Speeches October session 2011

Monday 3 October 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 Unified European Left noted that Mr Marty had raised two important points about the responsibilities of the member states of the Council of Europe. He wished to contest the double standards displayed by some member states in, for example, feting Colonel Gadaffi until recently, but then performing a U-turn. Something should be done about such double standards.

The present economic crisis was causing considerable concern, and he received emails every day from German citizens concerned about the threat to democracy across the European Union. The Council of Europe was the body best placed to address that issue.

As a member of the ad hoc committee on the Turkish election, he noted that some observers had been to Ankara, some to Antayla, and others to the Kurdish regions of Turkey. Differing reports had emerged from different regions. While the process had worked well in some areas, observers in the Kurdish regions had found a host of problems. He was glad that the parliamentary crisis that had existed since 12 June seemed to have been resolved. Most of those who had refused to swear on the constitution, because of the situation of those elected while in prison, had now taken the oath.

The significant military presence in Kurdistan remained a problem. Hatip Dicle, a Kurdish candidate from Diyarbakir, had won an election but had not been allowed to take his seat. The problem of persons elected while in prison remained to be addressed, while the difficulty raised by the 10% threshold had already been mentioned. He thanked Mr Marty for his excellent report.

Monday 3 October 2011 at 3 p.m.

Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) – On behalf of the group, may I express serious concern about the functioning of democratic institutions in your country, Minister? Ukrainian authorities are not the only ones to persecute opposition leaders and limit a series of fundamental rights and freedoms. That is characteristic of a number of member states, especially the so-called GUAM – Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova. However, that should not be an excuse for any member state. What real steps are the Ukrainian authorities going to take to avoid the persecution of political leaders in the future?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Petrenco.

Mr GRYSHCHENKO – Dear colleague and member of parliament, you have a very good Ukrainian name: there are many Petrencos in Ukraine. I am referring to your name because whether we are Ukrainian, Moldovan, or of another nationality, the standards and goals of democratic development are dear to us all. I wish to share with you my belief that sometimes an impression is reproduced in statements by people who hold different views. What is important in Ukraine and what is specific to the current stage of our development is exactly the opposite of the thrust of your statement. There is a desire to make sure that institutional changes are introduced in society to provide strong and serious safeguards against the abuse of office and any attempt to suppress a particular position. I should like to invite you to come to Ukraine and participate. It is not my call, but if you agree, you will see that the opposition has ample opportunity to deliver its messages and influence society. It is only one of the instruments there.

Let me stress our position on GUAM. This is an organisation with an important regional mission to promote economic development and provide a platform to exchange views on social reform. Not all the experiences of other members of GUAM are relevant to Ukraine, but we will study carefully, for our own benefit, a number of important positive reforms that have been introduced in other GUAM member countries. The progress seen in each country might not be as effective as we or other friends might like, but I have seen with my own eyes and can verify the difference between Moldova five or seven years ago and now.

Prenatal sex selection

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) On behalf of the group – I thank the rapporteur for her important and, as some colleagues have said, tricky report.

The Group of the Unified European Left strongly underlines the importance of the right to and possibility of a medically safe abortion, as well as maternity care and the right to reproductive health for women and girls. We must keep in mind that thousands of lives of women and girls are lost where those rights do not exist. More lives of women and girls will be lost if the right to a safe abortion is limited due to the consequences of development connected to prenatal gender selection.

It is important to address the root cause of prenatal sex selection, which is the lack of equal rights and respect for women and girls. That can be stopped only through real equality between genders and not through technical advances. Medical techniques for selection are available, and they should certainly be used under law. There is also the question whether such techniques are available with or without public financing. However, it is not possible to prohibit existing knowledge.

The issue is not about the right to know the sex of a child or about the right to choose, because it is not possible to deny people access to available information. We must stick to the principle that only the woman can make a decision about an abortion. We cannot stop prenatal gender selection by denying people medical information. Gender selection can be stopped only by a real change in cultural, religious and ethical values.

As has been said, we must address this matter as a human rights question. To those who are not interested in gender equality, I say that equal societies do better on everything that matters, which is another good reason to promote gender equality.

Tuesday 4 October 2011 at 10 a.m.

Request for Partner for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Palestinian National Council

Mr KOX (Netherlands) rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee – Thank you very much, Mr President, Mr Speaker of the Palestinian National Council, Mr Secretary-General of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Mr Minister, Mr Ambassador, dear colleagues from Palestine and other dear colleagues.

Today, I present a draft resolution regarding the request of the Palestinian National Council to become a Partner for Democracy with this Assembly. It was unanimously adopted by the Political Affairs Committee on 6 September in Caserta, Italy.

The draft resolution that I present proposes to grant Partner for Democracy status to the Palestinian Parliament, because the PNC’s request meets both in form and in substance the requirements laid down in Rule 60 of our Assembly’s Rules of Procedure. If the Assembly accepts this proposal, the Palestinian Parliament will become the second parliament after the Parliament of Morocco to which we have granted this new status.

In his letter to the Assembly in which the speaker of the Palestinian National Council makes his request for partnership, it is stipulated that the Palestinian Parliament is committed to the same values as those of the Council of Europe. These are pluralist and gender parity-based democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental values.

In the same letter, the Palestinian Parliament commits itself to maintain the de facto moratorium on the death penalty; to make full use in its institutional and legislative work of the experience of our Assembly and of the Venice Commission; to make favourable conditions in holding free, fair and transparent elections in compliance with relevant international standards; to encourage equal participation of women and men in public life and politics; to encourage the competent authorities of the Palestinian National Authority to accede to the relevant Council of Europe conventions and partial agreements; and, finally, to inform this Assembly regularly on the state of progress made in the implementation of the principles of the Council of Europe.

With these commitments the Palestinian request meets the formal conditions set out in our Rules of Procedure. The Assembly had already decided, on 4 October 2010, that the Palestinian National Council would be an appropriate partner; nevertheless I welcome the announcement of both President Abbas and Speaker al-Za’noon that the structure of the PNC will be modernised and democratised in the near future.

During my fact-finding mission to Palestine, accompanied by João Ary of the Secretariat, to whom I owe a lot of gratitude, I had the opportunity to meet all relevant players, and I thank my Palestinian counterpart for that. I met Speaker al-Za’noon of the PNC and all factions in the Palestinian Legislative Council, as well as President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad and other members of the Cabinet, one of whom was the Minister now here with us.

I was also able to ask the main trade unions, women’s organisations, human rights organisations and others for their opinion on the partnership, and they all advised me to propose that the Assembly grant this new status to their parliament. Many were convinced that the commitments of the Palestinian Parliament, supported by the Palestinian Government, will give people in the Palestinian territories new opportunities to develop further a democratic society based on the rule of law, with respect for human rights and fundamental values. In that context, the request meets not only the formal requirements, but the aspirations of the Palestinian people, and that I think is the most important thing.

During my fact-finding mission, and afterwards in several meetings with the Palestinian delegation here, it was said time and again that the Palestinians’ aspirations are much hindered by the enormous problems of foreign occupation and internal division. Solving those is a prerequisite of a sustainable future for any Palestinian state and its citizens. I therefore hope that the negotiations between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian National Authority will soon resume, and that the reconciliation agreement between all political factions in Palestine will be implemented as soon as possible.

The granting of a partnership is the beginning of a new relationship which has to be developed in the forthcoming months and years, so the resolution mentions a number of specific issues of key importance in strengthening democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The formation of a new government and the organisation of parliamentary and presidential elections within the year are crucial, but other important issues need to be considered such as guaranteeing media pluralism and freedom, and freedom of religion and belief, and guaranteeing freedom of association and peaceful assembly, the rejection of the use of terrorism, the fight against corruption, and the strengthening of local and regional democracy, as well as the abolition of the death penalty. All those issues have been properly discussed with our Palestinian colleagues and are mentioned in the draft resolution.

Although the request is the sovereign right of the Palestinian Parliament, I was happy to be able to inform the delegation from the Knesset to the Assembly about the matter in a very constructive way. I was pleased that in Caserta, after the Political Affairs Committee adopted my draft resolution and explanatory memorandum, the representative from the Knesset made a positive evaluation of the proposed resolution. I hope that the participation of the delegation from the Palestinian National Council as a Partner for Democracy in the work of the Assembly will promote co-operation between the parliamentary delegations from Palestine and from Israel in the Assembly. Of course, I hope that we soon see an end to the Israeli occupation and the emergence of two viable democratic states with secure borders – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and prosperity.

Only 11 days ago, President Abbas applied in New York for full UN membership for the state of Palestine. That is now in the hands of the Security Council and thereafter in the hands of the General Assembly. President Abbas’s request was said to be historic and to be the beginning of the Palestinian spring. On Thursday, President Abbas will come to our Assembly and explain why his government has made that UN request. He will react, too, on the new relationship between our Assembly and his parliament, which we might also describe as an historic event. That new partnership also fits in with the Arab Spring, in which new democracies are emerging.

Recently, we have applauded the democratic developments in Africa and the Middle East. Later today, we will debate Mr Gardetto’s report on the matter. By opening the possibility of a Partnership for Democracy between those emerging democracies and our Assembly we have indeed put our money where our mouth is. In one year, since the beginning of the Arab Spring, we have been able as an Assembly to receive, investigate and grant that new status to two parliaments in the Assembly if the Assembly approves the draft resolution. By doing so, I am convinced that we will pave the way for other European and international organisations to develop new relations with those emerging democracies, after a period in which for far too long Europe and the international community too often supported authoritarian governments in North Africa and the Middle East. We now have a chance to show that we are really on the side of democracy in our neighbourhood.

In conclusion, a Partnership for Democracy is a mutual agreement. It grants rights and obligations to both partners. The Parliamentary Assembly must assume that we make it possible for our new Palestinian colleagues and the Palestinian Parliament as such to take full advantage of that new partnership. I invite our colleagues from Palestine to keep us to our part of the deal, as we will keep them to their part of the deal and their obligations, because only then will we become real Partners for Democracy.

Mrs GROTH (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.congratulated Mr Kox on his impressive report and hoped that the Assembly would give its approval.

She agreed with Mr Hancock that European governments should recognise the Palestinian state and fight for its recognition. Governments of European and non-European countries should work to ensure that that would come to pass. In particular, Angela Merkel had a part to play in that process, which was the only way in which a major step could be taken towards peace in the Middle East.

Some scepticism was necessary, however. The Government of the United States, for example, had warned the Palestinians that any attempt to bypass negotiations with Israel would have an impact on aid provided by the USA. The American and German Governments had said that resumption of negotiations with Israel was a pre-condition of recognition of the Palestinian state. Negotiations had been taking place for 60 years; but without a satisfactory outcome. In the past year, the number of Palestinian houses destroyed by the building of Israeli settlements had doubled. There were plans to uproot 30 000 Bedouin houses from the desert. Houses in one village had been razed 26 times. All that had an effect on the morale of the Palestinian people, some of whom she knew personally, leaving them with feelings of despair, helplessness and hopelessness.

Israel, along with the European Union and the Council of Europe, had a legal obligation towards the Palestinian people. Israel ought to be aware of its responsibilities and should be held to account for its actions. A message should be sent to the United States that a threat to reduce aid was tantamount to blackmail. The draft resolution should be endorsed, and would contribute towards peace in the Middle East.

Ms KANELLI (Greece) – Thank you for giving me the opportunity to congratulate Mr Kox. I am not speaking in my language because I come from Greece and, as you know, it is in the middle of an international crisis. Greek people are paying a very high price, plus they are losing part of their independence.

We have different cultures and currencies in Europe, the theatre of the Second World War, where a wall has been brought down, where there have been concentration camps. We are being asked to accept a partnership between the Palestinian people and our European democracy. It is the least we can do. As Europeans, we are already late. We should have done more for the Palestinian people and we should have done it earlier.

I am 57 years old. I have been in the area as a journalist. I was 12 when the Six-Day War started. I felt the terror then and I am feeling the terror now. We should not go for the equation of the oppressor and the oppressed. We cannot meet our obligations by saying that in this way we will have equal rights for the victim and the oppressor. We have to be honest. We give the Palestinians instructions on democracy. Give me an answer, dear colleagues: can any Palestinian these days be sure about his address? Can he have an address, so he can go to a court? We can tell them how to create courts to give justice to the Palestinian people, but they can lose their address, their house and their rights any time, any day, if there is a new settlement.

We should have been more courageous here. I congratulate Mr Kox. He is a realist. He did the best he could do to get unanimity, but let us not tell ourselves that we did everything. We are now starting to do something. We should ask our governments to go to the UN and overturn the American veto and the other vetoes and start a new world with two nations living in peace in Palestine. That is what people expect from European nations and parliamentarians.

We should be more courageous. Otherwise, we will put a price on the blood of the people in the region. We do not have an independent Palestinian state because there is oil and natural gas there. The Israeli blood has a higher price than the Palestinian blood. That is not a partnership. The partnership should be with all the people: their blood should be worth the same. We beg for the soldier to be freed. I agree with that, but we should press the authorities to free Palestinians who are in prison because their blood is cheaper than that of the Israelis.

I have been given awards for my work on anti-racism and anti-Semitism in fighting racism throughout Europe. It was the Israelis who gave me that prize, so I can speak about the price of blood. Let us be courageous and give the Palestinian people what they need: freedom and a state. Freedom and justice will follow.

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – Thank you, Mr President, and thank you, Mr Kox, for your excellent report.

I congratulate the members of the Palestinian National Council on this historic day, when their request for Partner for Democracy status with our Parliamentary Assembly is being discussed. I congratulate them also on the results so far, as they have convincingly presented their request with our rapporteur and shown the many steps that they have already taken to get ready for the big step today. I hope to be able to congratulate them further, at the end of this debate and vote, on their accession to our Assembly as a true and full Partner for Democracy, not only because it will mean that people in Palestine, in their early spring, will be able to enjoy one of the first nice days of the year ahead and see one of the first blossom trees bloom in a while, but because I am convinced that the people of Palestine will benefit from this partnership.

Will the rapporteur, Mr Kox, enlighten us on how he sees this step in relation to the Arab Spring in other countries in the region? Will he tell us a bit more about what that spring and, especially, this proposed Partnership for Democracy mean to the people? What effects is it likely to have on civil society organisations and on trade unions, for example? I know that Mr Kox also talked to representatives of those organisations while conducting his fact-finding mission in Palestine.

Many speakers have already pointed out that a partnership is a mutual commitment, and that with the credit for what has already been achieved comes the responsibility for what still has to be achieved. The report makes various recommendations in that respect, and I fully trust the Palestinian National Council to do its utmost to live up to our expectations.

It has to be said again that this partnership is only a first step; many more will follow and have to follow. It is an important and happy first step, however, and I therefore look forward to engaging from our side in the partnership, as I am positive that our Assembly can contribute to and assist in extending the range of our core values – democracy, human rights and the rule of law – to the people in Palestine, if the Palestinian authorities are also willing. I therefore invite the Palestinian National Council to engage in the partnership as well.

Let us be on our way to further steps and to further recognition, but first let us celebrate this important and special day – and a new partnership.

Mr KOX (Netherlands), rapporteur – I shall begin with our colleague, Mr Ghiletchi, from Moldova. The report gave him the opportunity for the first time to compliment a member of the UEL. If it is of any use, at least for him, I hope that that will be the beginning of a new tradition. I agree with another colleague, Mr Díaz Tejera, that I am not here to represent a political group. I am a rapporteur on behalf of the Assembly and of the Political Affairs Committee, and I produced a report following the request from Speaker Al-Za’noon for the PNC to become a Partner for Democracy. That is how the Assembly should function.

I owe many thanks to dear colleagues, especially those who spoke on behalf of the five political groups and who showed, in the words of Mr Clappison, that it is possible for the Assembly to speak with one voice. As Andy Gross said, it is a day on which we have a common message for the Palestinian people: yes, we more than welcome you in the Assembly as a new Partner for Democracy. I am proud that the Assembly exists and that it can speak with one voice on the important matter of partnership with our Palestinian friends.

Many colleagues highlighted relevant issues with regard to Palestine, what is happening in the region and so on. We heard about the occupation and the blockade. We heard about political prisoners. Members spoke about the difficult democratic process. Many of you mentioned internal divisions in Palestine. Those are all important considerations and they are all very difficult. However, it is my true conviction that when we want to deal with Palestine as politicians there are no easy answers. It is very difficult, and I praise politicians in Palestine for being brave in this difficult situation and for trying to find new ways of reaching the common goal of a sovereign democratic state for Palestinians.

I pay special tribute to the head of the Israeli delegation. Although I said that this was a sovereign request from the PNC to the Assembly, it was of great help, in Caserta and at other times, to hear Mr Avital say that from the Israeli point of view, it was an important step that could contribute, as many of you told us, to better relations between the Knesset and the Palestinians. Mr Eldad is not in the Chamber any more, but it is his right to say whatever he wants. However, as the Assembly has shown, it is possible for a parliament to speak with one voice. We find that the Knesset can do that on this matter at least, so thank you very much Mr Avital.

Mrs Beck spoke about the problems in Gaza, and I address them in my report. The first nine parts of my proposals to the Palestinians deal more or less with Gaza, but I do not mention a specific group or political faction in my report because I am addressing the PNC, which is our partner. To make it clear, Hamas, too, supports the request. Finally, to answer Mr Elzinga, the most important thing is that the request meets not only our requirements but the aspirations of the Palestinian people. I am sure after our fact-finding mission that we have that agreement, so I tell our colleagues from Palestine that we welcome you as our friends and let us co-operate together.

Tuesday 4 October 2011 at 3 p.m.

Co-operation between the Council of Europe and the emerging democracies in the Arab world

Mrs O’SULLIVAN (Ireland) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– The terms “Arab Spring” and “emerging democracies” are beautiful words. They are positive and uplifting, but they will not be worth the pages they are written on unless they translate into meaningful action and we see real democracy at work.

It is rather ironic that, at a time when we see glimmers of hope for countries that have been deprived of democracy and human rights for so long, in Europe we see increasing threats to our democracies. On the one hand, the real concern in some countries such as my own is that we are handing our sovereignty to the International Monetary Fund and to the European Central Bank etc., and being dictated to about what is best for our country and our people. On the other hand, there are countries from the Council of Europe where elected members are prevented from taking their seats in their own parliaments, and where there are serious human rights abuses and issues for certain ethnic people, so we in Europe need to consider what we understand by democracy.

Undoubtedly, the popular and mainly peaceful protest movements are welcome and overdue, because people long subject to tyrannical rule have said and are saying, “Enough is enough”. Fear is the enemy of democracy, and those people got to the point of no longer being afraid. Now, they will no longer put up with abusive behaviour by their police, their military or their government; they will no longer put up with economic hardship, especially in countries of economic growth where such growth was and remains in the hands of an elite; and well educated youths will no longer put up with being deprived of opportunities to develop their education, skills and rights.

The people of Eygpt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain and Morocco have initiated steps towards political transformation at great cost to themselves. I am thinking of the group of doctors from Bahrain, many of whom were educated in Dublin, who have paid the price.

We have seen the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law being upheld, or at least attempts being made to uphold them in the countries associated with the Arab Spring, and it began with the action of Mohammed Bouazizi in Tunisia on 10 December, who had had enough, been humiliated enough and been denied enough, and, when his only means of livelihood had been taken from him by a repressive power, doused himself in petrol and set fire to himself. We see also what he set fire to symbolically, however, and in his memory I hope that it is real democracy, with equal rights for all regardless of sex, creed and ethnicity, and where freedom of expression is respected.

Tunisia’s commitment to gender balance in parliament is to be welcomed, but some electoral lists may preclude this, and there may be a democratic deficit. We cannot assume that democracy will become a reality overnight, but it will be if the dominant countries in Europe, and the United States, Russia, China, etc. are also committed to real democracy and do not use what is happening for their own political or economic advantage.

I, like others, question the legitimacy of what happened in Libya, but that is not to condone the repressive actions of Colonel Gadaffi – the same Colonel Gadaffi who was feted, wined and dined by many countries in order to secure deals on oil. Where were those countries when it came to appalling human rights abuses in countries that do not have oil or wealthy resources?

As the report concludes, Europe must be ready to step up to the mark. An effective way of doing so, in support of emerging democracies, is to commit to tax justice if such countries are to become masters of their own destinies and not puppets of superpowers or multinational companies. One worldwide NGO reckons that $160 billion are lost by developing countries due to unscrupulous multinational companies dodging tax. So, one way of supporting emerging democracies would be to leave those countries in control of their natural resources so that they might be used for the benefit of the people, with a requirement that multinational companies file financial reports on a country-by-country basis, and with an end to transfer pricing. The people of the emerging democracies must benefit from the Arab Spring. The Council of Europe has a role to play in supporting those democracies, because we must ensure that one dictatorship is not replaced by another.

National sovereignty and statehood in contemporary international law: the need for clarification

Mr HUNKO (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left congratulated Mrs Schuster on her excellent report, which addressed a complex and difficult subject. Those familiar with German politics would know that it was not common to see a member of the left-wing group congratulate a liberal, and this demonstrated the sincerity of his words. On the subject of military intervention, he wished to mention three examples: Cyprus in 1974; NATO intervention in Yugoslavia in 1990, and Russian intervention in Georgia in 2008. For the left-wing group, the war in Yugoslavia in 1990 was of critical importance. Ms Schuster had questioned the right to protect and asked if it had been abused in Libya. The Committee’s report would help to establish greater clarity in such matters. The right to protect should not be used to legitimise military intervention, regardless of consequences. The report and the contribution of the Political Affairs Committee were welcome.

Wednesday 5 October 2011 at 10 a.m.

The activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2010-11 (enlarged debate)

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece) on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs congratulated the rapporteur. He was pleased that Mr Gurría had accepted the invitation to address the Assembly and congratulated him on the 50th birthday of the OECD.

The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs welcomed the report of May 2011 on green development, but had a number of concerns. In recent years, policies on environmental protection and climate change had been merely words on a page, with no real action taken because of the economic crisis. It was, however, possible to resolve both the economic and the environmental crisis at the same time. The committee would participate in the World Water Forum in 2012, but the goals of the previous forum had not yet been achieved. Many people in the world did not have access to clean water at a reasonable price, and as a result many suffered from malnutrition and from diseases that had once been eradicated.

In 2008, in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers bank and the collapse of capitalism, promises had been made about changes to the way in which markets functioned. OECD countries had saved banks by taking money from taxpayers, but those taxpayers were paying for the mistakes made by their governments. Some said that if levels of taxation for the rich were not cut, no jobs would be created. There was, however, a vicious circle in which countries entered into greater and greater levels of debt and recessions grew deeper and deeper. Mr Gurría should admit to any mistakes that the OECD had made. It was imperative to combat casino capitalism. Although it was customary for debates in the Assembly to be good-natured and diplomatic in nature, the threats to the global economy made it necessary to say that the OECD must accept its responsibilities.

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – Thank you, Mr President, and thank you, rapporteurs. On behalf of UEL, I, too, welcome Mr Gurría as our parliamentary guest in this Assembly.

I could share my views on the multiple crises, but I have done so in the past few years, and I am confident that Mr Gurría will remember previous debates in the Assembly. In the past two years, I asked him to rethink some OECD policies and advice, and this year, we received a written reply, for which I express heartfelt thanks. This year, I will ask just five questions, to which I hope to get direct answers.

First, on the financial markets, OECD member countries have had to save many financial institutions in order to prevent systemic meltdown. Such action costs states and taxpayers dearly. Now the same financial markets that failed us terribly hold our member states hostage. Is it not about time that political leaders took the lead, instead of anxiously keeping their eyes on the stock and bond markets? What can we do to control the financial markets and make them serve us again?

Secondly, one possible instrument to discourage financial speculation is a financial transaction tax. I would support the rapporteur in orally amending the draft resolution to include an encouragement to OECD to explore options for introducing a financial transaction tax. What can OECD do in that respect?

Thirdly, on the euro crisis, is the further €110 billion rescue package for Greece intended to help the Greek people or the banks of Germany and France? Is it not time to admit that we can solve the Greek tragedy only if we restructure the debt? Will we solve the Greek debt problem or someone else’s asset problem?

Fourthly, regarding the austerity debate, on the other side of the Atlantic ocean some influential institutions and Nobel prize winners warn Europe that austerity measures suffocate economic recovery. Will OECD please help to point out to our European leaders the most recent academic insights?

Fifthly, on harmful tax practices, according to OECD, tax havens no longer exist. Recent research shows, however, that my own country, the Netherlands, is part of most tax planning routes of transnational corporations avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes elsewhere, and contributing significantly to tax competition. Will OECD continue to combat harmful tax practices? As Mr Gurría always generously hands out reports in the Assembly, I will pay him back by bringing with me an equally interesting report on the issue when I visit OECD next Monday.

Finally, I happily accept Mr Gurría’s offer to work more closely together to find structural solutions.

Wednesday 5 October 2011 at 3 p.m.

Combating “child abuse images” through committed, transversal and internationally co-ordinated action; and Violent and extreme pornography (joint debate) – resumed

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– Thank you, Madam President. The fight against child pornography is increasing but we still need to do more for, as in many other cases, prohibition creates black markets and only extinguishes the tip of the iceberg. Trade in child pornography and its victims is a growing black industry, closely connected to other illegal economies such as drugs, arms and trafficking. These big black markets are a threat not only to the direct victims but to stability and democracy.

Good cross-border co-operation between the police and civil society has uncovered networks of child abusers and dealers in child pornography. In Denmark, 20 000 attempts to open websites containing child pornography have been stopped in one year. This has been made possible by co-operation among the national police, the telephone company and Save the Children. However, has this resulted in an end of child pornography or sexual abuse of children? Hardly.

We have to fight abuse of children in all its forms and in many ways. The best way is to train police, social workers, teachers and all others who work in fields related to children or in environments that have a connection to marginalised communities. Non-governmental organisations often play an important role in areas like this. Therefore, we should urge member states to co-operate with NGOs, such as Save the Children or the Red Cross. The Council of Europe One in Five campaign must be supported in all COE countries.

I thank the rapporteurs and the committees for the reports.

Mrs ANDERSEN (Norway) – Child abuse is certainly very harmful. Indeed, it is tremendously harmful to those who are affected, and of course it is also a grave violation of a child’s human rights. It is therefore very important that we deal with it. The United Nations special rapporteur said that we needed a co-ordinated, multi-sector and international approach to this very serious question. That is right, and it brings me to the next point in my speech.

Such pornography is very profitable. There is a lot of money in it, so international action is required to stop, monitor and police it, and as a penalty we should strip people of its profits. That is necessary if we are to stop such activity and the black market that really makes it possible and profitable.

My next point is on the Lanzarote Convention. Everybody should ratify it, but importantly it should be implemented and brought into force, because many countries have laws, reports and plans to do things, but there are no police resources dedicated to training or to the time required to go into such cases. I am afraid that such laws will therefore not help children.

I am also convinced that we need international action on the ground, involving teachers, children and a campaign to make children aware and more competent at protecting themselves. However, children should never have to be responsible for protecting themselves. We must certainly educate them about their right to say no, but we must never think that that is going to be enough, because they cannot protect themselves. We adults, politicians and authorities are the ones who have to protect them, both in our own countries and through international co-operation.

The impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Council of Europe

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – May I extend to Kerstin Lundgren the compliments of the Group of the Unified European Left on her comprehensive report? It deals with two important matters: first, how to promote more coherence between the two big European projects, the Council of Europe and the European Union; and secondly, how to develop common space for human rights protection under the European Convention on Human Rights. Those are very important matters, as Mrs Lundgren states in her report.

Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, it is no longer a matter of if, but of when and how the European Union accedes to the European Convention on Human Rights. In that context, the European Union fulfilled a longstanding wish of this Assembly. I remember that we had many motions on the issue and excellent reports from, for example, my compatriot Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc. Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty also, the obligation to accede now exists, and it is therefore up to us, meaning the European Union and the member states of the Council of Europe, to take care of a quick and smooth accession, given that saying that you have to accede to the convention is easier than acceding to it because you said you would.

At the beginning, clearly the ever-present danger was that if politicians, governments and parliaments were not able to guarantee a smooth and quick accession, our beloved eurocrats would take over and guarantee a slow and complex accession. From the outset, we had the clear conviction that accession would take place quickly. I remember that Secretary-General Jagland said that it would be quick and smooth, but we have already postponed it twice.

Peter Omtzigt says, “Yes, we know the accession treaty is there, but it should become a real treaty,” and I agree with him and with Kerstin that we should urge our new chair, the British Government, to ensure that the treaty is signed during its presidency. Clearly, we will place eternal blame on them if they misuse the situation and do not ensure a quick signing, because we know that in many countries there are some legitimate objections to the Court, but we should not allow our governments and politicians to abuse that and hinder the quick accession of the European Union to the Convention. So, this is an open invitation to our new Chairman to ensure that at some point during their chairmanship the treaty is signed, because only when it is signed will I believe that we have that accession.

The functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – May I thank both rapporteurs most sincerely for the work that they have done for quite a number of years? Monitoring, in the opinion of my group and, I think, in the opinion of the Assembly, is an essential part of the work that we do. It is not the most delightful part. We all know how difficult it is to get access to the country that we monitor – not only physical access but access to people’s minds and hearts. It is often a slow and tough process to get things changed. There are many hurdles and there are always many disappointments, but nevertheless the rapporteurs continued their work and, as John Prescott said, achievements were gained – not everything that we wanted, but at least there were many achievements.

People have been released from prison, which is great, and there is some freedom for people to demonstrate, which is great too. Structures have changed or are changing. The President of Armenia is co-operating with efforts to establish an impartial investigation into what happened in 2008, and I must compliment the rapporteurs. The decisions will be made by the government and the parliament – it is always the country concerned that must make the changes – but thanks to your work and to the Assembly’s tough stance in 2008, we helped to develop those improvements. We must be grateful for that because, without any intervention, things would be worse. I therefore express genuine thanks. On the other hand, we should take care, as we are not sure that the changes will prove sustainable. The Internet allows us to see what is happening in Armenia, which is still a complex society. We see that there have been rallies of the Armenian National Congress and demands from the Republican Party of Armenia for the police to intervene. There is at least a danger that what happened in 2008 could be repeated. I am glad, therefore, to hear the rapporteur say that the monitoring process has not ended. It is fine to read in a summary that we can close a chapter, but on Armenia, given the discussions we see on the Internet about genocide and so on, we can never close the book.

I thank the rapporteur again for the good work that is being done and I hope that it will continue.

Thursday 6 October 2011 at 10.a.m.

Abuse of state secrecy and national security: obstacles to parliamentary and judicial scrutiny of human rights violations

Ms FRAHM (Denmark) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – It is not easy to follow Mr Marty. This is my last speech in this Assembly but at least it is on one of his reports – indeed, the last report that he will put before the Assembly.

In a true democracy, the state belongs to its citizens. None the less, parts of the state are still kept out of the normal democratic system and in most member countries they are given tools to work without democratic control.

Most of us agree that the secret services are important. We recognise that they must work in secrecy. However, particularly in the last 10 years, the fight against terrorism has in too many ways limited the right to privacy and it has meant that member states have violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

The United States has abused European airspace by flying people to illegal prisons, where they have been submitted to torture. Many of those people have disappeared. Council of Europe member states have closed their eyes to those activities.

There is a growing need to strengthen parliamentary supervision of both civilian and military services to ensure that secret services do not turn into states within the state and develop cultures of impunity, as the report points out. Unfortunately, recently, many member states have displayed a lack of will to live up to their obligations. Mr Marty describes in the report how the Council of Europe has received useless answers – if any answer at all – from member states that have been asked about their role in secret CIA activities. Instead information has come through whistleblowers and persistent journalists. It is important that all member states protect journalists and whistleblowers. WikiLeaks confirmed the allegations about illegal acts by the USA and a number of Council of Europe countries. It was the unwillingness of European governments that prevented the truth from coming out years ago. We must learn from that experience. As parliamentarians we have a strong obligation to protect people from the abuse of secret illegal acts under the guise of fighting terrorism.

I thank Mr Marty again for his report and hope that all members of the Council of Europe will read it, which will be useful.

Address by Mr Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and President of the Palestinian National Authority

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– Mr President, this week we welcomed the Palestinian National Council as a Partner for Democracy with this Assembly, and I congratulate us and you on that. The Assembly also sent to member states of the United Nations Security Council a clear signal to support your bid for full UN membership. What can this Assembly and the European Parliament, which has sent the same signal, do to convince the Government and Parliament of Israel that accepting your bid for statehood and changing the situation in that way is not a danger but a chance for Israel? What can we do to persuade our Israeli friends to support your proposal?

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

Mr ABBAS said that communication was very important. They maintained communications with the Israelis through official channels and through other parties to clarify that there was no contradiction between them going to the United Nations Security Council and achieving peace. It was very important for Israel to achieve peace with the Arab world. If the Council helped to clarify these issues with Israel, they would listen to the Council.

Thursday 6 October 2011 at 3 p.m.

Current affairs debate: How can Council of Europe member states come to aid of countries touched by humanitarian catastrophes such as those in East Africa?

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – I am glad that colleagues from all political groups have stated their commitment to aid, despite the difficult times that many European countries are experiencing. We are obliged, whatever economic crises we face, to provide aid when people are starving. I am glad that we are unanimous in supporting that goal.

I wish to underline our commitment to immediate action. As many of my colleagues have stated, millions of people have been affected in countries such as Somalia, which has not had an effective government since 1991. In spite of fear, a depressing lack of progress and great danger to aid workers, it is important that we provide help. The situation in Somalia became even worse after a suicide bomber killed dozens of people near a government compound two days ago.

Despite all those problems, it is possible to reach the refugees, and we have to do so. I wish to make five points, which are similar to the three made by Mr Çavuşoğlu. First, there must be immediate action to provide aid. Secondly, we need an early warning system if we are to take swift action. We knew about this – we knew that drought was coming and that there would be starvation, but nothing was done. It is possible to create an international mechanism so that we can take action to prevent the worse scenarios from arising. Food can be allocated, stored and distributed.

Thirdly, we must help to create local sustainable economies. It is important that we support the development of local and regional markets on the ground in these areas. My own country, Norway, was built on local markets. We traded with other countries, but we were allowed to protect our markets and grow. Now, many of those countries have to face world markets, and they cannot compete, so we have to provide space for competition, enabling them to manage their own economies and develop.

Fourthly, we must support the building of functioning states by ending tax injustice, which prevents governments from having an income. International companies do not pay any tax. Income must be allocated to the nations that need it, so that they can be helped to cope. Fifthly, as my colleague, Mrs Lundgren, said, we must not neglect the scary consequences of the climate crisis. New scenarios will arise as a result of climate change, and predictions of a climate disaster in Africa and the Middle East were made yesterday by a research institute, which said that in the worst-case scenario this area could become totally uninhabitable, creating up to 400 million climate refugees. What we have now is a small-scale crisis in comparison with that scenario.

The situation could be handled better, and Ethiopia has dealt with the crisis a bit better than Somalia, because it has wealth and some food stores – it has done something. It is possible, but we must take responsibility. Finally, equal societies do better. As my colleague, Lord Anderson, said, we have to support women, because that will develop every society.

Debate under urgent procedure: the political situation in the Balkans

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– When the Political Affairs Committee asked Mr von Sydow to volunteer as rapporteur, it was clear that we would be dealing with some of the most difficult cases in Europe. It is important that this Assembly deals with such cases in time, because with the Balkans and the Caucasus we are often too late. When there are worrying developments in the western Balkans, it is important for this Assembly to discuss what is happening and what can be done to avoid the situation deteriorating. I therefore thank the rapporteur for preparing this debate.

We cannot forget what happened 20 years ago in this area, which is so close to all of us. We cannot forget the siege of Sarajevo, the bombing of Mostar and events in Srebrenica. Equally, we cannot forget the war in Kosovo and, as we recently discussed here, the illegal trafficking of organs from prisoners of war. All those horrible things happened, and it is up to the people who live there to overcome them. I accept that it is difficult to overcome all those things, but it is up to citizens and politicians to do so. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is still dealing with what happened in the former Yugoslavia and the surrounding regions. As an Assembly, we must deal not with what happened but with what might happen. There are some worrying developments, and I will elaborate on what is happening in Kosovo, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina before discussing what we might do.

There is a severe problem in northern Kosovo, where things could get out of hand overnight, because there are no authorities in that area. There is the Serbian Government, but it is not supposed to be there; there is the Kosovan Government, but it cannot function; and there are EULEX and KFOR, which are there and have some powers but do not have the authority to operate. We should be very careful.

We cannot forget that, according to a report produced by Dick Marty, the Kosovar Government has close relations with criminal circles. Until now, EULEX has been unable to deal with that. An international investigation was promised and EULEX stated that it would do its utmost to look after that matter, but that is not happening. That makes it very difficult for people in northern Kosovo to accept the authority of the government in Pristina, which is too much to ask. As Mrs Beck has said, the relationship between Kosovo and Serbia is always dangerous, because the Serbians cannot forget that Kosovo is, at least in the minds of the people who live there, part of Serbia.

As the rapporteur has mentioned – Andy Gross has mentioned this, too – Albania looks like it is relaxing a bit. I too hope that it is relaxing, but, like Thomas, I will believe it when I see it. When the committee went to Tirana, as Andy Gross has said, we found that far too few people decide far too much in that country. That country should be democratised, because that is the only protection against new stalemates. Nevertheless, I applaud events in Albania. It is good that the Socialist Party is back in parliament, because people should not be elected not to enter parliament.

There is the question of whether Bosnia and Herzegovina is sustainable. I chaired the election observation team, and the election was fine, but on the day after the election everything went on as before. There is no functioning government and nobody complies with the verdicts of the Human Rights Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is a big mess, and the situation is in stalemate. The report produced by Mr von Sydow uses words such as “condemn”, “urge” and “demand”. I agree with that, but we must add one more thing, which is “help”. It is obvious that the governments and politicians in that region cannot overcome all those problems, so let us make use of the relations between governments and politicians in that region and us here to help them, which is our duty if we want to avoid things becoming worse again

Human rights and the fight against terrorism

Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left congratulated the rapporteur on his work. A major dilemma confronted democratic nations: whether freedom could be sacrificed in order to fight terrorism. To act in that way would be to disregard the human rights and the fundamental freedoms that were a pillar in Europe and which had developed over centuries. To opt for such an approach would be to hand a victory to the terrorists and a defeat to democracy and human rights.

Democratic nations stood at a crossroads. One way, chosen by the government of the USA and some of its allies, was to combat terrorism in a way that sacrificed human rights, such as had happened at Guantánamo Bay and in entirely unacceptable secret prisons. The Norwegian government had demonstrated an alternative approach after its own terrorist attack a few weeks ago. The Prime Minister of Norway had spoken out in favour of human rights. Norway would combat terrorism with more democracy.

Some rights might, sometimes and for a short period only, be limited, but that should only ever be done in a proportional way.

Politicians could manipulate terrorism in different ways: some declared individuals to be terrorists when they were simply political opponents, while others used acts of terrorism as an excuse to introduce permanent restrictions on their citizens. The Turkish authorities had often acted in such a way, particularly in relation to the Kurdish population, as had the Russian government, as described in Lord Tomlinson’s report.

All members of the Assembly ought to support the resolution and vote against the amendments, which undermined the terms of the resolution. All governments should respect the human rights of their citizens. Terrorists could be isolated morally and economically by democratic means; it was not necessary for democratic states to use terrorists’ own methods against them.

Friday 7 October 2011 at 10 a.m.

The amendment of various provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly – implementation of Resolution 1822 (2011) on the reform of the Parliamentary Assembly and the terms of reference of Parliamentary Assembly committees – implementation of Resolution 1822 (2011) on the reform of the Parliamentary Assembly

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr President. I thank the rapporteurs for doing exactly what they aimed to do: implementing what we decided in the Assembly when accepting the report of Jean-Claude Mignon. As a member of the rules committee, I recall that it was not easy to stick exactly to what we decided. One has one’s own ideas and opinions, which could have been included in the report. It was right of the rapporteurs just to accept what was decided upon. That is the task of the rules committee. I support the proposals because they implement what we decided earlier.

We will see what the effect will be from January. We are trying to improve the functioning of the Assembly. We have fewer committees. There will be more opportunities for the committees. We will have the free debate on Mondays. It will be interesting to see how that develops. We will have to evaluate the changes but for the time being we should stick to the decisions that we took when we adopted the Mignon report.

My political group still has one question: where should the reports on OECD and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development be prepared? The decision was made to give that role to the Political Affairs Committee. Since then there has been a lot of discussion about whether that was a wise decision because that committee already deals with so many things.

The debates on OECD such as the one we had this week are very important, but those debates should be better. I was not happy that Mr Gurría did not have time to reply to all the questions of the enlarged Assembly. We need optimal preparation for those debates. Although we decided otherwise when we adopted the Mignon report, it may be wise to deal with the OECD and European Bank reports in the new merged committee. Many of the items that are relevant are dealt with by that new big committee. I would like to know whether the rapporteurs think that that would be acceptable.

Undocumented migrant children in an irregular situation: a real cause for concern

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – As a result of miscommunication in my group, the Group of the Unified European Left, Mrs Werner, who was on the list of speakers, did not speak in the debate. It is of course the responsibility of the chair of the group concerned to ensure that there is a speaker, so I apologise for the fact that no one was here. It was the only debate in which we did not do what we promised. However, the mistake is easy to rectify because it is a short report, and my group fully endorses it and the proposals by the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee to make it even better. I hope that in this short speech I have compensated for the mistake that was made.