lot of people who supported such steps. We have voted many times, but this will be the first time when not so many of us support the possibility of closing leading parties, as happened some years ago. We must support the present government because it has made certain reforms.

I agree with those who say that there is a big danger that the pace of the reforms is slowing. In order for the reform policy to continue, we must support and clearly emphasise that the international community cannot support policies whereby the public prosecutor and even the supreme court are used as instruments of some of the old political forces in the police.

I support the rapporteur’s work and the draft resolution. The dissolution of political parties is not a small question. Sometimes in the past, the Council of Europe has not been serious enough in facing such problems. I hope that, today, we realise that it is our duty to support the normalisation of political life in Cyprus, and that requires the removal of the threat to dissolve such parties. Thank you.

Mr KESKIN (Germany) thanked the President and said that the idea of banning a political party was difficult to conceive of, and presumably difficult to implement. It would endanger the political stability of a country. There had been a number of episodes of concern in relation to the Justice and Development Party of Turkey, and he cited a few examples. First, there the redrafting of the constitution by a number of “yes men” close to the government; and what they agreed had magically become the new constitution. Secondly, the government had tried to bring the universities under its own regime, also education, and even parts of the media; so that public service broadcasters virtually became organs of the state. This was of great concern to him and to millions of people in Turkey. Turkey was a secular state inhabited by a large number of Muslims. That it was secular was beyond question. When a state in Islamic countries was not secular, we could see what happened. It had come to his notice that political scientists had expressed concern about the division of powers. There was the executive and there was the independent judiciary which examined what the executive did, and that was what the judiciary was seeking to do in this case. There were sacrosanct principles to be upheld, as well expressed in Article 20 of the Basic Law, the German Constitution: “All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive, and judicial bodies; The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice; all Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.”

RED CROSS

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – The Group of the Unified European Left compliments Mr Hancock on his report. It is a clear and interesting document on the International Committee of the Red Cross, and it is followed by several important proposals to us and our governments so that we increase the effectiveness of the Red Cross. I shall return to some of the proposals later. I have to salute President Kellenberger, his assistants and, via them, the grand army of the International Red Cross. It is an army of millions of volunteers worldwide who try, sometimes desperately, to restore, or at least ease, what other forces have destroyed with their wars and armed conflicts not only far away, but also here on this continent, where there have been far too many awful wars in recent years. The Red Cross is a great organisation in the eyes of my political group and I think in the eyes of everyone. It is a great organisation in an anything but perfect world. It was a wise decision to grant the Nobel prize twice to this oldest and largest humanitarian network in the world. Perhaps the relevant institutions should consider granting the prize for a third time. After the good news about the recent signatures of the remaining countries, the Geneva Convention is now signed by all countries, which makes it the first international treaty to be endorsed worldwide. I congratulate the Red Cross in particular on its work on that. The work of the Red Cross is becoming ever more difficult. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been obliged to tackle the massive and horrible effects of several new wars and armed conflicts involving millions of victims of ever-developing devilish techniques of hurting, humiliating, terrifying, terrorising and killing citizens and soldiers. The war on terror declared by President Bush is one of the new armed conflicts that has had unforeseen effects on the work of the Red Cross. There is a horrible war in Iraq and an endless armed conflict in Afghanistan. There are also illegal and secret prisons, and a return of the use of torture as a means of fighting wars. I want President Kellenberger to elaborate on the idea that the Red Cross should use more ways of making facts public, as happened with Guantánamo Bay and Burma. Furthermore, I ask him to inform us about secret detention centres on this continent, which were mentioned in Dick Marty’s report – or does confidentiality prohibit the Red Cross from telling us what we really want to know? Returning to Michael Hancock’s proposals, my group supports them all. In fact, we go further than that. We are actively campaigning for signatures to the convention on cluster munitions. I very much appreciate President Kellenberger’s plea that all countries sign it as soon as it can be signed.

IMBROSS AND TENEDOS (GOKCEADA AND BOZCAADA)

Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – Thank you, Mr President. On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I welcome this report on the two islands – Gökçeada, or Imbros, and Bozcaada, or Tenedos. Of course, there are a lot of similar cases, but I do not agree with the last speaker that the report is therefore not balanced, even though it deals with a specific situation. The report deals with the situation in a good way. One could argue that this is a minor issue in the context of the whole area of the Council of Europe, but it is certainly not a minor issue for the people and communities concerned. It has a strong symbolic link to Greek-Turkish relations. I have never set foot on these islands – in fact, I have barely seen them from the sea when passing through the Dardanelles – but I take a strong interest in the issue, because the islands are the home of the cultural heritage of the people who live there. It is very important that we recognise the value of all communities and of their cultural heritage – irrespective of whether they are monocultural, bicultural or multicultural areas. Hence, of course, when a community, cultural group or especially when a cultural minority group disappears, we lose something and the world becomes a poorer place, because we lose our cultural, historical and even geographical diversity. Island communities tend to have a specific character – we know that very well in Iceland, for instance. Owing to geographical isolation and probably psychological or deep-rooted social and cultural factors, island communities tend to have a strong and noticeably different character from that of other communities. Hence, the bigger the loss if such communities disappear or partly disappear. I would also like to remind you that sustainable development does not just concern the environment and our duty to deliver to coming generations equal opportunities and environmental possibilities, but it also emphasises the need for both economic and social equilibrium. That must be kept in mind when we are discussing regional development and the right of people to live where they grew up and have their roots. Of course a human rights factor is also involved in this case. Part of your rights as an individual is to know who you are, where you come from – to know your roots – and to settle, if you so choose, in your traditional community. So I think that the authorities have an important obligation to try to fulfil that right wherever and as much as possible. Of course there are changes. Some of them happen by choice, and some of them are forced upon us. Wherever we can, we should feel obliged to try to correct what went wrong in the past. We welcome very much the positive developments in Greek-Turkish relations, especially in respect of these two islands, but I think that the suggestions made in the report are very good and we should support them. If we do so, perhaps this will become a model to deal with the situation in other areas. It is always open to us to do that. So we support the report and the recommendations. Thank you.