Speeches October 2007

 

Monday 1 October 2007 at 11.30 a.m

 

Address by Mr Vujanović, President of Montenegro

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Mr President, you are most welcome in your role representing your new country. You said that the Government of Montenegro is co-operating fully with The Hague tribunal on Yugoslavia. The same was said by the Serbian Government, but we have not yet seen the main war crime suspects such as Mr Mladić and Mr Karadžić in The Hague. What more can you do with your Serbian colleague to ensure that those people appear before The Hague tribunal?

 

 

Monday 1 October 2007 at 3 p.m

 

Migration

 

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said that the increase of liberalisation and cultural exchange had resulted in increased permeability of borders. However, it was essential to question the causes of migration. Migration was rarely taken as a voluntary decision. The prospect of economic improvement or the necessity to escape from persecution or war were the most common triggers. Western industrialised nations often played a role in instigating these triggers. Migration was typically considered as an economic equation. However, it was essential to consider other related issues, including human rights. The urgent measures recommended in the report to combat racism and xenophobia were therefore to be welcomed. Consideration should also be given to the introduction of tougher criminal sanctions against human rights abuses and the harmonisation at European level of procedures for the naturalisation of migrants.

 

Tuesday 2 October 2007 at 10.a.m

 

Humanitarian crisis in Darfur

 

Mr KYPRIANOU (Cyprus). – Since our last discussion on Darfur, the situation has deteriorated even further. We welcome the decision to start comprehensive peace talks under joint African Union-UN leadership on 27 October in Libya. It is our strong belief that the crisis in Darfur is political and as such requires a political settlement. However, despite this having been reaffirmed by both the African Union and the UN Security Council, there appears to be a parallel attempt to impose the will of certain states through the use of the military in order to reach a solution.

On 31 July 2007, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1769 authorising the deployment of a 26 000-strong joint United Nations-African Union force in Sudan’s western Darfur region. Moreover, there is at present an attempt pursued by France for the speedy adoption of a UN Security Council resolution, amounting to an international deployment to protect civilians in Chad and the Central African Republic.

It is our strong belief that peacekeepers should not act as an intervention force. Additionally, we consider that the deployment of an EU military force would endanger the work of humanitarian NGOs in the area. The relentless insistence on the deployment of UN and EU troops demonstrates the degree to which international law and also the UN can and have been distorted in an attempt to accommodate the law of the strongest. Once again, the United Nations is being used as an instrument by certain states to satisfy their own political agenda. Such measures, however, will eventually jeopardise any possible peace agreement and fuel violence in Darfur and the neighbouring region. An additional problem is the fact that weaknesses inherent in the African Union have been exploited to serve the interests of third states.

If the African Union had the necessary funding, personnel and equipment, its contribution could have been positive for the continent as a whole. Instead, it appears that once again, third world countries, weakened after centuries of suppression, corruption and poverty, are being manipulated in order to carry out the whims and desires of the developed world.

One of the most important aspects of the crisis is the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Darfur, which from the very beginning has threatened the well being and the lives of all Sudanese. We therefore call for the immediate release of humanitarian and assistance aid for refugees and internally displaced persons. We call on all parties involved in this conflict to refrain from actions that may cause the situation to deteriorate, lead to more tension and violate human rights. We strongly condemn the attacks on humanitarian aid workers. We also condemn the clashes and the escalation of hostilities between Sudan and neighbouring Chad and urge them to work together to find an agreed and peaceful solution, respecting the right of all people.

Unfortunately, it appears that the focus is more on the deployment of a hybrid and predominantly military force with the belief that this will put an end to the crisis. As we have witnessed, however, a military intervention cannot stop the deterioration of a situation. Using force in an attempt to impose a solution will end up causing more insecurity, more pain and more suffering. The international community has an obligation to protect individuals, their inalienable right to life, peace, security and freedom. Such rights cannot be made dependent on the deployment of a military force or the use of force. We reiterate our belief that a political solution to the problems in Sudan will be more conductive to long term peace, security and, more importantly, help resolve the dramatic humanitarian situation which has been created.

 

Address by Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and all Russia

 

Mr SOBKO (Russian Federation) congratulated His Holiness on the recent reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia. He asked His Holiness what steps the Russian Orthodox Church could take, possibly in connection with the Vatican, to address activities such as abortion and euthanasia, which existed in Europe.

 

Tuesday 2 October 2007 at 3 p.m.

 

Address by Mr Vojislav Koštunica, Prime Minister of Serbia

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – When NATO bombed Serbia because of Kosovo, most members of the Group of the Unified European Left opposed it because we did not see war as a civilised way of solving problems. Nevertheless, Kosovo is a problem that has to be solved, and it must be solved by you. Do you agree that unilateral independence is not the way to solve it? How far will you dare to go to find a negotiated settlement for Kosovo, so that Kosovo’s past no longer blots the future of Serbia and Kosovo? How brave can you be?

 

Current affairs debate - on the looming crisis facing the European Court of Human Rights: urgent action needed.

 

Mr LAAKSO (Finland). – What should be done to get the European Court of Human Rights to function properly and what is its proper way of functioning? The Court’s main task is to implement the European Convention on Human Rights in all member states of the Council of Europe. As we know, the Court has a unique place in human rights mechanisms in Europe, because it gives all individuals in our member states the right to apply to it. That right is special, and there is no need to compromise that basic right. The proper way of functioning means that the right of appeal is genuine and can be implemented not only in theory but in practice, without interference or pressure by the authorities in any of our members states.

The Court’s role has changed completely over the years. When it was established, there were only 10 member countries that ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953. When my country, Finland, became a member of the Council of Europe in 1989, there were only 23 members in the Council of Europe. The nature of the cases in Court has undergone a dramatic change. In 1975, there were only 466 complaints to the Court. Today, as we know, there are about 100 000 cases, and the figure is still growing. That is a tremendous change. Naturally, we have to live with those changes.

There are many discussions and proposals to make the Court’s work more effective. My political group, the UEL, thinks that the streamlining of the Court’s activities should not take place at the expense of the basic right enjoyed by individuals in our member countries to apply to the Court. The opportunity to make an application is the Court’s strength, and there must be no compromises on that question. As we know, there are many complaints that the processes in our national courts take too long. Here in Strasbourg, we face the same problem if adequate resources are not reserved for the Court’s activity. The Court implements the rights of individuals in 47 member countries.

The budget of the Court is smaller than that of the court of the European Union. Our governments have increased resources for the Court, which, as we know, will be implemented next year. Frankly, resources will still be far too limited, and they must be increased in the near future.

The Court needs more resources to function properly. In the view of the Group of the Unified European Left, we cannot implement that policy at the expense of other duties of the Council of Europe.

 

Honouring of obligations and commitments by Moldova

 

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – As Mr Vareikis said, the report has an optimistic ring to it. I agree, but my line in life is to be optimistic about the future and realistic about the present. One of the positive things mentioned in the report is the economic growth in Moldova, which has reduced the number of people who live below the poverty line from 75% in 2001 to 24% in 2006. It is not an official figure, but if it is right, it is a big achievement. I hope that it is also to do with the politics of the government. Perhaps the committee can reflect on that.

The report says that many things are better. Mr Hancock is right: we cannot just look at the situation on paper; we must also look at the reality. There are developments in the broadcasting sector and the media.

On the other hand, however, there are many things still to do, as was mentioned in the report. I shall not repeat them except to say there is a great emphasis on local government – a great deal of attention is paid to that issue, which is remarkable if one looks at all the other monitoring reports. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, only a few months ago, local elections were held in Moldova. I want to ask the rapporteurs whether they believe whether the running of things on a local level creates a genuine obstacle to the democratisation of Moldovan society.

May I emphasise another issue? Moldova has been a member state since 1995 as I said, but it is still subject to the monitoring procedure after 12 or 13 years. We should all agree that that cannot last for ever. In real life, one cannot be a child for ever, and that cannot happen in politics either. We in the Council of Europe should not mix up the ending of a monitoring procedure with the desire to accede to the European Union. That has sometimes happened in the past, for example, in Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey, where the ending of monitoring was more or less used as a tool for accession to the European Union. I do not think that that is right. The Moldovan monitoring committee should consider what to do with the monitoring procedure if it takes too long. Is it realistic for it to last for ever or – this is my question for the rapporteurs – should we be more precise in our expectation of what the country involved should improve within a certain period to end the monitoring procedure? What measures should the Moldovan authorities take to pursue that opportunity and open the window to end the monitoring procedure? Can the rapporteurs be more precise and concrete on that question?

 

Mrs POSTOICO (Moldova) thanked the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for its support and assessment of the reforms in Moldova, and said that Mrs Durrieu and Mr Vareikis had played a special role as rapporteurs. Their report represented the situation in Moldova. Since its entry into the Council of Europe 10 years ago, Moldova had taken many positive steps closer to European values and standards. The Council of Europe needed to be aware of the facts to assess its progress.

The resolution welcomed the political stability that had emerged after the 2005 elections and its recommendations comprised a list of reforms for full compliance with the Council of Europe’s standards. The Moldovan Parliament had brought in a range of measures and implementing them was a priority for the Government. Over the last two years, the main achievement had been political stability, but work had also taken place on partnership with the European Union concerning Transnistria and the promotion of democracy, judicial reform, electoral legislation, freedom of the press and parliamentary procedure. The parliament had decided to publish a verbatim report of its proceedings on a website and now many other organs of the State were doing the same. The opposition had a majority in the central court and the central electoral commission.

There was still work to be done. In the autumn session of parliament, there would be legislation on political parties, education and other Council of Europe recommendations. In September 2007, Moldova had met representatives of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co–operation in Europe in Brussels to discuss corruption and to assess the progress made so far. This was an important issue. It was not sufficient just to have good laws, they also needed to be enforced. There were still some problems concerning judicial independence and the separation of powers, but the Bar Association would be given independence. She hoped that the level of stability achieved since 2005 would be maintained and that legislative reforms would be successful.

 

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia). – Let me first congratulate the rapporteurs on their thorough work. For me, the overall impression of the report is that Moldova is doing a great job and moving in the right direction. There are still several obstacles to be overcome but in most cases it is clear that Moldova is going to do it by simply continuing on the path that it is treading now – the path of democratic development. Most of the obstacles seem just items to be solved by continual adherence to its present course – that is, all obstacles but one. The one and only obstacle to be a significant challenge to Moldova is the Transnistrian problem. That problem is the most significant one because the solution, sadly, is not in the hands of the Moldovan authorities, however committed they might be to finding a way out.

The main cause of the continued crisis, I am sad to say, is the presence of the Russian troops – the so-called peacekeeping army in the region. As far as my knowledge goes, these troops have no legal mandate whatsoever. We therefore now face the situation whereby armed forces of a Council of Europe member state are illegally occupying part of the sovereign territory of another member state, and by doing so standing in the way of the member state in question in fully implementing the Council of Europe’s recommendations.

This absurd situation must be resolved and it must be resolved now. Russia has to withdraw its troops from Moldovan territory immediately. I therefore fully agree with the resolution and with Amendment No. 7, which urges Russia to withdraw its forces and arms from the territory of Moldova. I am sad to say that it again speaks in negative tones about Russia, but it is not meant just to be critical but to show the way to a solution. Of course, I would like to wish the Moldovana authorities good luck and incessant commitment to the democratic development of the country, so that what depends on them will be solved and solved fast.

 

Wednesday 3 October 2007 at 10 a.m.

 

Realising both economic growth and social protection in Europe in an era of globalisation

 

Mr JACOBSEN (Norway). – I pay tribute to the rapporteur for achieving a good balance between economic growth and social protection in the report. However, I should have liked the rapporteurs to give more consideration to environmental issues.

Economic growth has normally been perceived as a possible threat to the environment. We perceive economic growth as a necessity for achieving social protection because it gives each country the financial resources to provide it.

However, examples from Sweden and other countries show that economic growth and more jobs can derive at least partly from an active policy on environmental issues. I stress that because there are limits for growth, but, with the right policy, redistribution of goods and the environment can be taken care of in Europe.

In Europe, we buy cheap products from other countries. We also receive what many poor countries have in abundance: cheap labour. At the same time, we claim market access for our hi-tech products and all kinds of services that we want to sell. We also use billions of euros in export subsidies to get rid of some of the over-production in our agricultural sector.

On cheap imported products, we must ask whether we pay the right price for them or whether the bill is paid elsewhere. Could the environment be paying the price? Could poor workers, farmers or even children working in bad conditions be paying the price?

No to social dumping and yes to standards must be the answer. There must be a minimum wage and rights for workers, wherever they are, and at least if they become immigrant workers in Europe.

It is said that ideology is dead. However, a new one has appeared – “cheapism”. Everybody wants everything to be cheap. However, where is the price tag? Western Europe has become a buy and throw-it-away society. We have forgotten that good-quality products are good for the environment and that they also maintain and create jobs. If we start paying a decent price for coffee, tea and bananas from the Third World, those countries would have a better chance of escaping poverty.

Pascal Lamy, as a European Commissioner, gave trade preferences and market access to countries that fulfilled human rights standards and secured the rule of law. The United Nations Development Programme report, “Making globalisation work for people”, states that countries that protect themselves while building a national capacity to produce and develop technical knowledge have economic growth and therefore a possibility of reducing poverty, instead of letting free trade overflow the country with foreign products.

Empowering your own nation at the same time as opening up, step by step, free trade possibilities and market access for other countries will create a sort of partnership between nations, leading to sharing profit and technology development. If we do that and also ensure social protection, we can perhaps say that globalisation is good for everyone, whatever their background.

 

Address by Mr Abdullah Gül, President of Turkey

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – May I ask the former member of this Assembly, Mr Gül, whether he agrees that the President of Turkey did not quite give a clear answer to the question put by my colleague, Mr de Puig, about whether Turkey should respect resolutions accepted by this Assembly with regard to Kurdish rights? In Turkish, there must be a clear word for yes or no or perhaps for “perhaps”. As a former parliamentarian, Mr President, please give us a clear answer.

 

 

Regionalisation in Europe

 

Ms KONEČNÁ (Czech Republic). – I wish to express my opinion of regionalisation in Europe. I think that we all agree that regionalisation and improved self-government are essential and advantageous for all of us. However, we must be careful about the way in which we implement that.

Regionalisation must go hand in hand with the process of unification in Europe. How can we guarantee that? National governments may not be able to ensure permanent and effective state action throughout the entire territory. Self-government could be a solution.

How can we guarantee that regional government will fully respect national and European policy? Spain is a good example, where the Basque part prefers its own policy. Do we have local politicians who are sufficiently skilled? Some European states can experience problems with training regional politicians for their new functions. We do not know how to ensure that they all receive quality information.

We do not need to divide each country into more or less artificial administrative units to allocate European funds. That can easily be done but we must remember that in some cases changes can lead to separatist movements, and nations can develop problems internally and perhaps with international policy and relations.

I agree that there is less nationalism in states with a high level of self-government. Regionalism can positively change the whole of society. It was a characteristic of the Europe of former times and we can take advantage of that. Despite that, I am afraid that we must find the correct instruments for our future processes, which are still missing. We must watch out for possible separatist processes and an unbalancing of regions. I believe that we can achieve that goal, but we must remember that diversity, plurality and unification are the most important features of today’s Europe.

We must be prudent when we speak about regionalism; it is suitable when the citizens can benefit from regional policy, but dangerous when the aim of one region is to change living standards at the expense of its own citizens. In the light of the conflict in Kosovo, we must be careful about our modern policy of regionalism.

Regionalism should assist in the integration of Europe, protect the rights of nations and serve its citizens. Modern regionalism must be the instrument of humanism, not a source of conflict.

 

The OECD and the world economy 2007 (enlarged debate)

 

Mrs SINISCALCHI (Italy) thanked the rapporteur for the report, and said that she wanted to draw attention to the economic disparity that was being experienced at both international and national level across the globe. Although wealth was growing, its distribution was unequal and it was accompanied by the flouting of the rights of small producers, workers and women. The OECD needed to take account of this imperfect equity.

The draft resolution drew attention to the cost of maintaining a welfare system, but this should be considered an investment as much as an expense. She also wished to comment upon the inactivity within the current round of World Trade Organization talks. The Doha agenda had been stalled by the protectionism of developed countries, which sought to undermine the same protectionist philosophy in developing countries. Two issues of particular importance were the global fight against corruption and the provision of development aid in the areas of poverty reduction, food security and primary health care provision.

The Assembly was reminded that many people in the world survived on less than US$ two per day and a child died every three seconds because of poverty. Much more needed to be done to distribute wealth fairly and to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

 

Mr KESKIN (Germany) said that international migration was the most important challenge of this century. Over 200 million people were, or had been, migrants, and this number was rising. Migration was caused by a number of factors, including climate change and war. A significant number of migrants and asylum seekers who were searching for a better life lost their lives in the process. Recently, 8 800 people had died trying to get into the European Union. Those figures were provided by United Against Racism.

Globalisation did not respect individual dignity or human rights and there was no social cushioning. In 2006, the Council of Europe had debated the rights of clandestine migrants and concluded that a series of urgent measures was necessary. Countries needed to sign and ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Migrants and their Families as soon as possible. He welcomed the fact that this topic was being debated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. There were more than 15 million migrants in Europe who had the status of foreigners, but who made a major contribution to the countries in which they lived despite having no social or political rights. Dual nationality encouraged integration and the equal treatment of migrants. Migration needed to be factored into the debate on globalisation, and human rights needed to be the focus.

 

Political Dimension of the Council Of Europe Budget

 

Mr KOX (The Netherlands). – Our rapporteur is a native Dutch speaker and a liberal. Normally, those who speak Dutch and think liberal do not like to spend money on political bureaucracy. Nevertheless, this rapporteur asked for money and other means and measures to support the Assembly as well as the organs of the Council of Europe. Did something happen to Mr Wille? If not, something is happening to this Assembly and this Council of Europe.

As the rapporteur states, we are in danger. We could become the victim of a slow death because our governments run the risk of jeopardising the Council, the Court and the Human Rights Commissioner, as well as the Assembly. Governments that depend on our parliamentary support do not want to spend one more dime on the only genuine pan-European political organisation that concentrates on the vital matters of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

I have addressed this topic many times on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, but Cato did likewise. Sometimes that is necessary, so we will continue to raise the subject. Our group fully endorses Mr Wille’s worthwhile proposals to make requests to national parliaments and to urge national governments to act. Either national governments decide to get rid of the Council of Europe because they believe it is of no use and that the European Union is enough, or they decide that it is a vital pan-European institution. When meeting presidents of political groups in the European Parliament recently with other colleagues, I raised the matter again and it appeared that we could gain the support of European parliamentarians. I agree with Mr Wille that that is not enough, and that we have to do more. We must do our work at home.

It is easy to be speak here, but we must deliver at home. I agree fully with the rapporteur that we must be bad politicians if we take the opportunity to have a national debate with Foreign Affairs Ministers, deploy all the arguments that Mr Wille included in his report, but lose the battle. If that happened, there would be something very wrong with us or with our Foreign Affairs Ministers. However, I could not envisage a Foreign Affairs Minister who was that bad.

On behalf of the members of my group, I promise to promote a national debate on the budget for the Council, the Court, the Commissioner and the Assembly. I urge my other colleagues to do the same. Of course, we are not that important, but to lose this battle would be rather silly. When liberals and socialists agree, there must be something rotten in the financial state of this Council and we must do something to remedy that.

 

For a European Convention on Promoting Public Health Policy in Drug Control

 

Mr VAN HERVEN (The Netherlands). – Throughout history, people have used drugs or displayed addictive behaviour. It is a facet of mankind with which we must deal. More than 2 000 years ago, a tribe called the Batavians lived in the Netherlands. It seems that they drank a lot of beer and were gamblers who played dice, with their wives as a stake.

Times have changed, but addictive behaviour is always present. We shall never eliminate it completely, but the question is how to prevent it as far as possible. The Group of the Unified European Left considers the report on the European drug convention to be a good piece of work and is very pleased with it. It deserves to be widely disseminated.

I have been a general practitioner for more than 15 years and I emphasise the importance of the proposed measures on prevention and education, treatment methods, rehabilitation, social reintegration, and monitoring.

On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I want to highlight a few aspects of the report that struck us and that cannot be emphasised enough. First, it is clear that preventive action and treatment for problem drug use can be effective. For example, in the Netherlands we have a programme of harm reduction that works well. It is better for the people involved and also when one considers the matter financially. Every euro or dollar invested in opioid dependence treatment programmes yields a return of between four to 12 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and health care costs. One seldom sees such a dividend in business. Those data must be widely spread to stimulate countries to invest in preventive action on problem drug use. Let us not be penny wise and pound foolish in this matter.

Secondly, neo-liberal policy in different countries is leading to a hardening of attitude. Daily, one hears the sentiment that if people get addicted it is their own choice and responsibility. The answer is often the repression and punishment of addicts instead of help and compassion. Those marginalised and vulnerable people have a fundamental right to health care in the context of problem drug use. Furthermore, one may say it is people’s fault, but people’s actions are influenced by their circumstances.

Why do people use drugs? There is a relationship between addiction and poverty and people’s perspectives. People without a job, homeless people and those without money are more vulnerable to using drugs to forget their misery. Let me provide some Dutch data. People who are poorly educated smoke twice as much as highly educated people. In the Netherlands, 50% of addicts are unemployed, and one third to two thirds of the prison population are drug addicts.

We must invest in improving the social circumstances of addicts. There must be rehabilitation programmes for them when they leave prison. If they do not have a home and do not get a job or receive education, their chances of relapsing into addiction and criminality are high.

More generally, education, development, employment and adequate housing are the main instruments of reducing the number of problem drug users. We are convinced that, in a more healthy and stimulating environment, people will be healthier. A better society creates better people.

 

Thursday 4 October 2007 at 10 a.m.

 

Towards decriminalisation of defamation

 

Mrs MEULENBELT (Netherlands). – Mr President, dear colleagues, defamation and hate speech and the distinction between the two are a timely subject. Two days ago, we had in our midst a distinguished guest who compared gay people to kleptomaniacs. In European countries we have freedom of speech, which allows people to express such views even if they are not at all in accord with the principles of the Council of Europe. Luckily, freedom of speech includes the right of the majority of people in civilised countries who stand up for the rights of minorities to protest strongly against such defamation of gays and lesbians.

I thank the rapporteur, Mr Bartumeu Cassany, for a thoughtful and timely report, which has convinced the Group of the Unified European Left of the importance of making a distinction between laws to prevent democratic use of the right of free speech and laws that should prevent hate speech. Without a clear demarcation between those two, either we are unable to stand up for the freedom of journalists to be critical of the political situation in their country or we miss the opportunity to stand united against discrimination and hate speech against minorities.

We want the press to act in good faith and provide trustworthy information, but of course journalists are not scientists interested only in fact-finding; they select, they make choices and they comment. As the report states, they are the watchdogs of our societies. Using the pen and the press has always been the weapon of the people against dictatorship and oppressive or aggressive rulers. Journalists and commentators use their wit and we agree that a degree of exaggeration is permissible in satire, as long as the public is not misled about the facts. Restraint is required on the part of people in power; they should not strike back unfairly. On the other hand, those in power also have rights to defend themselves against defamation if they are accused unfairly.

It is a question of balance, and most important is the conclusion that measures taken against defamation should be in proportion. It is not permissible that governments use their power to punish disproportionately, as a means of frightening other people from using their right to free speech. Prison as punishment for criticising a person in power should be considered disproportionate. We completely agree about that.

We also agree with the rapporteur that incitement to violence and hate speech are different matters. It is important that journalists themselves draw up codes of journalistic ethics. We should spread the work of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance more widely in our countries; threats against a person or group of people on grounds of race, colour, language, religion, nationality or ethnicity, when committed intentionally, should be a criminal offence. My party thinks that is the important other side of the debate on free speech.

In many European countries, we are seeing the revival of a new form of xenophobia, hidden under the pretext of “criticism of religion” – I am talking of course about the fear of Muslims and Islam. Much needs to be done to refine our working definitions of what is permissible in the name of the right to free speech and what is not permissible because it crosses the line to hate speech.

The report provides us with an important step in that direction. Unfortunately, I shall be leaving the Council tomorrow but I hope that it will keep to the spirit of the report and continue the debate on where to draw the line on proportionality in what people are allowed to do, so that we can keep our democracy free of hate speech but free for criticism. Thank you.

 

The concept of preventive war and its consequences for international relations

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Last Monday, this Assembly refused to hold an urgent debate, at my request, on the political implications of the so-called missile shield that the United States wants unilaterally to install in the Czech Republic and Poland. Although my request was supported by the leaders of all the political groups, it was a democratic decision of this Assembly not to hold that debate. The argument, voiced by our colleague, Mr Frunda, who is no longer with us, was that it was not a matter of urgency and that it was not our business. That is democracy; this Assembly has the right to decide whatever it wants.

Coincidentally, we are now debating Mr de Puig’s report on preventive war, including unilateral recourse to preventive war. He says that it is important to discuss it because it is unlawful under international law. It entails considerable risks for international peace and security, and it undermines the United Nations Security Council. His report also states that a debate on preventive war is particularly timely considering the possible world reaction to Iran’s nuclear threat. One reaction to that threat is the construction by the United States of an anti-ballistic missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.

I do not think that anyone will blame me if I use this opportunity to focus especially on the element of the anti-ballistic missile shield in relation to the concept of preventive war. It is easy for me not to discuss the rest of the report because my group very much agrees with almost everything that the rapporteur says. It is encouraging to see that socialists in this Assembly, although they are divided between two groups, are still united on the vital matter of how to deal with the concept of preventive war.

The threat of creating a missile shield in Europe lies in the fact that, if and when it becomes effective, it gives countries under the umbrella of that shield far more ability to decide whether or not to start a preventive war. Let us remember that, before the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, it took care to ask its allies to cover the defence of its own territory. Of course, it is far too tricky to start a preventive war without having organised your defence.

It is the element of an ABM shield as part of the almost global protection of the United States and some of its allies that scares other countries so much. That is why the Government of the Russian Federation announced that it was considering the installation of new Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad near the Polish border and the possibility, fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, of once more pointing its nuclear force at targets in Europe. That is a disastrous development in our continent, and it seems strange to me that this Assembly does not want to acknowledge that it is happening. It is happening here in our continent, and the majority refuse to see it. That is very bad.

Does the rapporteur agree with my analysis that the concept of preventive war has a clear relation with that unilateral act of the United States, together with the Czech Republic and Poland, and that the installation of such a missile shield makes it easier for governments to consider the possibility of a preventive war? When we accept the excellent report of Mr de Puig, we also condemn those who try unilaterally to install such military means on the continent of Europe. If we agree on that, then accepting his report will mean that some justice is done to our request for an urgent debate, and everything is good.

 

Mr LECOQ (France) said that preventative war reminded him of the darkest times in human history. The idea of war was important to the ideology of the United States. It was this supposed doctrine that led the powerful to enforce their will on the weak. Preventative war was a form of structural domination. If a government did not bow to imperialist domination, then the United States reserved the right to attack it. The war on terror had flouted international standards. Prevention of terror was a clear point of human rights.

In the context of armed aggression, people frequently quoted using “legitimate defence”. However, the policies pursued by the United States and her allies had undermined the articles in the European Charter of Human Rights. Countries had committed themselves to finding peaceful solutions to conflict. Preventative war was the opposite of such resolutions. Also, there was a considerable economic benefit to those who promoted preventative war. He noted that international institutions had refused to intervene in some obvious cases and therefore denied the rights of the people of Zimbabwe and other nations. He concluded that the Assembly should push forward and reform the Charter of Human Rights.

 

Thursday 4 October 2007 at 3 p.m

 

Address by Mr H. R. Agung Laksono, next President of the Asian Parliamentary Assembly

 

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – I am proud that we have the Speaker from the Indonesian Parliament in our midst because he represents a big democracy while the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament only represents a dictatorship. Is the promotion of democracy and the rule of law a core business of the APA? What should be done about the countries in the APA that are under authoritarian rule or are even a dictatorship?

 

Prostitution – which stance to take?

 

Mrs MEULENBELT (Netherlands). – Yesterday, I tried to find data on how many men in European countries use the services of prostitutes. I know that the facts are there but I could not find them on the internet. Most reports on prostitution focus on the prostitutes, not their clients, although it is obvious that, without clients, we would not be discussing prostitution. Let us assume that half the male population has paid a woman or a man for sexual services at least once in their lives. Looking around the Assembly, that would mean that tens, even hundreds, of men know about prostitution from experience. Even if we accept that as a fact, I never hear any men whom I meet at events such as this one say that they had a delightful hour with a sex worker yesterday, in the way that they would describe a nice dinner in a good restaurant.

Mr President, perhaps you think that my remarks about the men present in the Assembly are highly inappropriate. If so, I apologise. I began my speech in that way because my comments are highly relevant to the report that Mr Platvoet presented. The fact that no man will proudly or matter of factly say that he visited a prostitute, but would regard that as a shameful thing means that prostitution as a profession is stigmatised, condemned and hidden. It is not likely ever to be regarded as normal work and let me be clear: we are not willing to accept that it should; that is not my goal.

I have apologised, so I shall start again in a more respectable manner. On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Platvoet, on a serious piece of work. I should also like to congratulate him on a personal level on being a true ally of women.

The report clearly describes the different approaches in different European countries, including their advantages and drawbacks, to dealing with prostitutes. One big problem that the report emphasises is that the women and men who offer sexual services are in a large variety of situations. There are extreme forms of exploitation at one end of the spectrum – women who are bought, forced and mistreated; at the other end of the spectrum, there is a relatively small elite who consider themselves to be totally in charge of their own lives and free to sell their services.

We have held debates on this issue for years. Even in the women’s movement, there were opposing points of view. On the one hand is the idea that prostitution is always degrading and that no woman with an alternative would ever choose to sell her body. On the other hand, some prostitutes refuse to be seen as victims and have started to organise themselves. It has never been possible to agree on one way of dealing with prostitution. We must accept that there is no single solution for the broad range of people involved in prostitution.

However, it is clear that focusing only on women as victims is no longer an option. We must examine the whole network – the traffickers, the pimps and the clients – if we want to better the position of prostitutes and view them as human beings with human rights to a life that is as decent as possible.

The report is clear about several matters. We should fight the trafficking of women and children, and forced prostitution under all circumstances. I agree with the previous speaker about that. We should be clear that child prostitution can never be voluntary. I agree that the focus should be on supporting women and men who sell sexual services by protecting their human rights as far as possible, reducing their vulnerability, providing support on leaving prostitution and offering social and health services. Condemnation and punishment will only stigmatise women further

 

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – Last week, on behalf of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, I visited a conference in Sofia about marginalised people – mostly sex workers. The Prime Minister of Bulgaria, a woman, opened the conference with a very good speech. People from all the member states of the Council of Europe were present – politicians, policy makers, doctors, scientists and sex workers themselves. I was asked to present my draft report, which we discuss today. It was good to see and hear that there was great support for the basic approach in my report: first, that member states should formulate an explicit policy on prostitution; secondly, that human rights are universal and that sex workers too should also be in full possession of them; and thirdly, that forced prostitution, child prostitution and the trafficking of human beings must meet a zero tolerance approach.

Let me go somewhat deeper into those three headlines. Why should member states of the Council of Europe formulate an explicit policy on prostitution? There are, roughly speaking, three approaches in member states – prohibition, legalisation and abolition. About a third of member states – 17 – prohibit prostitution, prostitutes and pimps alike, although not always clients. A substantial minority – nine – have legalised prostitution. Twenty member states want to abolish prostitution – they penalise procurers and pimps, and sometimes also prostitutes. Sweden’s near-abolitionist approach penalises clients, and tries to get sex workers out of the profession.

The big problem with the countries which prohibit or want to abolish prostitution is that there is often the practice of double standards – prostitutes are chased and criminalised, but clients are not. Having paid sex itself is not prohibited, but offering paid sex is. In many cases, sex workers do not have easy access to health care. And authorities, such as policemen, often show a male chauvinist approach towards sex workers, no matter if they are male or female, and there is often a misuse of power. So, no matter which approach a country takes, an explicit policy should be based on the principle of human rights, which should be effective and universal, including for sex workers.

As an organisation based on human rights and respect for human dignity, the Council of Europe should take a stance on prostitution which reflects its core mission. Basing one’s judgment on respect for human dignity does not mean taking a moralistic approach, however – it means respecting people’s decisions and choices as long as they harm no one. In my report I therefore concentrate on the human rights aspects of voluntary prostitution. That is the most human way to deal with people who are in a marginalised zone.

In many countries, prostitution is forced to go underground. As a consequence, organised crime more often than not becomes involved, and prostitutes are made more vulnerable. Most cannot work independently and become dependent on pimps and procurers, and are totally at the mercy of their clients, who may demand unsafe sexual practices that cause STDs, and HIV and AIDS. For that reason, international organisations such as the World Health Organization have abandoned moralistic approaches and instead have adopted a pragmatic one.

The principle of a human rights approach towards prostitution is reflected in the proposals in my report. The following measures should be taken in the context of an explicit policy of member states: stop the criminalisation of prostitutes; address the structural problems which may lead to prostitution, such as poverty, war or lack of education or resources; address prostitutes’ personal vulnerabilities such as mental health problems, childhood abuse or drug abuse; develop programmes to assist prostitutes to leave the profession if they wish to; ensure access to health care and safe sexual practices; and respect the right of prostitutes to organise themselves.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the draft resolution strongly condemn the trafficking of women and child prostitution. It is clear that, in these cases, one cannot speak of voluntary prostitution. It is also clear that the trafficking of women often has to do with forcing them to work as sex workers. The UN convention of 1949 addressed that – at a time when in no country in Europe was prostitution legalised. In that convention, and also in the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, it is written that all the states parties should take all appropriate measures to suppress trafficking and the exploitation of women through prostitution. It cannot be read as a suppression of voluntary prostitution or a condemning of legislation – otherwise, it would not be possible for countries such as Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, The Netherlands, Cyprus, Switzerland and Turkey to have regulated prostitution.

However, in the draft resolution and draft recommendation there is no plea for regulation, prohibition or abolition. The stance that member states should take is to acknowledge the human rights of sex workers, stop their criminalisation and empower them.

 

Mr PLATVOET (Netherlands). – Thank you, Mr President. First, I want to thank all my colleagues who took part in this debate, not merely from politeness but because they made strong contributions on most of the issues that I addressed. Several speakers, including Mrs Nakashidzé from Georgia, praised me for my courage in producing this report. However, having been a member of Amsterdam city council for a number of years, it is not very difficult for me to discuss this subject. May I tell Mrs Err, that it is not the case at all that I am idealising prostitution? She said, for instance, that there has been a clean-up in the red light district, but that is not quite the case. Criminal organisations owned 12 buildings where prostitutes used to sit in the windows. Those buildings were bought by a social housing company, and I think that that is a good thing. I want to stress that we can legalise prostitution but that does not mean that all the problems disappear. We need strong policy in many fields to prevent prostitution from going underground.

Some speakers have said that there is a thin line between voluntary prostitution and forced prostitution. I think that that is true, but there is still voluntary prostitution. Mrs Rupprecht, Mrs Graf and others emphasised that voluntary prostitution occurs, but that does not mean that the circumstances are always good. However, let us be honest about the issue. Consider someone who is engaged in very dull work in a factory for many years. That person also does not have the choice of doing other work. The issue does not only concern prostitution, because it is a more general problem.

Mrs Meulenbelt, Mrs Papadopoulos and Mrs Čurdová have pointed out – I strongly underline this – that women are not only victims and that we must empower them, which is part of our proposals. If we do so, it is important that we have a strong local government policy towards the pimps and criminals who are behind prostitution and, in particular, forced prostitution.

Some colleagues have emphasised the economic power of prostitution, given the sums of money involved. I have not paid much attention to that issue, because I want to emphasis that it is important to prevent prostitution going further underground. It is important that the member states of the Council of Europe follow the proposals, which will lead to a more open discussion and policy on the human rights of prostitutes

 

The dangers of creationism in education

 

Mr ROSSI (San Marino) said that, since 9/11, the western lifestyle had been attacked by uncertainty and crisis. The promotion of the theory of intelligent design was partly a reaction to this and could be seen as an attack on western, and in particular Christian, belief. The attempts within the United States and Europe to designate intelligent design as a scientific theory within the school curriculum was gravely unacceptable.

Although he was not able to evaluate the ins and outs of creationist ideas, he considered it to be an unpleasant philosophy. At the same time, the group which he represented was against the report and the draft resolution, which he considered to be ill-thought-out and reactionary. The recent Episcopal conference had discussed creationism in schools and had sent a message to members of the Assembly asking them to vote against the report.

It was important to teach proper structured science first and to expound religious beliefs in a separate and different manner. He hoped the Assembly would undertake a proper discussion on the subject and reach a balanced conclusion.