Speeches June session 2011

Monday 20 June 2011 at 11.30 a.m.

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

Mr HUNKO (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the United European Left. thanked the President and said that, following on from the remarks by Mr Gross he considered representative democracy to be facing a twofold crisis, not only within the neighbouring countries of the Council of Europe, but within its member states. In particular, Spain had demonstrated how there could be a knock-on effect in other countries. It was necessary to look at this crisis of democracy more closely, and that might be a suitable topic for a report.

In the recent elections in Turkey, there had been a high participation rate of over 80%. The elections were lively and electors had demonstrated a strong degree of commitment to the process. He had witnessed full polling stations. However there were some problems in the process, in particular the 10% hurdle. This continued to be a major issue and was noted in the report. There had also been many arrests before the elections took place.

He had been with a French colleague to Van in the Kurdish area of south-east Turkey. There he had noted that there were members of the security forces and other armed representatives at almost all the polling stations. This was a matter of great concern, and it should be factored into the report. There had been notable success by Kurdish candidates in the election, with 36 representatives elected. He would welcome a representative from that region to the Parliamentary Assembly, were it possible, and considered that it would help the democratic process in Turkey. In the municipal elections in Moldova, there had been problems with the lists. This should be looked at in the groups and the issue should be kept under review.

Monday 20 June 2011 at 3 p.m.

Communication from Mr Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– I have two brief questions on behalf of the group. During the Standing Committee meeting in Kiev, you agreed that one of the priorities for the Ukrainian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers should be to pay special attention to north Africa and the re-emerging democracies in the Arab world. Have you already managed to do something in this respect? Secondly, what is your personal opinion of the recent decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to ban the use of the red flag of victory against fascism? Do you not think this decision will contribute to the uprising of right-wing extremism in Ukraine, and give new ground and more arguments to the extremist political groups in your country?

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

Mr GRYSHCHENKO – Thank you for the questions, which return us to north Africa and to issues that we have been discussing today and in our meetings in the Committee of Ministers and the Bureau. The situation in north Africa and the Middle East cannot be anything but a major concern to member states of the Council of Europe, as this region is adjacent and it is an important energy supplier to Europe. The region comprises a number of countries that have long-standing links with Europe going back many centuries, and it is an important destination for European businesses and tourists. We are ready to act and we are already engaged in a number of projects there. The most important relates to the Venice Commission’s availability to provide advice on constitutional and electoral reform, and on areas where change would be timely for this region, to those who wish to gain from this experience. We have discussed opportunities for further engagement, but we also need to understand that the Council of Europe has a specific role and function, and other international organisations can supplement what we can do in this particular region.

As the Minister for Foreign Affairs of my country, I shall refrain from commenting on the decision of my country’s highest constitutional authority, the Constitutional Court. That is something that I shall not discuss, but which needs to be implemented.

Budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe; expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for 2012-13

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – Today, we in the Council of Europe are discussing the general reduction in the budget for 2012-13, and the expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly. The Group of the Unified European Left agrees to reforms that address the need to strengthen the political relevance and effectiveness of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly. If push comes to shove, we will also support rationalisation of the working structures of the Council of Europe.

However, we are discussing rationalisation and conditions of reductions that are already fixed, and that restricts debate and limits the possible outcomes. The total budget of the Council of Europe in 2011 is €217 million. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but the size of the sum is relative. If we compare its 2011 budget with that of the European Union, €217 million is not that much. The EU budget for 2011 is €127 billion – in other words, it is 585 times the budget of the Council of Europe. To put it the other way round, the Council’s overall budget is only 0,17% of the EU budget.

While we are confronted with reductions in our budgets for 2012 and 2013 after years of zero growth, the EU seems to be allowing its budget to increase by 4,9% in 2012 alone. That increase of €6,2 billion in one year is 29 times the complete budget of the Council of Europe. That is all the more interesting as the EU is in the process of acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is clear that the Union accepts the Council of Europe’s unique role in that respect, as all member states of the EU are also member states of the Council of Europe.

The Council of Europe is unique in respect of the values that it promotes – democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Council unites Europe with its values, but how much is it really worth? It is not for me to judge the budget of the EU, or the budget increase for 2012, but I note that only 1% of the EU’s budget is set aside for citizenship, security, freedom, and justice; 99% will be spent on competitiveness for growth, the internal markets, rural development, the EU as global player, and the EU administration. I do not say that that is not important, but allowing the EU budget to grow and freezing or even reducing the budget of the Council of Europe is a political statement. It has nothing to do with economic rationality. It is a choice to put so much less emphasis on the core values of Europe.

With the EU entering into the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights, and MEPs entering our Assembly, let us ask the EU member states – not the EU, but its member states – for just 1% of the annual growth in the EU budget. The EU will not even notice the difference, and our financial problems will be solved.

Tuesday 21 June 2011 at 10 a.m.

Request for Partner for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly from the Parliament of Morocco

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – In 2009, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe introduced the status of Partner for Democracy to organise structural co-operation with the parliaments of neighbouring countries to promote the Council of Europe’s core values. Today, for the first time, we will put that idea into practice, if we decide to grant the Parliament of Morocco this new status.

First, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, let me congratulate Mr Volontè on producing this important first report and on the excellent job that he has done, especially as we now realise that the Moroccan request may be the first of many. We have already received an application from the Palestinian National Council to become a Partner for Democracy, and we may receive similar requests from emerging democracies in northern Africa and the Middle East. Since 2009, the world has changed profoundly in that region. After the Tunisian revolution, we witnessed rebellion against authoritarian rule in Egypt and since then we have seen the same in many countries. The Arab Spring is the main event of this year – later this week we will debate the developments in Tunisia, Libya and Syria and in our autumn part-session, the Arab Spring will be on our agenda again.

In such an era, Partner for Democracy status might prove a valuable new instrument in assisting emerging democracies in northern Africa and the Middle East. That is recognised not only by the Council of Europe but by the European Union and even the United Nations. That means that this Assembly has a serious responsibility and we should not grant any parliament this new status for free. It should lead to real steps in the development of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Morocco is not yet a fully fledged democracy, as described in Mr Volontè’s report. It has a functioning parliament with a pluralistic party system, but much political power is still in the hands of the king. Democracy is only just emerging and authoritarian rule is still part of society. Recent promises have yet to materialise. It is therefore wise for the rapporteur to make a series of clear proposals and demands to our new partner. He suggests that we monitor the development of those demands very closely over the next two years. Our group wants to add one demand on the Western Sahara and so we support Amendment 3. Granting the status of Partner for Democracy is not the end but the beginning of a relationship and the standard should be the same for all following requests.

My group is in favour of granting the new status to the Parliament of Morocco, but we underline that it must live up to the expectations. We are looking forward to its structural participation in the activities of this Assembly and to the discussion on the upcoming report on the Palestinian National Council’s request next autumn. If we can be of any help in developing democracy in our neighbouring countries through this new form of co-operation, we will be able to congratulate ourselves on it.

Address by Mr Yanukovych, President of Ukraine

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– It is good to see you again, Mr President, answering our questions here. I have two to add. First, you spoke about the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights. Do you consider the recent decision of your Constitutional Court to ban the use of the red flag compatible with freedom of expression – the right that is guaranteed under that important Convention? Secondly, is your government really capable of tackling the ongoing dangers of the Chernobyl nuclear plant? Some 25 years after it exploded, it still threatens many of your citizens and those of neighbouring countries. Are you able to tackle this or do you need more international assistance?

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

Mr YANUKOVYCH said that the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine was legitimate and conformed with constitutional principles. No person or organisation would be prevented from flying the flag of victory that had been flown over the Reichstag at the end of World War II. The decision of the Constitutional Court underlined the supremacy of the rule of law in Ukraine.

On the issue of Chernobyl, the memory of this event was still very painful in Ukraine. The country was grateful to all those countries that had taken part in the Chernobyl conference that had been dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the disaster. During the conference, subjects of great importance to the international community had been raised. The construction of the containment barrier would ensure that the destroyed power plant would be made secure and allow for the removal of hazardous and radioactive materials that were still present below the site. According to the project manager, the construction of the containment barrier would give Ukraine 100 years to conduct this vital work. A total of €100 million had been raised but an additional €150 million still needed to be found to support this work. The funds that had already been secured were sufficient to allow the work to start and it was planned that construction would be completed by 2015. With help from the G8, Ukraine would be able to complete this task and the country would fulfil its obligation under the G8 agreement.

Tuesday 21 June 2011 at 3 p.m.

Situation in Tunisia

Mr LECOQ (France) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left - welcomed the excellent work of Mrs Brasseur on the future of the Tunisian Republic. Over the past few months, he had been particularly interested in the fate of the people of Tunisia and Morocco. The youth were the future of those countries. However he had been arrested and thrown out of Morocco before he had the opportunity to meet the youth of Western Sahara. He reminded the Assembly that Winston Churchill had said that democracy is when the door bell rings at 5 o’clock in the morning and it was only the milkman.

In Tunisia an unfair regime had been hidden and as its people were not going hungry, other governments had ignored the situation. However, the French Communist Party, virtually alone, had been aware of this situation and hadn’t abandoned the Tunisian people. More recently, Tunisia had proved its maturity and had passed a law on parity and western governments could learn from this progress. There was a responsibility to ensure that it was not only men at the top of electoral lists, and support had to be given to all parties to avoid men only assemblies.

He felt that there was justification for the postponement of the election date but warned that this could weaken the coalition. The West must give support, rather than just interference, including technical assistance as and when appropriate. There must be a fairer distribution of wealth and a balancing of the economy within Tunisia. The democratic revolution in Tunisia had astonished the world and sparked other revolutions. In France, Tunisian refugees had been welcomed just as Libyan refugees had been welcomed in Tunisia.

Asylum seekers and refugees

Ms O’SULLIVAN (Ireland) on behalf of the Group of the United European Left – I thank the rapporteurs for both reports, and I have taken part in the Living Book. When we talk about asylum seekers and refugees, we are really talking about a human rights issue. It is a human rights issue (a) that cannot be allowed to become tangled in economics, with countries saying that they cannot afford to take responsibility, and (b) for which all the countries of Europe should share responsibility.

It is easy for some countries to say, “It is not my problem, it is not my issue,” and leave the responsibility to the countries that the refugees and asylum seekers reach first, but that is morally wrong. The human rights of asylum seekers and refugees are far down the list of priorities in many countries, but it is the belief of the Unified European Left that this matter needs to be moved up the list of priorities for all European countries, so we very much agree with and support the principle of shared responsibility. But support for a principle is not enough – it must translate into positive action for refugees and asylum seekers.

Looking at Amendment 1, if people wish to return home, that is of course their right, but it cannot be because they have been held in such deliberately deplorable conditions in detention centres that returning home, even to danger and abuse, is preferable. Regarding Amendment 4 – without starting a name and shame game – if conditions in certain centres are below international standards, that must be highlighted and, more importantly, action taken.

Certain groups of asylum seekers and refugees are particularly vulnerable and need much greater protection than they are being given. This is a role for all of Europe. Children or minors, unaccompanied and undocumented, and young women provide potential for traffickers, and far too many have gone missing. Another vulnerable group are the elderly.

On the interception and rescue at sea report, appeals for rescue cannot be ignored, as has happened and led to so many deaths. We must all agree that “place of safety” also entails respect for basic rights.

Recent conflict situations in Libya and the Arab world are not a new phenomenon. Many of the situations causing people to flee have their origins in the European colonialism of past centuries, with many European countries carving out empires for themselves in Africa, Asia and South America with total disregard for the rights, culture, heritage, language and beliefs of the ethnic population. That is another strong argument for the principle of shared responsibility.

Every country in Europe has seen its sons and daughters leaving over the centuries. Those people have made massive contributions to countries such as America, Australia and New Zealand. The asylum seekers and refugees coming to Europe now can make similar contributions if we all share responsibility and give them those chances, rather than leave them languishing in detention centres.

Recent European decisions and European collaboration have caused and in some cases continue to contribute to the dreadful situations from which refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing in their countries of origin. So there is a need for a strong statement from the Council of Europe calling for an end to the war in Libya and to the persecution of men, women and children that is causing people to flee their homes. No one should have to leave their home.

Europe must lead by example with fair and just treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, and that is a responsibility for all the countries of Europe. If the situation were reversed, and we Europeans were fleeing Europe to find refuge in Africa, how would we feel if we met the conditions that refugees and asylum seekers face in Europe and heard that only certain countries were supporting us?

Mr LECOQ (France) congratulated the rapporteurs on two very good reports but confessed himself surprised by the defensive position of many countries on the subject and called upon the Council of Europe to show generosity and openness of spirit as its founding forefathers would have wished and as was in keeping with the spirit of European integration. He wished to stress that he was not some starry-eyed idealist. Indeed, when he walked around his constituency he saw examples of real poverty and housing problems, but he was aware that the media painted a picture of asylum seekers that did not always reflect reality.

In Europe, the situation could be ambiguous. The recent example of Belgium sending back an asylum seeker to Greece in contravention of his human rights was shocking and highlighted the need for a review of the Dublin system. He noted that the border control agency Frontex could not carry out its functions as it did not have sufficient personnel to do so and therefore he would support the resolution.

He spoke of a case-worker he had employed who was a French-speaking refugee from Paraguay who had been able to give very useful insights into the challenges facing migrants. He was delighted to tell the Assembly that his case-worker was now a government minister in Paraguay.

Wednesday 22 June 2011 at 10 a.m.

Living together in 21st-century Europe

Mr LECOQ (France) on behalf of the Group of the United European Left said that the question was not how to implement this report, which had already been discussed. The real question was: What was the point in this report at all? There was no added value and no real gain in producing this list of preoccupations that had already been heard many times before. He asked why so much European taxpayers’ money had been wasted on the production of this report and queried how many meetings had been necessary to produce this flabby and gutless collection of platitudes.

He was not certain why the Council of Europe had asked a group of former politicians to write this report. Was it because it was believed they would be able to give a more informed opinion? Members of the Council of Europe already knew the problems facing Europe’s citizens, which included poverty and xenophobia. What had these people done to address these problems when they were in power? Members of the Council of Europe were much better placed to provide this insight because they represented the vast majority of the people of Europe.

Was it believed that these people possessed some special skill? If so, why had they not come to the Council of Europe to present the report themselves? There were better people who could have been asked these questions, such as the indignant of Madrid. The report also failed to address the issue of the financial crisis and of economic government. A handful of bankers had deeply damaged the economy of Europe and there was now an unfair distribution of work. Financial government had replaced political government by elected representatives.

He wished to close on a humorous note. If the Council of Europe wished to appoint a Group of Eminent Persons again, the UEL Group would be more than happy to fill this role, and their report would not cost anything.

Address by Mr Sargsyan, President of Armenia

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – I have two questions to ask on behalf of our group. First, many people remember that when you were elected there was a lot of violence. Unfortunately, 10 people got killed. Has anybody been convicted? Secondly, the Bureau of our Assembly decided to create an Ad hoc Committee on Nagorno-Karabakh, according to Resolution 1416 of 2005. The committee contains the heads of the national delegations from Armenia and Azerbaijan. Without the participation of the representatives of Armenia, the work of that committee is useless. What is your opinion on the committee and your further participation in its work?

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

Mr SARGSYAN said that he agreed with the question; the Armenian delegation’s refusal to participate in the committee made it impossible for the committee on Nagorno-Karabakh to conduct its work. This was something the Assembly’s Bureau should have thought about before it established and then later resuscitated the committee without consulting Armenia.

It was unclear what the Assembly expected this committee to achieve. Nevertheless, the Assembly did play an important role in promoting peace and stability in the region. There were steps that the Assembly could take to improve the situation. For example, within these walls, the Assembly should encourage the Azerbaijani and Armenian delegations not to file reciprocal allegations at each other. This would promote an atmosphere in which a solution could be found through dialogue and was why it had been recommended in the 2005 report of the committee.

Some believed that the work of the committee had stopped because its chair, Lord Russell-Johnston, had passed away. This was not the case, as could be seen by reading documents or remembering what had been said. The committee had no access to the peace negotiations and possessed no institutional or historic memory so was not in a position to provide useful suggestions.

The Assembly had no mandate to intervene in the matter of Nagorno-Karabakh. The matter had been assigned to the OSCE Minsk Group, which contained three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. He could not think of a more credible body to discharge this role. He concluded that the committee would not produce a positive outcome and fully supported the decision of his delegation not to participate.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Kox on a point of order.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I think the President was going to answer the first question from Mr Petrenco.

Mr SARGSYAN (Translation) – Please remind me what the first question was.

THE PRESIDENT – Mr Petrenco, would you please repeat your first question?

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) – As many people remember, there was a lot of violence when the President was elected. Unfortunately, 10 people were killed. Has anybody been convicted yet?

Mr SARGSYAN said that it had been not just one person but many people who been arrested, including four police officers. He had gone into the details of the case in response to an earlier question. The reason the investigations had not been brought to a close yet was because not all the crimes had been solved.

Wednesday 22 June 2011 at 3 p.m.

Address by Mr Mladenov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – Frankly, I expected to hear more in your speech about the situation in Bulgaria. On behalf of the group, I want to put to you a question about the state of monuments in your country. Some, such as the monument to the Soviet army in the centre of Sofia, are regularly vandalised. The recent case, from three days ago, is one of the most shocking. What is your government going to do to protect our common European heritage and history, and to protect monuments from being vandalised and destroyed?

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

Mr MLADENOV – Thank you for that question. The Bulgarian Government attaches equal importance to all monuments to our history. We do not separate them into different groups or categories. What happened over the past few days in Sofia was an interesting attempt by some artists to reinterpret history. Some in our society agree with that attempt; others do not. The government has been quite quick in restoring the former state of the monument and will continue to protect it, as well as all other monuments, against attacks by extremists on all sides.

Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – This morning, the Secretary General spoke of the Council of Europe as “one of the leading European organisations” alongside the European Union. Mahatma Gandhi would have said “That might be a good idea.”

Indeed, it might be, but reality tells us another story. Just watch the European media and see how little they report the ideals, ideas and activities of the Council of Europe. I am aware that former President Martinez used to say that we should make not headlines but history. But I am more in line with my predecessor Jaakko Laakso, who always said that we should make history and headlines.

In order to achieve that goal, reform is needed – reform of the Organisation as such and reform of this Assembly. Today we deal with that aspect, described in the report, for which we thank the rapporteur and the ad hoc committee.

As we discuss this report, we have to bear in mind that whatever change in structure we implement, a change in culture is far more important. A Council of Europe, once meant to prevent new wars in Europe and guarantee peace and prosperity along the lines of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, can function properly only if people, politicians and governments in European countries share the idea that we should all seriously comply with what could be called the only true European constitution – the European Convention on Human Rights together with the European Social Charter. If we had an agreement in Europe that the rights and obligations mentioned in those two conventions should guide us all – people, politicians and governments – we would have a far better, more democratic and more social Europe than we do now. We would also have a better known and more relevant Council of Europe as our guiding organisation. This Assembly would also play a more important role as the parliamentary dimension of value-oriented pan-European co-operation.

The reality is quite different to what we preach and, in my group’s opinion, that has to do with the fact that there is a large gap between the words of the European Convention on Human Rights and the day-to-day policy of most of our countries. While we proclaim respect for human rights, they are violated day after day, as shown by the huge case load of the European Court of Human Rights. While we proclaim equality, social gaps and all other inequalities are becoming ever larger. While we proclaim democracy, more and more major decisions are being taken not by elected parliaments but by big companies and big capital. When heads of government meet at the weekends, they always conclude by saying that they hope that the almighty financial markets will react positively to their decisions on Monday. So long as such a culture continues, changes in the structure of the Council of Europe and of this Assembly will not help us to make history.

It is wise, nevertheless, to update our Organisation and our Assembly and therefore my group supports most of the proposals of the ad hoc committee. We ask the Assembly, however, to listen to the voices in our committees that propose that we merge our Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and our Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs without their being merged with the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. I propose that the Assembly should accept that amendment.

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece) on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. thanked the President and congratulated Mr Mignon and the ad hoc committee on the excellent work that had been done. There was a mistake in the current proposals but, if this could be corrected, it would result in an even better package of reforms. The mistake was the proposed creation of a mega-committee combining the Economic Affairs and Development Committee, the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee and the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. This would result in one mega-committee that had to deal with everything, but could ultimately end up dealing with nothing.

He supported Mr Mignon’s approach to examining this issue from a commonsense view and reflecting the reality of the situation that the Parliamentary Assembly found itself in. The social question continued to be of the utmost importance. The crisis in Greece was clearly rooted in unemployment and poverty and for this reason he believed the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee should be maintained.

However the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs Committee had agreed unanimously that it should be reformed and merged with the Economic Affairs and Development Committee. The issues of the economy and the environment went hand in hand and the Fukushima disaster showed the need to balance economic and environmental concerns. The merger of those two committees would send a message to the citizens of Europe that those two issues should be considered together.

The Assembly did need to make reductions in its budgetary expenditure. This might have been done by issuing fewer reports or by taking other technical measures.

He concluded by appealing to Mr Mignon and the ad hoc committee to support his amendments to merge the Economic Affairs and Development Committee and Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs Committee together, thus highlighting the links between the two issues, while keeping Social, Health and Family Affairs separate. A mega-merger should be avoided

Thursday 23 June 2011 at 10 a.m.

The state of human rights in Europe

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – The Unified European Left supports the reports. I would like to thank you for your statements today because we support them. To supervise and to secure the implementation of human rights and the Social Charter is very important and can be done in different ways in different countries. However, this advice is very useful to us.

Unfortunately, the main obstacles to implementing human rights, the Social Charter and social rights are not technical ones. It is a question of the political will to redistribute resources and power in society on the national and international levels and to promote policies aimed at reducing economic gaps in society. We must do that to fulfil our commitments, but there is a lack of will to learn the lessons from the financial crisis. If we do not learn those lessons, we will not be able to deal with this at a national level because it would take all our resources.

Human rights and social rights are the core values of the Council of Europe and that is why we deal with them almost every time we are here. It can be just a ritual, but it should be done in a way that really brings change. We are reinventing this every time, but some countries in Europe are cutting the same rights that we are talking about today. What is happening? Why are we not addressing the main resources that national governments and parliamentarians have to deal with those rights? While I see a real eagerness to cut back on social rights, I do not see the same eagerness to control and regulate the financial markets that are limiting national parliaments’ abilities to implement those rights.

Thursday 23 June 2011 at 3 p.m.

The political and humanitarian consequences of the situation in Syria and Libya - Current affairs debate

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – Measuring the humanitarian and political consequences of what is happening now in Syria and Libya is not easy. The authoritarian regimes of both countries allow neither observers nor journalists in the territories under their command. Nevertheless, it is clear that, due to the violence in both countries, thousands of citizens are seeking refuge outside their country. Only today, hundreds of Syrian citizens crossed the Syrian-Turkish border, after the Syrian army entered the border area near Khirbet el-Jouz early this morning. Since the beginning of the rebellion for democracy and against the regime of President Assad, thousands of Syrians have decided to seek shelter in Turkey. I applaud the willingness of the Turkish authorities and the activities of the Turkish Red Crescent to help those refugees.

In Libya, hundreds of thousands of citizens had to leave their home and their country, and had to cross the borders with Tunisia and Egypt. We should also applaud the solidarity of the people and authorities of both Tunisia and Egypt, who gave assistance after this great humanitarian disaster. We should ask our governments to inquire as to how our countries could be of any help to Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey, and Europe should offer shelter to those who have to leave their troubled country.

We know that in both Libya and Syria, tens of thousands of citizens have been arrested, and we have enough proof, thanks to the good work of Al-Jazeera, that many of them are brutally tortured, or are subject to degrading treatment. In the past few months, many brave citizens of Libya and Syria have paid with their lives for their wish to have their countries democratised. We owe our deep respect to all those brave women and men, many of them youngsters.

In Libya, the United Nations Security Council authorised the international community to use all means to protect Libyan citizens. It was and is clear that Libyan citizens need protection, but what seemed at first to be an attempt to guarantee that protection against shameful air strikes from Gadaffi’s airforce has developed into a daily series of aggressive air strikes against all kinds of targets in Libya by NATO. We now know that innocent civilians are dying as well in those air strikes. That painful development has led to urgent appeals from the Arab League, as well as from the Italian Government recently, to end the air strikes and to seek a cease-fire, as they are not – or no longer, at least – seen as contributing to a sustainable solution of the crisis in Libya.

My group supports the appeal for an immediate cease-fire, under international observation. My group also supports an investigation by the International Criminal Court of possible crimes against humanity committed by the Gadaffi regime.

Military intervention in Syria from outside the country has not been considered until now. Nevertheless, President Assad accuses the international community of fighting a war against his regime. He calls his citizens criminals, crooks, traitors and spies, helping foreign powers to overthrow his regime. Those who might have thought that the Assad family would perhaps now face reality have to admit that the Syrian regime has lost contact with reality and is living in a fantasy world. That fantasy world, however, is responsible for the nightmare in which millions of Syrian citizens have to live.

Nevertheless, throughout Syria, local and regional committees are co-ordinating ever better their struggle for democracy and against shameful tyranny. Fortunately, they get ever more support from solidarity movements outside Syria; we should complement those movements, too. In my contacts with representatives of the Syrian resistance, I have learned how important it is for them to get those signs of international solidarity. Perhaps the Assembly could assist the several supporting committees to develop the best possible structure for international co-operation and support.

We call on the regimes of both Libya and Syria to allow international observers and journalists to inform the world community of what is actually happening, as well as to allow international humanitarian aid and relief organisations to help all those citizens who are victims of ongoing violence in their country.

In October, we will again discuss developments in the Arab world on the basis of a report by Jean-Charles Gardetto. Many things could happen in the meanwhile, so we invite you, Mr President, to react, together with others and representatives of international organisations, whenever needed, to new developments in the Arab world in general, and in Libya and Syria in particular. The sooner the suffering in those countries ends, the sooner democracy can emerge.

More women in economic and social decision-making bodies

Ms MÓSESDÓTTIR (Iceland) on behalf of the Group of the United European Left.– Our attention is repeatedly drawn to the lack of progress on the issue of women’s representation in economic and social decision-making bodies. This lack of progress, especially in the private sector, is of great concern because everyone loses from the situation, not least in economic terms. Studies show that more gender-balanced company boards and top management positions correlate with stronger balance sheets, better performance and a more positive public image for private firms.

The rapporteur emphasises the need for various measures to be taken in the light of the wide variety of situations prevailing across Europe. For example, countries are encouraged to consider introducing a legal obligation for large companies to have a minimum 40% quota of women on the governing boards. The Group of the Unified European Left stresses that the legal enforcement of gender quotas at the company level has so far proven to be an efficient measure to ensure a more gender-balanced distribution of power. If, however, we are to resolve the dispute over whether or not to pass a law on gender quotas, we need more discussion to take place and we need more research-based knowledge about various gender equality measures and their impacts, including different forms of quotas.

Norway and Iceland have both passed a law to ensure that more women are on the boards of companies. In Iceland, private companies with more than 50 employees must have at least 40% representation of both genders on their boards by September 2013. Sanctions will be introduced if the 40% threshold has not been achieved in 2013. Norway and Iceland had different reasons for introducing gender quotas. Norway introduced them in 2004 as a matter of social justice, whereas Iceland’s main reason for introducing them was to prevent another financial crisis. After the Icelandic banking sector collapsed in late 2008, many people believed that feminine values would be capable of saving the country from another crisis. A study by Einarsdóttir and Pétursdóttir of the gender aspects of the banking collapse found that the pre-crisis financial sector had been governed by a small homogenous group of men, who rewarded each other on the basis of subjective evaluations. According to this study, Icelandic bankers looked out for one another’s interests, for example, by granting themselves and each other incomprehensible loans to allow their pyramid schemes to continue. Men were stars in this game while relatively few women were supporting actresses.

It was against that background that the law on gender quotas was pushed through by MPs from various political parties. Iceland’s financial crisis therefore turned out to be a window of opportunity for implementing progressive measures to promote equality. None the less, the crisis has forced even the most left-wing politicians to look the other way while costly gender equality measures, such as that on payments for parental leave, were cut dramatically as part of the International Monetary Fund’s austerity plan. The maximum parental leave payment is now lower than the average salary, and the proportion of men using the right to parental leave is falling.

Dear colleagues, if we take the path of adopting only low-cost equality measures that benefit just a few elite women, we will surely lose the general public’s support for the gender equality project.

Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the United European Left.– The Group of the United European Left supports the report and thanks the rapporteur for it. It is important and concerns one of the pillars of the Council of Europe, namely democracy. We can argue that voting is a human right: I think it is. However, we cannot argue that it is not an important part of the pillar of democracy. The UEL believes it is important to limit to a minimum the number of people who cannot exercise the right to vote. Minimising the number of people who cannot vote is an important principle.

Then we have the argument about who cannot vote and why. I have not heard good reasons why 16-year-olds should not vote. Compare them to people of other ages. Adults can make wrong and foolish decisions. They can be influenced, like young people, by extremists or, indeed, by anybody. Maybe my colleague from Bosnia is afraid that his children will be influenced by people like me, a socialist. However, young people can think for themselves, just like you, Mr President, me and everybody else. Grown-up voters vote for extremist parties throughout Europe. I am a little afraid of this, but I cannot say that those people should not vote.

I have heard it argued that if you allow 16-year-olds to vote, their school teachers will influence them. That is true, but that problem should not be dealt with by raising the age at which people are allowed to vote. We would have to raise it to, say, 25, because some young people today are still in school at 30. It should be dealt with by making it compulsory for every school to teach young people about democracy and political parties. The political parties must also make arrangements to meet young people and be where they are – for instance by using social media.

I also support the idea, which has been mentioned, that young people have responsibilities. They can go to work, pay tax, decide on their education and go to jail if they violate the law. Therefore, it is only logical that they should vote in the elections that will elect the people and political values that will take decisions on how to spend common assets, or create or change the laws that they must abide by. As the rapporteur said, some people think that young people should be able to assume duties but not to exercise rights. I agree with the rapporteur.

It has also been discussed that young people do not take an interest in politics; I do not think that is true. Young people are more likely to show their engagement in areas other than political parties. That is a challenge for us. Young people are active in NGOs, on environmental questions and in the field of anti-discrimination. Now we see them in North Africa, where they want democracy. The signal that we send now is very important. The UEL supports the proposal.

Friday 24 June 2011 at 10 a.m.

The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– On behalf of the group, I thank the rapporteur and those who are involved in preparing this thorough and comprehensive report, which reflects the full range of activities undertaken by the Monitoring Committee during the reporting period. We need to recognise that much work has been done; some positive changes can be noted in the committee’s work. The percentage of women among rapporteurs has increased to 30%, and procedural amendments regarding the term of office for the co-rapporteurs have been introduced. We should also mention that the committee has finally proposed a wise solution on how to pursue its work on the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia.

Monitoring is one of the most important tasks of our Assembly. The report emphasises the main shortcomings and some serious problems in many member states that are still being monitored by the Council of Europe. Elections and how they are organised are a major cause of concern in many countries under the monitoring procedure. I should mention the recent case of Moldova’s local elections. The electoral code was amended only two months before the elections. The new central electoral commission became totally dependent on the political decisions of the ruling alliance. There was a lack of trust in the electoral bodies and a failure to implement the electronic register of voters, as well as electoral tourism, numerous attempts to corrupt voters and the non-execution of the Supreme Court’s decision to ensure the secrecy of the vote on election day. Finally, there is today’s decision by the Moldovan authorities to suspend the licence of the only private television channel that is critical of the government. This all sounds incredible but, unfortunately, it is the reality.

To avoid similar scenarios in other member states, we must be very careful and react promptly to all cases when the authorities cross the line and reject democratic norms and the rule of law. That is why the monitoring procedure of some member states is as relevant as ever. We need it to ensure that the obligations and commitments of member states in joining the Council of Europe are honoured.

It seems absolutely disproportionate that eight of the nine amendments proposed to this report are exclusively concerned with Moldova. Monitoring procedures do not have to be limited only to the so-called new democracies. Fundamental rights and freedoms are violated all over Europe. The lack of real democracy, unfair electoral campaigns, censorship in the media and the violation of the right to freedom of expression and assembly apply not only to new democracies but to some of the old ones. We should review some of our monitoring mechanisms and extend them to western European countries as well.

Youth rights and youth employment

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– The Unified European Left is deeply concerned about the situation of young unemployed people all over Europe. They are, like the rest of us, covered by our social rights conventions. The social rights approach is important for the Council but it is also possible to take a different approach. Young people are the most valuable asset for any country’s future.

I come from Norway, which has oil and gas, and is a kind of island in Europe – a rich country with low rates of unemployment. However, its most valuable assets are its human resources, which represent 87% of our national assets, while oil and gas represent only 4%.

When the younger generation comprises an increasingly small proportion and the over-55s and over-60s comprise an increasingly large proportion of the population, that creates a problem for the assets of not only the country, but Europe as a whole. That is why we must safeguard each and every child and young person. They are important not only in respect of social rights, but because they are our most important asset. The gap between young people is widening; some of them are educated, have a job, are joining a global social community and have an interesting life and a good life expectancy, whereas others are uneducated and are not joining in with any of that. These two groups live in different worlds. That is even more worrying, because we need social cohesion. Having all kinds of differences in society, especially economic differences, is not good. Societies with smaller economic differences do better. That applies in all regards – health, education and working conditions.

An important policy approach lies in safeguarding small economic differences in our societies in order to succeed in those matters. Once such area is the labour market, where I commend Ms Karamanli on her approach. She set out the kind of labour market we have and what needs exist. We need to safeguard the labour market, labour conditions and the wages of working people, because one of the most important mechanisms is sharing money and influence equally and fairly.

In Norway, we also know that one of the most important mechanisms is sharing welfare in society; we need to keep high standards on this. It is not acceptable to say, “You are young and unemployed, so your working conditions can be lower.” That would be a bad lesson for young people to learn; it is not good for people to learn that you can treat young people that way. This is also not good for the country as a whole, which is why I am very concerned about the current situation.

I do not know whether we need a new convention, because this has been covered by the Social Charter. However, we will not vote against it and we will certainly examine the proposal. I do not think that what we need now is a long process towards a new convention; the need now is to take national action, both to provide remedies on education, child care and everything that colleagues here have spoken of, and to supply a policy that will safeguard the rules in the labour market so that we do not experience social dumping and so that our youngsters are not exploited all over our continent. Sometimes, people who are unemployed in one country come to Norway and our rich people are perhaps able to exploit young people from other parts of Europe. That is not a good situation for Norway or for anybody, so we need co-operation to deal with it. I know that some work is being done by the Council of Europe to tackle social dumping and its damaging consequences, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that work.