Speeches June 2009

Monday 22 June 2009 at 3 p.m.

Communication by Mr Samuel Žbogar, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers (Document CM/AS (2009)5)

Mr KOX (The Netherlands). – I warmly welcome the proposal for enhanced co-operation between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. I realise that you have to discuss this with your colleagues, and indeed we have to discuss it as well, but if lack of co-operation over the election of the new Secretary General is one of the problems we face today, are we not now all of us obliged to reconsider our positions and to make use of this enhanced co-operation to discuss what should be done with the election procedure for the Secretary General so that the problem can be solved in September? Why not include this instead of excluding it?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kox. Mr Žbogar, would you like to answer?

Mr ŽBOGAR. – Earlier, when the Committee of Ministers made a decision about the shortlist, the majority was overwhelming. In Madrid, the result was 40 to seven on the decision not to open the recommendation to the Parliamentary Assembly. I understand that today’s vote in the Parliamentary Assembly was not so clear. The majority spoke, but the result was not so overwhelming as it was in the Committee of Ministers. Of course, we respect your decision. I simply repeat that we all envisaged that the new Secretary General would bring more visibility to the Council of Europe in Europe and beyond. We asked Mr Juncker years ago to prepare recommendations, and one referred to the election of the Secretary General, whom we all hope will provide more visibility. The new Secretary General definitely needs the support of the two bodies. The Committee of Ministers spoke about whom out of the four had the support of the Ministers and we recommended two. I do not think that the Parliamentary Assembly has decided about those two candidates. Both are very good and either would be an excellent Secretary General. I do not believe that the vote today was against the two candidates. I do not think that anyone would object to the two candidates or to their references and credibility. They have the support of the Committee of Ministers and we commend them to the Parliamentary Assembly. I hope that further consultation will make it possible for the Parliamentary Assembly to elect a Secretary General from that list of two.

Progress report – resumed debate

Mr KOX (The Netherlands). – Thank you, Mr President. I add my compliments to those of David Wilshire. Terry Davis was the first and only Secretary General that I have elected – I can now disclose that I voted in favour of you, Mr Davis. It was very easy to elect you. When we think that we have huge problems, we could remind ourselves that there are also easy ways to solve problems, and that is what your election was. I thank you for your five years in office and all the work that you did for us. I admit that we did not agree on everything. Whoever we get as our new Secretary General, he or she should not agree with this Assembly about everything, because that would not be the right balance.

I thank the rapporteur for his progress report to our Assembly The report shows how much time we have already spent in the Assembly, in the Bureau, in the Presidential Committee, in the Committee of Ministers and in the ambassadors’ committee on the procedure to elect a new Secretary General – and all this at a time when we are facing really important problems both in Europe and around the world in terms of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. We should not let ourselves become paralysed by constitutional conflict because that is not our core business. I hope that after the decision we took this morning – and after the promising words, at a certain level, of Mr Žbogar – we will find the beginning of a solution over the coming weeks.

Everyone forgets that we are here not only to identify problems, but to provide answers to them and not to let them continue. After the vote this morning, I hope that everybody – and I mean everybody: the Committee of Ministers, the candidates and everyone involved – will think about the common wisdom we need to reach a solution in September.

In the end, the post of Secretary General is only a job. It is an important post, but as politicians and ministers we should be able to resolve this matter. I therefore welcome the statement of the rapporteur explaining that the Assembly will ask for the opinion of the Venice Commission. As Mr Hancock said earlier, the commission is the most prestigious legal advice institution in Europe. We have to ask for its help, and for the Committee of Ministers to solve this problem. I hope that the Assembly will soon officially ask the Venice Commission for its help and that we can convince the Committee of Ministers to do the same. We can then come to a conclusion because in the end it cannot be that difficult.

I have to say that I welcome many of the proposals put to the Assembly by Minister Žbogar. Although they were his personal proposals, they sounded very good. If we can enhance co-operation and commence serious consultation, not only will we solve the problem of how to elect our new Secretary General in September, we will also solve many other problems that are more in the nature of this Assembly’s core business and more important to the people that we all say we represent here.

Finally, as I said earlier, sometimes you need common wisdom and sometimes you need a miracle. I ask for common wisdom for our Committee of Ministers, for this Assembly and for the Venice Commission. The miracle that might happen could be that through the process on 1 September, we will get our first female Secretary General of the Assembly, albeit for a short period. That will be the small miracle; the rest we will have to do for ourselves.

I thank the rapporteur for this report and I hope that we will learn something about the process from what happened today.

Tuesday 23 June 2009 at 10 a.m

Situation in Belarus

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – The question of Belarus is complicated and there are no easy answers. However, it is still our responsibility to find the right way forward, even if it is not easy.

The Group of the Unified European Left supports the main findings of the report. However, some claims are clearly too optimistic, such as the claim that there are no internationally recognised political prisoners in the country any more. According to Amnesty International, there are 11 prisoners of conscience there, so we should not be too optimistic about the situation in the country. Yesterday our group met a delegation from the Belarusian Parliament. Its members tried to convince us that Belarus is a fully democratic country and is well on the way to joining our Assembly as a full member. However, the more they talked, the less we believed them. However, one cannot ignore facts such as the release of all the high-profile political prisoners. That is clearly a step in the right direction. We are now faced with a dilemma: whether to await further progress or to act on the modest progress already achieved. The country is clearly at a crossroads. It might start moving in the right direction, but if we applaud modest progress too early, it might prevent the authorities from moving forward. However, if we do not react to progress, it is possible that that will stall further progress and frustrate the other side. When weighing up the pros and cons of whether to invite Belarus to come here as a special guest, we must consider the impact on civil society. Improved opportunities for direct contacts with civil society are important and will clearly help to democratise the country. However, it is also possible that some non-governmental organisations will present themselves to us, so we must be vigilant.

To summarise, the restoration of special guest status seems to be appropriate, as long as it is combined with clear guidance to the Belarusian authorities in the field of human rights and democracy. The Belarusian authorities must declare a moratorium on the death sentence, put an end to all political repression, respect the pluralism of opinion and make democratic elections possible. It is therefore critical that the implementation of the recommendations should be thoroughly followed up by the Bureau of the Assembly, and if no progress is made, special guest status must be suspended. If we really wish the people of Belarus well, we must be constructive: we must hope for the best but, at the same time, we must remain vigilant.

Address by Mrs Mary McAleese, President of Ireland

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark). – My question is also about abortion and the Lisbon Treaty. Do you think that it is acceptable that the Irish negotiators have been trying to weaken the right of all women in the European Union to have free, legal and safe abortion just because you still wish to prevent Irish women from having access to it?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I invite Mrs McAleese to answer.

Mrs McALEESE. – I have probably answered most of that in response to previous questions. As I understand it, throughout Europe one finds very different practice on abortion; no two countries have the same provision. Ireland rightly has its own provision. When we sit round the European table as equals, we each bring our identity and we are anxious to protect it. It is therefore entirely right that our government protects our constitutional provision, about which people in Ireland feel strongly. I have mentioned Ireland’s Crisis Pregnancy Agency, which is part of the overall culture of provision not only for people who have crisis pregnancies, but generally. This is not just about crisis pregnancies – it is about the whole issue of sexual reproduction and sexual health – because Ireland has taken a very strong lead and is a very strong champion of women’s rights and the rights of the child.

Tuesday 23 June 2009 at 3 p.m.

The activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: reinforcing economic and democratic stability

Mr GEORGIOU (Cyprus) said that the world was undergoing a major financial crisis. The very future of traditional institutions, and even of some countries, could be at stake. States across the world must be the central players in any successful recovery. The private sector, although important, had only a limited role to play in any recovery.

The state would have to play a major role in the creation of jobs and in the provision of financial stability. Although there was a need to protect financial institutions from collapse, that could not be the prime objective of the state. What was needed was a new economic climate in which the private sector contributed to sustained growth of the whole economy and which did not service the narrow interests of the few.

There was a need for a speedy economic recovery but that could only be achieved through the co-operation of countries at regional and world level. Those countries needed to give priority to the production of consumer goods, the supply of food and energy and the reform of banking. At the same time, individual countries must be free to shape their own economic affairs.

SMEs had been most affected by the economic crisis. Small businesses needed loans of a different type from those which had been available to them before the crisis. The interests which had been responsible for the financial crisis should not benefit from the consequent need to provide new loans to small businesses. Therefore the state must take on some of the lending to small businesses. The state would then benefit from the upturn in economic fortunes when small firms paid back their loans.

The challenges of the financial crisis to the world economic institutions

Mr ELZINGA (The Netherlands). – I thank the rapporteur for his work and the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development for its fruitful discussion.

We have to start this debate with the causes of the crisis, to understand why my group thinks that the report could be far more critical of the past and current role of world economic and financial institutions. However, we welcome the modest steps taken by those institutions in the right direction – or rather, away from the wrong direction – and the encouragement for those institutions in the draft resolution. Of course, the lack of regulation and supervision of world financial markets was a direct cause of the financial and economic crisis. In other words, years of advocated financial deregulation took its toll. Greed played an important role. To be more specific, the stimulation of greed by perverse and excessive bonuses and remuneration in the banking sector was a direct cause too.

I would like to stress, however, two underlying root causes of the crisis: the bubbles that were repeatedly created and the huge imbalances in the world economy. The more immediate causes caused the credit bubble to burst. Governments, central banks and other institutions now seek to boost the economy again, but we have to be careful lest we reflate the bubbles only to await the next great burst. The first imbalance I would like to point out is the staggering wage gap between workers in rich countries and workers in emerging countries.

Globalisation did not create that distressing gap, but neo-liberal globalisation increased it, as it increased inequality in general. Moreover, by removing barriers to trade and capital flows, globalisation made it possible for western companies and multinationals in particular to exploit the wage gap to enlarge their profits. Unmistakeably, that led to a downward pressure on wages in rich countries, especially the United States. The Fed, to prevent an under-consumption crisis, had to lower interest rates, and in doing so fuelled the credit bubble. Where companies could boost profits by means of outsourcing and off-shoring, consumption in home markets was under pressure. The only way in which the US could uphold economic growth was through asset and credit inflation. As a result, some countries consumed far more than they produced, and others produced more than they could consume. That is the other structural imbalance in the world economy, as the rapporteur explained.

Globalisation per se is not a bad thing, but globalisation formed as a result of neo-liberal ideology, with its emphasis on privatisation, liberalisation and deregulation, has led to an increase in global imbalances and bubbles. World economic and financial institutions, especially the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, advocated and enforced those neo-liberal policies for many years, and in doing so are guilty of creating the current crisis. My group is happy that the rhetoric at least seems to have changed recently. However, as the recent track record of the IMF in Iceland shows, we cannot yet be optimistic. In my group’s view, the IMF is again part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

The modest steps away from the former disastrous road are nowhere near enough to solve the heart of the problem, but a start is a start. I want to add one admirable step taken by the World Bank to the resolution: the removal of the employing workers indicator from the Bank’s “Doing Business” report. The international labour movement has long criticised that indicator, as it gave the best ratings to countries with the lowest level of workers’ protection. Now that that indicator has been removed as a policy instrument, the World Bank can finally start doing what it is supposed to do: stimulate fair and sustainable development and pro-poor growth.

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said that he welcomed the report. The economic crisis had not been a natural catastrophe. Rather, it had been a disaster caused by humans. It was vital therefore that lessons about what had caused the crisis were learned. If lessons were not learned, they would be repeated in future. In particular, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank must recognise and identify the specific causes of the economic disaster and they must take measures to prevent it from happening again.

There was a paramount need to prevent the shifting of economies towards laissez-faire economics. Both economies and financial institutions worked best within a framework of regulation which had been put in place by an active government. All governments must introduce measures to end damaging financial speculation. That could only be done through international co-operation and the involvement of institutions which included the Council of Europe. The savings and pensions of citizens had to be protected by governments. That was a moral imperative.

Following the failure of laissez-faire policies, industries across Europe and the world had to be propped up by governments and regional bodies. The evangelists of laissez-faire economics were responsible for the crash and, ultimately, for the victims which had been created from that catastrophe. In parts of the world, people were dying through poverty which had been caused by the actions of others living on the other side of the globe in relative wealth and comfort.

The International Monetary Fund had recently estimated that the cost of the crisis would be huge. In fact, preliminary forecasts estimated that the financial and social costs of the crisis might be even greater than originally suggested.

The only answer to the problem facing the world was greater regulation and control of the economic system. The IMF and the World Trade Organization should be provided with sufficient funds. They should also be charged with ensuring that such financial excesses were avoided in the future. Economic policies must include enlightened social policies which would stimulate economic growth rather than hinder it.

Reconsideration on substantial grounds of previously ratified credentials of the Ukrainian delegation (Rule 9 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure)

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – We are facing a situation whereby Ukraine, a member state of the Council of Europe, has not provided a full list of candidates and is thus represented in the European Court of Human Rights by an ad hoc judge. That is clearly not normal. However, it is also clear that annulling the credentials of the Ukrainian delegation would be completely disproportionate to the nature of the problem. It is not only disproportionate, but unfair. Let us remember that we have not annulled the credentials of Ukraine’s big neighbour despite much more serious problems. It is also worth noting that, in the case of Ukraine, the president and the government, not the parliament, are behind the problems.

It is therefore very welcome that the draft resolution proposes not to annul for the time being, and hence temporarily to confirm the credentials of the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation. That solution is a prudent compromise: Ukraine is reminded of its obligation, but disproportionate penalties against its parliamentary delegation are not applied – not yet at least; the compromise is clearly temporary and depends on Ukraine doing its homework.

Some statements in the draft resolution still seem too harsh, but that is largely a question of style and legal interpretation. The main message of the resolution is clear – everyone has to do one’s homework and respect the agreed rules. That is worth our support.

Wednesday 24 June 2009 at 10 a.m.

State of human rights in Europe: eradicating impunity

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – Allow me first to say how important it is that we spend this entire day discussing the state of human rights in Europe. The promotion and protection of human rights is the main focus of this Organisation, and we should never forget it. I should like to thank the rapporteur for this excellent report on combating impunity. We fully support it.

Today, there can be no impunity – no amnesty – for serious human rights violations. As the report rightly says, impunity is the very opposite of the rule of law. Where there is impunity, there is no justice or accountability. That is contrary to everything that this Organisation stands for. The concept of impunity as understood in the international legal debate on international criminal law is often seen in relation to the most serious human rights abuses, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I find it useful that the report also points out that impunity, or absence of punishment, for human rights violations is unacceptable and must be combated by all means. The investigation and prosecution of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is no longer a question of if but more of when and how. Perpetrators can no longer sleep safely wherever they are hiding: this is a new reality.

Historically, impunity has been the rule rather than the exception. On our continent, the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has ensured the investigation, prosecution and punishment of crimes committed during the war in the Balkans. The establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002 was historic. The perpetrators of mass atrocities can now be brought to justice when national systems are not able or willing to do so. This is the result of more than half a century of collective work by the international community. I hope for wider ratification of the Rome Treaty, including by the United States.

The report rightly focuses on conflict situations. It is true that during armed conflicts many serious violations occur and human rights protection is weakened. At the end of a conflict, many challenges and dilemmas may arise and the climate makes it difficult to achieve justice. Sometimes even people who are central to the success of peace talks may have perpetrated the gravest crimes. These challenges are part of reality. The two aims of peace and justice, based on respect for human rights, are closely interlinked. There is no durable peace without justice and no true justice without peace. It can be hard to achieve peace and justice at the same time, but we must strive to do so.

This is one of the most challenging tasks facing the international community. Bringing a climate of impunity to an end requires dedication and co-operation between actors who have international peace, human rights and justice as common goals. There is still a lot of work to do, as the report before us shows. The Council of Europe is one of the actors that can contribute to this important task. We can start this with the academic, Mr Cassese, who is a very practical man. Let us support him and put his proposal into practice.

Wednesday 24 June 2009 at 3 p.m.

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

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark). – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Holovaty, for his thorough work. During these past years, we have witnessed growing numbers of hate crimes and homophobia in some new and old member states. This morning we heard about the situation in Lithuania, but every year the gay pride parades in some member states take place under severe police protection. In addition, the progress that has been made in recent years on equality between men and women in the Scandinavian countries has lost its speed and in some areas there have even been setbacks, for example in equal representation in public and private boards. The financial crisis seems to strengthen this negative tendency.

The negotiation between Ireland and the EU has resulted in guarantees that the Lisbon Treaty is no obstacle to the Irish prohibition on abortion. It is necessary to underline the point that women’s right to choose has been underlined by this Assembly in several debates and resolutions. We should not accept that human rights can be separated from sexual rights. The Irish President’s answer yesterday on that question was a disappointment.

I want briefly to discuss two countries. First, I shall discuss my own country, Denmark. The report contains many roses but also thorns. I hope that this time the Danish Government will take the recommendation and critique seriously, instead of behaving like offended kids when the Council of Europe rapporteurs do their jobs.

We need to improve conditions for asylum seekers, especially where children or ill people are involved. It is unacceptable that Denmark plans to expel teenagers to Iraq, a country about which they know nothing – some of them do not even know the language. In fact, I think that the rapporteur has been very kind to Denmark.

The second country that I want to discuss is Turkey. It provides a unique connection between Europe and Asia, and it is home to a wonderful culture and history. On the request of the Council of Europe and the EU, Turkey has gone through great reforms in recent years, but it is important for all Europe that Turkey does not lose speed now.

There is urgent need to reform the outdated and undemocratic electoral system. The 10% threshold denies large parts of the Turkish people their right to democratic representation. That is especially true for parties representing the large Kurdish minority, which are met by harassment and oppression. One hundred and fifty-three members of the DTP were imprisoned this spring, and the DTP is not represented according to its votes and support. The rapporteur referred to the Assembly’s request to the Turkish Government to start the process towards the necessary changes to the Turkish Constitution. That request should be repeated here.

Finally, I call on you, my colleagues, that the parliamentarians in the Council of Europe make a special effort to emphasise the importance of European institutions and conventions. We cannot afford to rest on the results of yesterday or of our predecessors. Human rights are not just decided once and for all. We need an ongoing debate and development at all levels, if we are to avoid seeing our rights rolling backwards.

Europe’s forgotten people: protecting the human rights of long-term displaced persons

Mr GEORGIOU (Greece). – I shall speak in Greek.

(The speaker continued in Greek)

He said that the problems of long-term displaced persons were important and the rapporteur could not have chosen a more appropriate title for the report than “Europe’s forgotten people”. The Parliamentary Assembly had spoken out many times on the issue of displaced persons in 11 of the Council of Europe’s 47 states. People had been displaced for many reasons: forced occupations, outright war and “ethnic cleansing”. Some had been displaced for 35 years, such as the Greek Cypriots. Cypriots had had to flee their homes and their property and possessions had been appropriated. There were many aspects to the problem of internally displaced persons and Mr Greenway should come to Cyprus to witness those problems there. In Cyprus, there was a sense of bitterness that they had been forgotten by the Europe and the international community. Europe and the international community should stand up against the displacement of Cypriots. He hoped that this report would trouble still waters and not let sleeping dogs lie.

The functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – I might sound too positive this afternoon, but I am very glad that we have now received some positive democratic news from Armenia. As the report’s summary states, “The controversial amendments to the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations have been repealed, an investigation into the events of 1 and 2 March 2008 has started.” Those results are essential in order to build democracy in Armenia and they are what the Assembly was asking the Armenians to do. As we have seen this afternoon, there have been some “results”, whereas earlier debates were all about “claims” – so something really positive has happened.

Those results are essential for each Armenian citizen. They are important not only in terms of themselves, but for the democratic process, which must have taken place in Armenia and which I hope will continue.

There is no doubt that our colleagues from the Armenian delegation must have done good work together. It is not long since we discussed whether or not to take away their voting rights. In that debate, when we gave Armenia more time, I said that I hoped that politics in Armenia would be about how to solve everyday problems, and not a struggle between political elites. Furthermore, I said that it would be interesting to listen to the members of the Armenian delegation in this debate today. We have already made a good start this afternoon with real evidence of a willingness to achieve reconciliation. Today, we are putting democracy into practice by acting politically. I salute all who have contributed to progress towards better democratic institutions.

Today’s first debate was about eradicating impunity. We know that the two aims of peace and justice based on respect for human rights are interlinked. There can be no durable peace without justice; there can be no true justice without peace. It may be hard to achieve peace and justice at the same time, but we must strive to do so. That is one of the most challenging tasks for the international community. If we can put that into practice in Armenia, it will be an important victory for us all.

 We can consider the amendments to the report and examine the situation in the region in order to solve the problems. This report shows that that is possible. I congratulate the rapporteur.

Thursday 25 June 2009 at 10 a.m.

Debate under urgent procedure: The situation in Iran

Mr LEMPENS (Netherlands). – I am honoured to make my first contribution in this Assembly on such an important subject.

While we sit comfortably in our chairs in Strasbourg, talking about democracy and human rights, people on the streets of Iran are risking their lives and those of others, fighting for the very same principles. There is a great contrast between talking in freedom and fighting in danger. I think that we all agree that the people on the streets of Iran are real heroes – they are the hope for Iran. They stand up and say that enough is enough. They say: “We are misled, misused and abused, and we want to end this violation of our human rights and the total disrespect for our votes.” Huge crowds of people – hundreds of thousands of heroes – fill the streets and squares of Tehran and many other cities in Iran. They are supported by tens of thousands of people demonstrating in countries worldwide, including member states. I hope and expect that they are supported by delegates, as representatives of all European parliaments.

The only answer from the Iranian leadership is oppression and violence, and they are even arresting and killing their own people for doing nothing other than standing up to defend their rights. We have seen that happen on jerky images and videos on the Internet and on television. Journalists cannot do their job properly, as the Iranian mullahs do not want the world to see what they are doing to their people. Everybody here must agree to condemn the violence in the strongest possible way.

In the discussion on Iran, the disrespect of human rights and the elections should be the main focus. It is important to talk about the nuclear programme, but not now. We should not enable the mullahs to call our resolution just another form of “Iran bashing”, allowing them not to take responsibility for what is happening. Let us hope that the West, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, have learnt from 1952, when they staged a coup against Mossadeq, who was the prime minister who nationalised Iran’s oil industry. The West should not make such mistakes again, and should not try to misuse the protests to carry out an agenda based only on self-interest.

What is most important is that the people of Iran have stood up against the regime, despite the violence. The Group of the Unified European Left calls for massive and concrete support of today’s heroes in the streets of Iran. If we as a Council want to keep our right to speak, and if we take the foundations of our institutions seriously, we must at least support the opposition in Iran through this clear and strong resolution. That includes the obligation to offer every advice and support to the representatives of the opposition. We must make it a priority to meet them, as until now the mullahs’ regime has refused to enter into any form of dialogue with us. Now that the people of Iran oppose dictatorship, we have to give them as much help as possible in the struggle for human rights and democracy. Their struggle is our struggle – that is what we call international solidarity – and we expect the rapporteur to agree that the resolution must be a clear signal of that international solidarity.

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark). – I shall be as brief as possible.

It was a strange experience for me to listen to the previous speaker, who is of the right, and feel in total accord with the views expressed. I agree with what she said about women and about enhanced co-operation and dialogue.

It is not often that I agree with my prime minister in Denmark. However, yesterday, he said that Iran is a medieval system with a thin veneer of democracy and demanded new elections with the presence of international observers.

The Iranian regime has been intolerable for women from the beginning, and the situation has gone from bad to worse. The position is now so bad that even men react. My time is limited, but I missed the references to women in the report – I cannot say that it is a good report, but I will support it in the end. Where are the women?

Obama has made hope grow among the younger generation in Iran. They will no longer accept oppression and gender apartheid. They hope for changes; they hope for Obama; and they hope for us. Let us not disappoint them.

Modern media technologies have, in a way that is wonderful yet terrible, given us access to information about what is happening now rather than having to wait for months or years. That is a new democratic opportunity and development, and it is feared by dictatorships around the world from Iran to China – hope is growing. It is our duty to demand new elections with international observers; it is our duty to demand that Iran lives up to the UN declaration on fundamental rights; and, last but not least, it is our duty to demand equal opportunities for men and women.

I hope that the so-called critical dialogue with Iran will change into something more useful. The rapporteur asked for intensified contacts. I think that we should ask for changed contacts in terms of not only quantity but quality. Let us not disappoint the new hope.

Address by Mr Borut Pahor, Prime Minister of Slovenia.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – You may have heard that this Assembly, just before you arrived, unanimously adopted an urgent appeal to the Iranian regime to end its brutal violence against its citizens, who are now bravely protesting in Tehran and other cities against the decades-long mullah tyranny and the total disrespect for human rights. What more may we expect from the governments of Council of Europe member states with regard to the dramatic developments in Iran? What is your appeal to the mullahs in Tehran? And what is your message of hope to the citizens of Iran?

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Kox. I invite Mr Pahor to answer.

Mr PAHOR said that developments in Iran were of major significance to the future affluence of the wider region. The will of the people in Iran must be followed and Europe must help them realise their will. Pressure must be put on Iran to engage in dialogue with the West so that commonly beneficial solutions could be reached. The international community wanted dialogue. There was some optimism that, through discussion, a peaceful solution would be reached.

Thursday 25 June 2009 at 3 p.m.

The funding of public service broadcasting

Mr LECOQ (France) congratulated Mr MacShane and Mr Laukkanen on their excellent report. The media and television in particular, were vital in a functioning democracy. In fact, a free media was indispensable in a civilised country. It was important not to confuse “public broadcasting” with “state broadcasting”. The latter term tended to refer to the kind of operation normally only found in totalitarian states under the more or less explicit control of the executive.

Public broadcasting assisted democracy through the provision of educational content and services and impartial news and information. Its role could be strengthened in a number of ways. First, broadcasts should remain free-to-air. Secondly, diverse opinions should be explored and tested in terms of editorial policy. Thirdly, educational content had to form a major part of programming. Fourthly, the independence of public broadcasters had to be enshrined in the constitution or by other legal means.

National parliaments should control broadcasting budgets but, at the same time, broadcasters should have sufficient resources to produce quality programmes. The media market was a notoriously competitive one. The issue of how public broadcasters were funded was therefore a matter of hot debate. However, it seemed clear that funding should be given on a long term basis and it should not be dependent solely on ratings.

The future for broadcasting was not the absolute control of the media in the style of President Putin or President Sarkozy or Prime Minister Berlusconi. Rather it would be one where broadcasters were well-resourced, independent and impartial.

Renewable energies and the environment. Nuclear energy and sustainable development – joint debate

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia) – We all know that to sustain a complicated system, we need some input of energy. That is a simple thermodynamic truth. Yet there are always problems with energy use, and the more you use, the bigger the problems become. At one stage in our civilisation, it was probably necessary to use fossil fuels. It is now imperative to start to stop using them. There are two reasons for this – fossil fuel reserves are finite, and the ability of our environment, especially the atmosphere, to absorb the products of fossil fuel use is even more so. Of all the negative impacts of fossil fuel burning, that of carbon dioxide on the climate is clearly the most global. Hence, there is hardly any doubt about the need to wean ourselves off coal, oil and gas.

The two reports that we are debating today consider two alternatives to fossil fuels: renewable sources and nuclear energy. Before considering the detail of the reports, let me emphasise something that two colleagues have already said – energy saving is most important. No source of energy, whether renewable or fossils, can sustain inefficient energy use in the long run. It has been shown that investing in so-called “Nega-watts” rather than mega watts, is much better. However, the simple thermodynamic truth is that we still need some input.

I generally endorse the report on renewable energy. Some points could have been expressed more strongly, especially internalising the external costs of fossil-fuel based energy and the need to clear national planning in energy development.

I have many more doubts about the report on nuclear energy. I agree with what the rapporteur says, but when I read the report, I am more doubtful. First, the explanatory memorandum by the previous rapporteur is over-enthusiastic about nuclear power. Of course, the preamble makes the report more balanced. Fortunately, the draft resolution is not as enthusiastic about nuclear energy, but several statements are still too pro-nuclear. The draft resolution does not sufficiently address the risks of nuclear power. We must not forget Chernobyl. Unacceptable risks already exist. Some colleagues and I have therefore tabled several amendments to try to make the resolution more balanced.

I represent those who do not believe that the future of our energy sector lies in large-scale nuclear development. It needs to be stressed that the profits of large-scale nuclear development are usually reaped by private companies, while the risks and responsibilities have to be borne by the whole of society. However, I agree that, given the urgency of the need to cut our fossil fuel use, we must postpone phasing out nuclear energy. Therefore, I go half-way with the report – nuclear energy will play some part in the energy mix for some time.

Finally, let me reiterate a simple truth: if we are to maintain society and avoid environmental catastrophe, spatial and sectoral planning based on long-term vision is necessary, and it must give priority to energy saving and renewable energy sources used in a sustainable way.

Friday 26 June 2009 at 10 a.m.

The urgent need to combat so-called “honour crimes”

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark). – I thank the rapporteur for his splendid work. I am very sad that you are going to leave the committee, especially after you said that it is amazing that a subject concerning women is always put late on the agenda for a Friday. That gives women one day’s more work in this Assembly than most men. We should consider that a little bit. I am grateful to those of you who are still here to vote on this report, no matter if you are male or female. We have been able to move forward important issues in the report that we dealt with in our committee. The fact that there are no amendments shows how satisfied we all are with the work of Mr Austin.