ПАСЕ
ПРОДЪЛЖИ САНКЦИИТЕ СРЕЩУ РУСИЯ!
РУСКАТА
ДЕЛЕГАЦИЯ ОСТАВА БЕЗ ПРАВО НА ГЛАС
И С
ЛУСТРАЦИЯ ЗА УЧАСТИЕ В РЕДИЦА ОРГАНИ
НА АСАМБЛЕЯТА– С ПРОБАЦИОНЕН СРОК ДО
СЛЕДВАЩАТА СЕСИЯ ПРЕЗ АПРИЛ
Късно вечерта
на 28 януари 2015г. Парламентарната Асамблея
на Съвета на Европа дебатира оспорените
пълномощия на делегацията на Русия в
Асамблеята.
Докладчикът на
Комсията по мониторинг Щефан Шенах
(Социалист от Австрия) внесе доклад по
въпроса с който предлагаше смекчаване
на санкциите по огтношение на руските
депутати, възстановяване на правото им
на глас, но запазване на някои лустрационни
мерки за тяхно участие в мисии на ПАСЕ.
По доклада му
бяха внесени 29 предложения за поправки.
Ключова за
решението на Асамблеята беше поправка
№ 28, внесена от Маргус Хансон (Естония),
Кристофър Чоп (Обединото Кралство),
Валериу Гилечи (Молдова), Игор Колман
(Хърватия), Ром Кощрица (Чехия), Инезе
Либина-Енгере (Латвия), Керстин Люндгрен
(Швеция), Райт Марусте (Естония), Питер
Омциг (Нидерландия), Габриела Пецкова
(Чехия), Кимо Саси, (Финландия), Хиора
Тактикашвли (Грузия), Еджидиус Варейкис
(Литва), Роберт Уолтър (Обединеното
Кралство), Свитлана Залишчук(Украйна),
Кристина Зиеленкова (Чехия).
С тази поправка
в предложения проект за резолюция на
ПАСЕ се внасяше изменение възстановяващо
досегашното положение.
Съгласно поправката,
членовете на руската делегация би
трябвало да останат и занапред без право
на глас, без право да имат членове на
Бюрото на Асамблеята, на Президенската
комисия – на председателите на
политическите фракции, на Постоянната
комисия и на делегациите на ПАСЕ за
наблюдаване на избори и делегации по
други поводи!
Мотивът е, че вместо подобряване на положението, Русия продължава агресивните си действия срещу Украйна.
Мотивът е, че вместо подобряване на положението, Русия продължава агресивните си действия срещу Украйна.
Към това
предложение смекчаваща под-поправка
внесе Педро Аграмун (Испания, ЕНП), който
предложи пробационен период в който
санкциите да действат – до откриване
на априлската сесия на ПАСЕ.
Ако през този
период, Русия отбележи прогрес в
подобряването на ситуациията в Украйна,
санкциите може да бъдат преразгледани
и правото на глас на делегацията да бъде
възстановено!
При гласуването
под-поправката получи подкрапа от 165
депутати, 27 бяха против, а 17 се въздържаха.
Така коригираната поправка №28 беше подложена на гласуване и беше подкрепена от 148 депутати, 64 бяха против, а 6 се въздържаха.
Руската делегация не участва в гласуването, тъй като според правилника на ПАСЕ, делегация чиито пълномощия са оспорени, не може да гласува, когато Асамблеята решава дали да приеме или не, нейните пълномощия.
Видео на дебатите може да гледате тук :
Така коригираната поправка №28 беше подложена на гласуване и беше подкрепена от 148 депутати, 64 бяха против, а 6 се въздържаха.
Руската делегация не участва в гласуването, тъй като според правилника на ПАСЕ, делегация чиито пълномощия са оспорени, не може да гласува, когато Асамблеята решава дали да приеме или не, нейните пълномощия.
Видео на дебатите може да гледате тук :
Поправка №28 беше подкрепена от четирима от членовете на българската делегация (от общо 6 представители с право на глас) - лидерът на българската делегация Джема Грозданова (ГЕРБ), Антони Тренчев (РБ), Валери Симеонов (ПФ) и Хамид Хамид (ДПС). Против беше само един - Валери Жаблянов (БСП).
При гласуването на окончателната резолюция по този въпрос, българските депутати гласуваха по същия начин.
В подкрепа на Поправка №28 и финалната резолюция гласува и Жолт Немет - лидер на унгарската делегация в Асамблеята и останалите 4 членове на унгарската делегация. Нито един унгарец не застана в подкрепа на Русия !
В хода на дебатите
докладчика Щефан Шенах внесе устна
под-поправка предлагаща, да се допусне
руско участие в Постоянната комисия на
Асамблеята.
Това е намален състав на ПАСЕ, който между сесиите може да действа от името на Асамблеята, която после одобрява тези решения. За да се допусне устна под-поправка, която не е внесена по установеният ред, е възможно ако 10 или повече членове на ПАСЕ не възразят на това.
В този случай със ставане прави, повече от изискуемият брой възразиха на поставянето на гласуване на това предложение и под-поправката на Шенах не беше гласувана!
Това е намален състав на ПАСЕ, който между сесиите може да действа от името на Асамблеята, която после одобрява тези решения. За да се допусне устна под-поправка, която не е внесена по установеният ред, е възможно ако 10 или повече членове на ПАСЕ не възразят на това.
В този случай със ставане прави, повече от изискуемият брой възразиха на поставянето на гласуване на това предложение и под-поправката на Шенах не беше гласувана!
За окончателната Резолюция 2034/ 28.01. 2015г. на ПАСЕ гласуваха 160 депутати,
42 бяха против, а 11 се въздържаха!
Резултатите от
поименното гласуване за поправките и
финалната резолюция вижте тук:
(NB: Най-важната поправка
е № 28!)
Със своето решение
взето с огромно мнозинство, ПАСЕ защити принципите и ценностите в
името на които беше създадена на 5 май
1949г.и отхвърли опитите за превръщането
и в организация на политическия
опортюнизъм!
Citing Ukraine, PACE renews sanctions against Russian delegation
28/01/2015
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-EN.asp?newsid=5410&lang=2&cat=8
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has decided to ratify the credentials of the Russian delegation, citing the need to “foster dialogue”, but at the same time has decided to suspend its voting rights and its right to be represented in the Assembly’s leading bodies* “as a clear expression of condemnation of continuing grave violations of international law in respect of Ukraine” by Russia.
The Assembly said it would return to this issue at its April 2015 part-session and would consider re-instating these two rights “if Russia has made marked and measurable progress towards implementing the demands of the Assembly”.
In addition, the Assembly also suspended – for the duration of the Assembly’s 2015 session – the right of its Russian members to be appointed as a rapporteur, to observe elections or to represent the Assembly in other Council of Europe or external bodies.
The credentials were challenged on substantive grounds – including “a serious violation of the basic principles of the Council of Europe” – on the opening day of the session by Robert Walter (United Kingdom, EC), supported by at least thirty members of the Assembly.
In its resolution, based on a report by Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC), the Assembly said it: “condemns the illegal annexation of Crimea and its continuing integration into the Russian Federation”. It also condemned Russia’s role in “instigating and escalating developments in Ukraine, including with arms supplies to insurgent forces and covert military action by Russian troops inside eastern Ukraine.”
The Assembly also decided to consider setting up, pending the agreement of the parliaments concerned, a special working group with the participation of the Speakers of the Russian State Duma and the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada, or their representatives, “to contribute to the realisation of all the propositions made in the Assembly’s resolution and formulate possible action in support of the Minsk Protocols”.
The Assembly also called on the Russian authorities to release Ukrainian PACE member Nadiia Savchenko “within 24 hours and to ensure her return to Ukraine or to hand her over to a third country”.
---
* The Bureau of the Assembly, the Presidential Committee and the Standing Committee.
ПЪЛНИЯТ
ТЕКСТ НА ПРИЕТА РЕЗОЛЮЦИЯ :
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe
Resolution 2034
(2015)
Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation
Origin - Assembly debate on 28 January 2015 (6th Sitting) (see Doc. 13685, report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), rapporteur: Mr Stefan Schennach; and Doc.13689, opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, rapporteur: Mr Hans Franken). Text adopted by the Assembly on 28 January 2015 (6th Sitting).
1. On 26 January 2015, the still
unratified credentials of the Russian delegation were challenged on
the basis of Articles 8.1 and 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Parliamentary Assembly on the grounds that the role and participation
of the Russian Federation in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, as well
as its continued illegal annexation of Crimea was in violation of the
Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 1) as well as its accession
commitments to the Council of Europe, which, in general, brought into
question the commitment of the Russian delegation to the principles
and membership obligations of the Council of Europe.
2. The Assembly recalls its Resolution
1990 (2014) on the reconsideration on substantive grounds of the
previously ratified credentials of the Russian delegation. In this
resolution, the Assembly considered that the illegal annexation of
Crimea by the Russian Federation, and the involvement and actions of
the Russian Federation in the lead up to this annexation, constituted
a grave violation of international law and were a clear contradiction
to the Statute of the Council of Europe and Russia’s accession
commitments. The Assembly strongly condemned the violation of
Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity by the Russian
Federation, which required a strong signal of disapproval from the
Assembly. At the same time, the Assembly highlighted the need for
continuing dialogue with the Russian Federation, including on
Russia’s obligations and adherence to the values and principles of
the Council of Europe. The Assembly therefore decided not to annul
the credentials of the Russian delegation but to suspend, until the
end of the 2014 session, the voting rights of the Russian delegation
as well as its right to be represented in the Bureau, Presidential
Committee and Standing Committee of the Assembly and its right to
participate in election observation missions. In addition, in this
resolution, the Assembly reserved the right to annul the credentials
of the Russian delegation if the Russian Federation did not
de-escalate the situation and reverse the annexation of Crimea.
3. The Assembly condemns the illegal
annexation of Crimea and its continuing integration into the Russian
Federation. It is concerned by statements by Russian political
leaders that clearly imply that a resolution of this issue in line
with international law and principles will not be possible in the
foreseeable future. The Assembly reasserts that the illegal
annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is a gross violation
of international law, including of the United Nations Charter, the
Helsinki Final Act of the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe (OSCE) as well as the Statute of the Council of Europe and
Russia’s accession commitments to this Organisation.
4. The Assembly is alarmed about the
deterioration of the human rights situation in Crimea, including the
deaths and disappearances of political activists who were critical of
Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It is equally concerned about the
threats and actions against independent and critical media outlets.
In this respect, the Assembly urges the Russian authorities to:
4.1. reverse the illegal annexation
of Crimea;
4.2. fully and transparently
investigate these deaths and disappearances as well as allegations of
abuse and human rights violations by the police and (para)military
forces active in this region;
4.3. disband all paramilitary forces
in the region;
4.4. refrain from any pressure and
threats of closure of independent media outlets and reverse the
closure of the Crimean Tatar Channel, ATR.
5. The situation of minorities in
Crimea, in particular the Crimean Tatar community, is of serious
concern to the Assembly. It is dismayed by the raids on Tatar
organisations and institutions, including the offices of the Tatar
Mejlis, as well as the ban on entry into Crimea for the Crimean Tatar
leaders, Mr Mustafa Dzhemilev and Mr Refat Chubarov. In addition, the
Assembly expresses it concern about reports of the diminishing
availability of education in the Ukrainian language in Crimea. In
this respect, the Assembly calls on the Russian authorities to:
5.1. refrain from any harassment of,
and pressure on, Crimean Tatar institutions and organisations;
5.2. allow the return to Crimea, and
their free movement across the administrative boundary line, of Mr
Mustafa Dzhemilev and Mr Refat Chubarov;
5.3. take all necessary measures to
ensure the continued availability of education in the Ukrainian
language.
6. The Assembly welcomes that, with few
exceptions, civilians continue to move freely across the
administrative boundary between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine. It
calls on all authorities concerned to refrain from any undue measures
that could hinder or impede this free movement of civilians.
7. The Assembly is extremely concerned
about the developments in eastern Ukraine and condemns Russia’s
role in instigating and escalating these developments, including with
arms supplies to insurgent forces and covert military action by
Russian troops inside eastern Ukraine, which are a gross violation of
international law, including the Statute of the Council of Europe as
well as of the Minsk protocol to which Russia is a Party. In
addition, the Assembly expresses its dismay about the participation
of large numbers of Russian “volunteers” in the conflict in
eastern Ukraine without any apparent action of the Russian
authorities to stop this participation, despite it being in violation
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation itself. It takes note
of credible reports of burials of soldiers on Russian territory. The
Assembly condemns the violation of the territorial integrity and
borders of a Council of Europe member State by the Russian
Federation. It therefore calls on the Russian authorities to
immediately:
7.1. withdraw all its troops,
including covert forces, from Ukrainian territory;
7.2. refrain from supplying weapons
to the insurgent forces;
7.3. take credible measures to end
the influx of Russian volunteers into the conflict in eastern
Ukraine;
7.4. adopt amendments to the
Criminal Code that criminalise participation of Russian civilians in
armed conflicts abroad, also if they are not remunerated for their
actions;
7.5. prosecute to the full extent of
the Russian law, all Russian citizens who have participated as
“volunteers” in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine;
7.6. give its full co-operation to
the investigations into the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight
MH17;
7.7. bring the Federal Law on
Defence of the Russian Federation into line with the opinion of the
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on
this law;
7.8. ensure the permanent
Ukrainian/Russian control of their joint State border;
7.9. immediately release all
hostages, prisoners of war and illegally held persons.
8. In the view of the Assembly, the
conflict in eastern Ukraine can only be resolved by political means.
It therefore welcomes the Minsk agreement and protocols, signed by
the Russian Federation and Ukraine, as well as by the self-proclaimed
people’s republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.
It therefore expresses its great
concern that the Russian Federation is now denying that it is even a
Party to the Minsk Agreement and Protocols, asserting that it is only
an observer. It regrets the repeated violations by all sides of the
ceasefire regime. It calls on all signatories to respect the
ceasefire and fully implement the Minsk protocols. It particularly
calls on the Russian authorities to allow and assist the Ukrainian
authorities to establish full control, under international
monitoring, of its entire border with Russia, which is the basis of
the political solution of the conflict as foreseen in the Minsk
protocols.
9. The Assembly is deeply concerned by
repeated and credible reports of human rights violations, including
possible war crimes, by armed insurgents as well as voluntary
battalions fighting alongside the Ukrainian armed forces. The Russian
and Ukrainian authorities should fully and transparently investigate
any reports of human right violations and war crimes committed by
their nationals and, where violations are found, prosecute them to
the fullest extent of the law.
10. Underscoring the need for a
negotiated solution to the conflict, the Assembly cannot but condemn
the statement of the pro-Russian rebel leader, Alexander
Zakharchenko, on 23 January 2015, that his forces will no longer
abide by, or are interested in, a ceasefire agreement, as well as his
decision to start an offensive to occupy the rest of the Donetsk
region as well as the city of Mariupol.
This represents a serious escalation of
the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The Assembly equally condemns the
rocket attack by separatist forces on the town of Mariupol that left
at least 30 civilians dead. It urges Russia to use its influence to
ensure that the rebel forces return to the negotiating table and
fully adhere to the ceasefire agreement as foreseen in the Minsk
protocols.
11. The Assembly expresses serious
concern about the imprisonment and indictment by the Russian
Federation of Ms Nadiia
Savchenko, who is now a member of the Assembly. The
Assembly considers her transfer by Ukrainian insurgents to the
Russian Federation and subsequent imprisonment by the Russian
authorities to be in violation of international law amounting to her
de facto kidnapping. It demands that the
Russian Federation respect its obligations under international law,
as a Party to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities and
its Protocol, according to which Ms Nadiia Savchenko, as a member of
the Parliamentary Assembly, enjoys European parliamentary immunity.
The Assembly calls upon the Russian authorities to release Ms
Savchenko within 24 hours and to ensure her return to Ukraine or hand
her over to a third country.
12. Russia’s actions in Ukraine
demonstrate its lack of willingness to honour its accession
commitments with regard to its relations with neighbouring countries.
The Assembly therefore calls on the Russian authorities to dispel
such concerns by:
12.1. implementing Resolution
1633 (2008) on the consequences of the war between Georgia and
Russia, Resolution
1647 (2009) on the implementation of Resolution
1633 and Resolution
1683 (2009) on the war between Georgia and Russia: one year
after, and reversing the ethnic cleansing and the occupation of the
Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and allowing access
to European Union monitors to these regions;
12.2. removing any obstacles to the
free movement of civilians across the administrative boundary lines
between South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the rest of Georgia;
12.3. implementing without delay its
accession commitment to withdraw the 14th Army and its equipment from
the territory of the Republic of Moldova;
12.4. promptly implementing the ruling
of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Catan and
others v. the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova
related to the right to education in Latin-script schools in
Transnistria, and refraining from boycotting Moldovan products with
the objective of unduly influencing the Republic of Moldova’s
foreign policy choices;
12.5. continuing its constructive
engagement in the OSCE Minsk Group in order to find a peaceful
solution to the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and suspending the
sale of offensive weaponry to Armenia and Azerbaijan until such time
as this conflict has been resolved.
13. In the view of the Assembly, no
solution to the conflict in Ukraine will be possible without the full
participation and commensurate political will of the Russian
Federation.The Russian Federation therefore needs to engage in a
meaningful dialogue with the Assembly on this issue as well as on the
honouring of its obligations and commitments to the Council of
Europe. However, the Assembly emphasises that such dialogue can only
take place if the Russian authorities are willing to participate, in
good faith and without preconditions, in a constructive and open
dialogue with the Assembly, including on those issues where the views
of the Assembly and Russia differ. While, to the Assembly’s regret,
its offer in Resolution
1990 (2014) for such a dialogue was originally rejected by the
State Duma, there have been clear signals that the Duma is now
willing to engage in such a constructive dialogue with the Assembly.
14. In order to foster the dialogue
with the Russian Federation, the Assembly for now resolves to
ratify the credentials of the Russian delegation.
But, at the same time, as a clear
expression of its condemnation of the continuing grave violations of
international law in respect of Ukraine by the Russian
Federation, including the Statute of the Council of Europe and
Russia’s accession commitments to this Organisation, the Assembly
resolves to suspend the following rights of the Russian delegation
for the duration of the 2015 session of the Assembly:
14.1. the right to be
appointed rapporteur;
14.2. the right to be
member of an ad hoc committee on observation of elections;
14.3. the right to
represent the Assembly in Council of Europe bodies as well as
external institutions and organisations, both institutionally and on
an occasional basis.
15. In addition to the sanctions
outlined in paragraphs 14.1 to 14.3, the Assembly
resolves to suspend the voting rights and the right to be represented
in the Bureau of the Assembly, the Presidential Committee and the
Standing Committee of the Russian delegation to the Assembly.
However, it resolves to return to this
issue, with a view to reinstating these two rights at its April 2015
part-session if Russia has made marked and measurable progress
towards implementing the demands of the Assembly formulated in this
resolution in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4, paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3,
paragraphs 7.1 to 7.9, paragraph 11 and paragraphs 12.1 to 12.4; and
has given its full co-operation to the working group mentioned in
paragraph 17 of this resolution.
16. The Assembly resolves to annul
the credentials of the Russian delegation at its June 2015
part-session if no progress is made with regard to the implementation
of the Minsk protocols and memorandum as well as the demands and
recommendations of the Assembly as expressed in this resolution, in
particular with regard to the immediate withdrawal of Russian
military troops from eastern Ukraine.
17. The Assembly invites the Bureau of
the Assembly to consider setting up, pending the agreement of the
parliaments concerned, a special working group with the participation
of the Speakers of the Russian State Duma and the Ukrainian Verkhovna
Rada, or their representatives, to contribute to the realisation of
all the propositions made in this resolution and to formulate further
possible action by the Parliamentary Assembly in support of the
implementation of the Minsk protocols.
ПЪЛНАТА
СТЕНОГРАМА НА ДЕБАТИТЕ НА АНГЛИЙСКИ
ЕЗИК :
Provisional version
2015 ORDINARY SESSION
________________
(First part)
REPORT
Sixth sitting
Wednesday 28 January 2015 at 3.30 p.m.
In this report:
1. Speeches in
English are reported in full.
2. Speeches in
other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked
with an asterisk.
3. The text of the amendments is available at the
document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments
or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.
(…)
(Ms Brasseur,
President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr
Giovagnoli.)
4. Challenge,
on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the
delegation of the Russian Federation
THE
PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the
report entitled “Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still
unratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian
Federation”, Document 13685, presented by Mr Stefan Schennach on
behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and
Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe, with an
opinion, Document 13689, presented by Mr Hans Franken on behalf of
the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs.
I
remind you that we have already agreed that in order to finish by
8 p.m. we shall interrupt the list of speakers at about 7.20 p.m.
to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I
call Mr Schennach, the rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total,
which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply
to the debate.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – For the second time in less than a
year, I have been called upon as Chair of the Monitoring Committee
to present a report on the issue of the credentials of the
delegation of the Russian Federation. In my April 2014 report, I
recommended to the Assembly that we suspend those credentials
until the end of the year. One measure advocated was the creation
of an ad hoc committee on Russia’s neighbourhood policy. It took
some months to move from the boycott of the Russian delegation to
some kind of dialogue with it.
I
have written the report under pressure of the events taking place
in Crimea now. We know how the situation has evolved. A member
state of the Council of Europe, Ukraine, has been destabilised. We
know what form that destabilisation has taken. Thousands of people
have paid for it with their lives. We know that the rule of law is
absent. Persons described as “volunteers” and military forces
are in part of a member state of the Council of Europe. The border
of a member state of the Council of Europe is being violated. The
border is not being respected as we understand the term, given the
sovereignty of individual member states of the Council of Europe.
Despite
that, I have come up with a report addressing the issue from a
different perspective. I wanted a strong report, one that stands
for strength. It is important that the impetus for dialogue, which
needs to thrive in the Council of Europe, should not flounder
following the boycott.
Some
things would not tolerate any delay. I am thinking of the
liberation of Nadiia Savchenko, for example. We will dispatch a
team on behalf of the Monitoring Committee to Crimea with a view
to ascertaining the situation in respect of human rights and the
persecution of minorities. We cannot afford to waste any time.
That is why I said to the Monitoring Committee that we need to
show strength. In a monthly progress report, we need to state
clearly what our demands are to the Russian Federation. The
demands are in the report.
In
the committee, I heard from all sides the language that is
expressed clearly in the monitoring report. We have stated clearly
what our demands are. To comply with those requirements in such a
short time will be difficult for the Russian Federation but it is
only right that we come forward with those demands. As I say, time
is of the essence. We could all decide to annul or withdraw the
credentials to appear as heroes. For me, what is important is to
achieve results.
Only
yesterday, we discussed the report on the consequences of the
situation for refugees in Eastern Ukraine. It is important that we
act. However, I have understood the comments made by the
committee. That is why I am prepared to make a compromise in the
form of an oral sub-amendment that I wish to move. It is important
that the Assembly is not divided. All those who attended the
Monitoring Committee meeting will know my position on the
amendments to improve the wording. I think that the committee
accepted my position unanimously. However, I refer you to
Amendment 28 and the sub-amendment that has been tabled by Axel
Fischer. I make this plea. We need a substantial majority to back
that proposal but at the same time we need to appeal to the
Russian Federation to understand that something has shifted in
terms of the discussion since April. Therefore, it should not be
tempted to fall into the reflex of closing shop and rejecting
Amendment 28 and the oral sub-amendment. We were right to table
that amendment in the light of the situation in Ukraine. Axel
Fischer talks about the period until April – the period into the
next part-session. However, we need a process where we at the
level of the Parliamentary Assembly can continue with that
dialogue. We and the Russian side have to find some middle way to
uphold the values of the Council of Europe so that we can move
forward together.
If
we look at the events in Ukraine, we are talking about the
destabilisation of a member state of the Council of Europe. The
scale of the conflict could be compared with that in the territory
of the former Yugoslavia. There are serious military consequences
as a result of destabilisation. If we enter into this compromise,
the Russian Federation has to take that major step in our
direction. I do not think we are asking too much of the Russian
Federation. We have to understand the context. In this report –
this is new compared with the report I presented in April – we
mention Transnistria, Abkhazia, Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The
description of the situation is therefore far more detailed. That
is why it is important that we now engage in that dialogue. If we
are prepared to enter into the compromise in respect of Amendment
28, together we can show strength and proceed from a position of
strength. However, in order for that to happen we have, first, to
insist on the release of Nadiia Savchenko. Secondly, we would need
to dispatch a delegation to Crimea straight away, and I am
prepared to go along with what the Russian delegation has called
for – that we send a similar delegation to Eastern Ukraine. That
is something we will certainly do.
We
can ensure that the corresponding decision is taken in the
Monitoring Committee, and that we will be ready to go in that
respect. So I appeal to Mr Pushkov: if we can enter into this
compromise together, we can get somewhere, rather than standing at
the margins looking on and being tempted to fall prey to a reflex.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now ask Mr Franken to present the
opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs. You have three minutes.
Mr FRANKEN
(Netherlands) – First, I congratulate the rapporteur of
the Monitoring Committee on his interesting report, which presents
an in-depth analysis of the grounds that justify the challenge to
the credentials of the Russian delegation. For the second time in
just one year, our Assembly is called on to play its role of
arbitrator and defender of democratic values and human rights in
the framework of a challenge to the credentials of a delegation in
this Assembly.
The Committee on
Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs has been
mandated to consider whether the proposal contained in the
Monitoring Committee’s report on the challenge on substantive
grounds of the credentials of the Russian delegation complies with
the Rules of Procedure, in particular Rule 10, and the Statute of
the Council of Europe.
Moreover, at its
meeting yesterday, my committee considered one of the issues
raised in the report presented by the Monitoring Committee, namely
the case of Ms Nadiia Savchenko. She is a member of the Verkhovna
Rada and a member of the Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly for the 2015 session. She has been in detention in the
Russian Federation since June 2014.
The Bureau of the
Assembly has requested an opinion from the Committee on Rules of
Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs on the status of
Ms Savchenko with regard to Council of Europe immunity or, more
precisely, how she may benefit from the protection afforded under
the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council
of Europe and its Protocol.
The principle of
parliamentary inviolability – immunity, in the strict sense –
as recognised in the General Agreement on Privileges and
Immunities of the Council of Europe, protects any parliamentarian
from arrest, detention or prosecution without the authorisation of
the parliament to which he or she belongs or of the Parliamentary
Assembly.
Ms Savchenko enjoys
European parliamentary immunity as a member of the Parliamentary
Assembly. This immunity has an absolute nature, in that it is
based on international law. The parliamentary immunity of a member
of the Assembly must be waived before his or her freedom can be
restricted, and the Assembly alone is able to waive the immunity
of a member. With effect from the point of the ratification of
credentials, Ms Savchenko can no longer be subject to any
detention or prosecution measures, and any ongoing proceedings
should be suspended for the duration of her term of office.
The Committee on
Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs therefore
decided that these conclusions shall be reflected in the draft
resolution, and it approved an amendment in which it demands that
the Russian authorities honour their international law obligations
and commitments under the General Agreement on Privileges and
Immunities of the Council of Europe. This amendment has been
unanimously supported by the Monitoring Committee, and we are
grateful for this.
With regard to the
conclusions made by the Monitoring Committee in its draft
resolution as to the ratification of the Russian credentials and
possible sanctions, the my committee recalls that in September
2014 it approved, at the request of the Bureau, an opinion on
rights of participation or representation of Assembly members who
may be deprived or suspended in the context of a challenge of
credentials. I also refer to this document.
The debate about
this particular subject is far from over, and the Committee on
Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs will
likely continue to reflect further on this important procedure.
THE PRESIDENT* –
The rapporteurs have concluded their presentations. We now start
the debate.
I call the first
speaker, Mr Xuclà, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and
Democrats for Europe.
Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)*
– On 5 May 1949, following two world wars, the Council of Europe
was founded, and it has since been extended to 47 countries. We
now find ourselves facing the most dangerous conflict on European
soil since the Second World War.
I think we can
safely say that many of us suffered because of the wars in
Yugoslavia and Ukraine, if not in the previous world wars, because
those are the two wars that have marked our lives, and they test
our values and the channels of dialogue.
The International
Court of Justice condemned the use of force on the part of the
Russian Federation. ALDE stands shoulder to shoulder with the
Ukrainian people, who are the first victims of this war, and we
believe that the Assembly and the Council of Europe are duty-bound
to play a role in helping to alleviate a humanitarian crisis that
is afflicting many thousands of Ukrainians. We believe that this
is one of our duties. We need to send an unequivocal political
message to Russia, and we very much hope that we will be able to
arrive at consensus on this.
There are different
currents of opinion in ALDE, as in all the other political groups,
about the way to approach this issue of verifying the credentials
of the Russian delegation. This morning, ALDE decided that the
suspension should be extended, but some felt that the best way of
being helpful and useful, under the constraints within which we
work, is to follow the road map presented to us by Mr Schennach –
namely, to await June and see what progress has been made by then.
All of us here know
that there is far more than unites us than divides us. We must not
fragment. We must maintain our principles and we must retain our
commitment to dialogue, in the face of violations of international
law. On 5 May 1949, the founding fathers of the Council of Europe
took steps to turn the Council of Europe into a venue for dialogue
and exchanges and for restoring lost trust. We have lived through
tragic events and, at the moment, peace seems a long, long way
off. We should never, ever forget that the Council of Europe is
where aggressors and victims should meet. This is where we meet,
and it is where men and women from the war in Yugoslavia met.
Russia needs to face
up to its responsibilities once again, and we must make it
possible for it to remedy the harm that it has caused. We should
do as was done on 5 May 1949.
THE
PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Walter, on behalf of the
European Conservatives Group.
Mr
WALTER (United Kingdom) – There is a real danger that, at
the end of today, this Assembly will look stupid and supine. Mr
Schennach is a much respected member of this Assembly and Chair of
the Monitoring Committee. His report is concise and clear. In
April, we imposed sanctions against the Russian delegation,
following their enthusiastic support for the annexation of Crimea
and their failure to recognise the territorial integrity and
sovereignty of another member state. We did not close off
dialogue. The Russian delegation have been welcome to attend our
meetings and explain their position, but for nine months they
chose not to attend.
The
report is clear that nothing has changed. In fact, Russian
military involvement in Eastern Ukraine is a further violation of
its sovereignty. Madam President, why should we now weaken the
sanctions? Mr Schennach, why should we now restore the Russian
delegation’s voting rights? The Russian delegation is still in
breach of the basic principles of this Organisation. This is not
the time to weaken our stand. The Russian delegation have shown no
contrition, no apology and no remorse. On the contrary, they have
continued to threaten their neighbours.
I
consider myself a good European. I believe in European solidarity.
I remind colleagues from all 28 European Union countries, and from
Norway, Iceland, Albania, Montenegro and Switzerland, that
together our governments, with the support of our parliaments and
our peoples, have supported sanctions and reinforced them. Let us
today across the whole of Europe show real European solidarity
with the people of Ukraine, as well as those of Georgia and
Moldova, in defence of the rule of law and the values of the
Council of Europe.
Colleagues,
I implore you to keep the sanctions on Russia until they show some
remorse and restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Mr
Schennach, and colleagues from across Europe, please support us.
Remember: if you feed the bear, he might eat your hand.
THE
PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Walter. I call Mr Kox, who speaks on
behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr
KOX (Netherlands) – I will not follow Bob Walter in
suggesting that this Assembly might look stupid tonight. I cherish
this European platform for parliamentary diplomacy and had thought
that Bob Walter was on my side. I am sorry that he appears to have
lost that idea.
The
political group to which I belong is by far the smallest, so we
cannot use our votes to really influence the Assembly’s
decisions; we can only use our arguments. I will therefore explain
why we are in favour of this resolution and why we oppose any
amendments that would change its very nature.
First,
we think that it is important to signal that any member state that
does not respect the territorial integrity of another is in clear
breach of international law. If the resolution emphasises that, it
will have our support.
Secondly,
we think that it is important for our biggest member state to do
its utmost to help end the gruesome civil war in Ukraine, and that
it is important to signal that this Assembly is not convinced that
Russia is doing its utmost in that regard. If the resolution
underlines that, it will have our support.
Thirdly,
we think that it is important to signal that other players,
notably the European Union and the United States, should refrain
from anything that might escalate the conflict and do more to help
end the armed confrontation. If the resolution supports that, it
will have our support.
Fourthly,
we think that it is important never to forget that the first
responsibility to end the armed confrontation and return to the
negotiating table lies with the Ukrainian Government and those who
are rebelling against it. We think that it is important to recall
President Poroshenko’s solemn declaration that there is no
military solution to the conflict. If the resolution acknowledges
that, it will have our support.
Fifthly,
the resolution is a result of long and difficult negotiations
between members and political groups, and it has the support of
four or five leaders of political groups. A compromise reached in
that way should be dealt with very carefully. If the resolution is
protected in this way, we will support it.
Sixthly,
as the resolution is a compromise, we have big problems with
amendments that, according to the rapporteur, will change its very
nature. We ask those who want to propose such amendments to
consider carefully whether they want to make the change and, in so
doing, threaten the whole project.
Seventhly,
if we change the nature of the resolution, it might send a message
to the Russian Parliament to suspend its co-operation with this
Assembly, which would not be wise but could easily happen. That
could stimulate Russia to take a more negative position overall
towards the organs of the Council of Europe, first and foremost
our European Court of Human Rights, which protects 130 million
Russian citizens. Let us not forget that that, too, is at stake.
Eighthly,
this week the Chair of the Committee of Ministers explained in
this Chamber that there are no limitations sought or imposed upon
the functioning of the Russian Government in that statutory body
of the Council of Europe. If all our governments find it necessary
to maintain their diplomatic platform, why should we
parliamentarians deprive ourselves and the other statutory body of
this Organisation of the most important international arena for
parliamentarians in Europe? As long as our governments maintain
their dialogue with Russia, we should not refrain from it.
Ladies
and gentleman, now you know my group’s arguments. I will listen
carefully to all your arguments.
THE
PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Gross, who speaks on behalf of
the Socialist Group.
Mr
GROSS (Switzerland)* – The Socialist Group thanks Stefan
for his tremendous work, the painstaking way in which he went
about it and his innovative approach. Over the past few days, we
have had three opportunities, six hours and 50 participants to try
and form an opinion, and the majority supports the report and the
new rationale. The rationale is self-explanatory. We are the home
of democracy, and we do not throw out the miscreants as though
they were pupils being expelled from school. Rather, we are like a
hospital for democracy. If anyone is ailing, you do what you can
to cure them and help them overcome a crisis. That is what we are
here for. That is what we need to do in the face of this conflict.
We
are seeing all kinds of rights being ridden over roughshod, but
there is no solution if we go down the road of conflict. Only a
peaceful solution is possible. If we are to have a peaceful
solution, we have to talk to one another. We have to convince
those on the other side that they have made mistakes and ensure
that they are confronted with the consequences of their actions.
We must extend a helping hand, and the only way to do that is by
engaging with those who hold different opinions. That is precisely
what we do here. It is not about chucking people out. Rather, it
is about being savvy, showing them that what they are doing is
simply not on. If we want that badly enough, we must adopt
Stefan’s road map.
The
Assembly is now willing to work together. We need to look at the
situation in Crimea and Donbass and show the Russian delegation
that the situation is intolerable. We have to work in the
interests of the ordinary people and overcome the war. That is why
we need the Russians here alongside us. Throwing them out would be
the simplest solution, but that is like a really bad teacher
simply giving his pupils very poor marks. We do not just want to
stand up and say that we were very strict just so as to be able to
have clear consciences. Rather, we have a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to work together. We should not think that we would be
showing our strength by punishing the miscreants. That is not the
way to make progress; if you do not even try to do that at the
start, that is to capitulate and to be weak.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Gross. I call Mr Agramunt to speak on
behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr
AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Resolution 1990, passed last April,
as is well known, gave the conditions under which Russia could
come back into the Assembly. I trusted that the Minsk agreement
would be the basis for return to normality through respect for the
cease-fire and for dialogue. However, the reality is very
different.
Hopes for the Minsk
solution were dashed, with thousands killed, including women and
children – people were dying each day on both sides of the
conflict – and with refugees amounting to more than 1.5 million,
both in Ukraine and outside it. The situation for the Crimean
Tatars is appalling; there has been a crackdown on the press in
the Donbass and Crimea. There have been terrorist acts in Odessa,
Kiev and Kharkiv and there has now been an attack on civilians in
Mariupol, with 30 dead and 100 injured. We have also seen other
attacks on the civilian population in Mariupol and Donetsk. How
can a country such as Russia, which knew that this week we were
going to have an important debate on its credentials, have done
nothing to reduce the tension? Instead, it has increased it.
Russia is party to
the Minsk agreement and it has the authority to release Nadiia
Savchenko, who has parliamentary immunity that Russia has not
respected, as we have heard today. Russia has the power to protect
the border with Ukraine and prevent the passage of mercenaries,
soldiers and arms across the border. It has the power to exert its
influence on the rebels in Ukraine and to stop the war right now.
For all these reasons, the Group of the European People's Party,
which I represent here, must note the lack of will on the Russian
side to reduce tension and comply with the Minsk agreement and
stop the war. I am a fervent advocate of dialogue, consensus and above all peace.
The
Assembly is the right place for the representatives of the Russians
and Ukrainians, together with us, to have a dialogue and debate the
issues. For that, we need the conditions that were rightly listed by
Mr Schennach in his excellent report. Our group, by an overwhelming
majority, proposes that there is no objective reason for returning
the voting rights for the Russian delegation and that if there is no
progress between now and April – or if there are positive changes –
we can have another debate and reconsider the issue.
Our group will
reject all the amendments except for Amendments 13, 29, 27, 28, so
long as the oral sub-amendment is adopted, 23 and 22. We will also
listen to the proposal made by the rapporteur, Mr Schennach, about a
new oral sub-amendment on the position to be taken in due course.
THE
PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Agramunt. I see that the rapporteur
wishes to respond at the end of the debate, so I call Ms Vėsaitė.
Ms
VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania) – Nine months ago, we adopted the
resolution by which the Russian delegation's voting rights have
been suspended. Is that not enough time for Russia to do at least
something positive to solve the conflict? All they did was
arrogantly leave the Assembly and escape having a dialogue with
us.
That resolution said
that the Assembly reserved the right to annul the credentials of
the Russian delegation if they did not de-escalate the situation
and reverse the annexation of Crimea. Have they done anything
about that? No, nothing. The situation is dramatically
deteriorating while there are efforts to soften the sanctions.
That looks like a mockery of the whole essence of the Assembly and
of the Council of Europe as a whole.
Does anybody in this
Chamber still believe that Russia stands aside from the war in
Ukraine? Thousands of people have been killed and more than 1
million have become refugees. How would you vote today if they
were your relatives or friends? Even now, as we are speaking,
people might be being killed. If we soften the sanctions on the
Russian delegation, what will the Ukrainian delegation say to
their people when they go back? Are they being left alone? Is
Europe – Europe, in whose democracy the Ukrainians believe so
much – supporting them? I will have doubts about that if we vote
to lift the suspension of Russia's voting rights.
The suspension of
voting rights does not mean the suspension of participation or of
having a political dialogue. It was the Russian delegation that
decided not to have the dialogue, not us. Now they dare to
blackmail the Council of Europe by saying that they will leave
this institution if we do not return their voting rights. While we
are making concessions and trying politely to suggest political
dialogue, Russia is trying to stretch the limits further. When
they finish with Ukraine, you never know which country might be
next. Might it be Moldova, Georgia or perhaps the Baltics?
In his report, Mr
Schennach is sending a strong political message to the Kremlin.
The Monitoring Committee has found a very clever political
solution, so I support the report and urge you to vote for
Amendment 28.
Ms
DJUROVIĆ (Serbia) – Since last April, when the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted to suspend
the voting rights of the Russian delegation, the Russian
Federation has frequently been mentioned in discussions on many
topics, but in the absence of its elected representatives. One of
the main topics of this part-session is the question of the
credentials of the Russian delegation and this is the first time
that I have applied to speak and express my opinion, as I do not
want my silence to be interpreted as support for those who are
louder in expressing theirs. The fact that they are louder does
not mean that they are right.
All of us in this
Chamber are not just the MPs of the countries we come from but
members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
which involves not just certain rights but certain obligations,
including an obligation to maintain the relevance and reputation
of the Council of Europe as an institution. Secretary General
Jagland has always emphasised that his main priorities include
increasing our visibility and strengthening our reputation and
relevance. That is primarily achieved by obtaining results in
tackling conflict situations, such as that between Ukraine and
Russia.
MPs of the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly have obviously understood that better than
us, as they have not even discussed the suspension of the voting
rights of the Russian delegation but have rather promoted
dialogue. Today, they can boast of the results that they have
achieved, which have enabled the OSCE further to strengthen its
global position. We should ask ourselves what we have done and
whether we have done anything to strengthen the position of the
Council of Europe in any way. I am afraid that we have not.
Instead of learning from previous mistakes, there are even new
proposals not to ratify the credentials of the Russian delegation.
That is, in my opinion, exactly opposite to the fundamental
principle that the Council of Europe is based on and is certainly
contrary to the principle of dialogue, and it would diminish the
Council of Europe’s position as an institution.
I
might never agree with the positions taken by MPs of the Russian
Federation or of any other member state, but I will always fight
for their democratic right to express their opinion. I will never
vote for the exclusion of any PACE member from any country. MPs
are elected representatives of the citizens of the countries they
come from. By excluding them, you are excluding the citizens of
that country, which is not in line with the Council of Europe’s
spirit. We should bear in mind that it was established with the
aim of promoting democracy and human rights.
I
will vote for the ratification of credentials and voting rights of
the Russian delegation. I invite all members not to be led by
their personal feelings when voting, but to vote, as responsible
politicians, in line with the Council of Europe’s interests, and
this interest is definitely dialogue.
Mr
BOROWSKI (Poland) – This report contains deep and precise
analysis, but its conclusions are completely contradictory.
Paragraph 16 of the resolution of April 2014, which limits the
powers of the Russian delegation said: “The Assembly reserves
the right to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation, if
the Russian Federation does not de-escalate the situation and
reverse the annexation of Crimea”. I stress the use of the word
“annul” – cancel, not lift or soften. Crimea is still
occupied by Russia. Instead of de-escalation, the violence has
been stepped up and spread.
Immediately
after grasping Crimea, Russia began to encourage and support
separatists in Eastern Ukraine by dispatching weapons and troops
there. The separatists and disguised Russian soldiers permanently
break the Minsk agreement and attack not only the Ukrainian army
but civilians, as happened recently in Mariupol. Chauvinist and
slanderous propaganda is being spread in Russia, and the
democratically elected Ukrainian Government is denounced as a
junta and labelled fascist.
All
these facts convince us that Russia cannot accept the fact that
Ukraine can choose its own way – the path to Europe. In April,
Russian delegates assured us that the so-called “small, green
people” in Crimea had nothing to do with the Russian army and
that their weapons were bought in the shops. After three months,
Mr Putin admitted lying. Yesterday, our Russian friends were
trying to convince us that there are no Russian soldiers or
Russian weapons in Donbass. Dear friends, please do not insult our
intelligence!
In
conclusion, the restrictions imposed in April should be maintained
and a clear sign should be sent that the Council of Europe expects
that the Russia Federation will assure a real cease-fire, start to
withdraw heavy weapons and troops from Donbass and allow the
Ukrainian authorities to control their borders. Only these steps
can provide reasons to lift or limit the sanctions. There is no
need to insert into the report 21 partly unrealistic conditions,
while easing the sanctions. The Russian delegation threatens
withdrawing Russia from the Council of Europe. If that happens, we
will regret it, but free democratic countries defend their values
and cannot give in to blackmail. We must say loudly and clearly
that the Council of Europe will never accept any aggression. If
Russia wants to be a member of the Council of Europe, it has to
observe common rules and values.
Mr
ZINGERIS (Lithuania) – Today, we are facing a decision
about a very clear issue: a member of the Council of Europe has
attacked another country. Mr Gross, who is a good democrat and
dear friend of democracy throughout the world, has just said that
our Organisation is like a hospital. If it is like a hospital,
Andreas, I shall cite one of Russia’s obligations when it
entered this great hospital, the Council of Europe, in 1996: “to
ratify, within six months from the time of accession, the
agreement of 21 October 1994 between the Russian and Moldovan
Governments, and to continue the withdrawal of the 14th Army and
its equipment from the territory of Moldova within a time-limit of
three years from the date of signature of the agreement”.
Have
the problems of the Transnistria region been solved or have the
wounds of the Georgian war healed? No. So, Mr Gross, most of your
28 points have not been fulfilled after entering the hospital. In
a hospital, you cure the patient, but he has not been healed since
1996. I am sorry, Andreas, but 19 years have passed and we should
not turn this hospital into the cemetery of European values.
I
have been here since 1993. I remember the brave Russian democrat,
Sergei Kovalev, and other friends of mine and yours, Andreas, who
were in the Russian delegation. What has become of them now? They
have become foreign agents under the law on foreign agents and
NGOs in Russia.
Where
is our diversity of opinion? Even yesterday, the Ukrainian
delegation expressed absolute diversity of opinion about the
military situation in Ukraine. They expressed all possible
opinions. Now we have only one opinion: everything is all right
with our dear friends from Russia.
Finally,
what should we do with the Helsinki Act and with points about the
stability of the borders? All the agreements relate to the
post-war order. Should we open the Pandora’s box of negotiating
our European borders? What about the European Union? Ukraine would
like to become a member of the European Union. We hope that Russia
will become one in the future. I hope that Ukraine has the right
to become a member of the European Union and it should not be
punished for doing so. From my point of view, we should support
the report and vote in favour of Amendment 28.
Ms
BECK (Germany) – We are not talking about Ukraine and
Russia only today; we are talking about the Assembly’s
authority. In April, the Assembly decided that if the annexation
of Crimea was not reversed and if the situation did not get
better, we would consider removing these credentials. No one is
now talking about taking away Russia’s credentials totally. We
are talking now about the question whether they should get all
their rights, including the right to vote in the Chamber, or
whether should ensure the Assembly’s authority.
Since
the resolution in April, which we all decided together, nothing
has got better; everything has got worse. We not only have the
annexation of Crimea; we have the undercover war in Donbass. The
Secretary General of the OSCE said today that the weapons are
coming from Russian. We had the shooting down of MH17 and 300
civilians lost their lives. We had the rockets on Mariupol just a
few days ago.
In
such a situation, our colleagues from Russia are not patients. I
think that we should respect them and take them seriously as
adult, responsible parliamentarians. Until now, however, they have
not shown that they want to debate with us. I can say that from a
German perspective because I think that no Chancellor or Foreign
Minister has had such close contact with the Russian
Administration as those from Germany. There have been hundreds of
telephone calls, tens of meetings, different formats – the
Geneva format, the Normandy format, the Minsk format – and every
time, the Russian delegation backed away from what it promised and
signed. That is a terrible situation, and I think, dear Andy, that
our colleagues – indeed, dear Russians, you are here; you must
be held responsible for what you are doing. If we do not hold you
responsible and instead treat you like children, that is not
correct. I respect you.
Dear
colleagues from Russia, if you want the delegation to stay, please
do not threaten us. Do not tell us that you will leave if we do
not do what you want. Yes, you are invited to come back, but you
must accept that voting rights will be returned to you only when
things have really started to change for the better.
Mr
ROMANOVICH (Russian Federation)* – For today’s debate,
I had prepared a carefully crafted text, but I now have to change
what I was going to read out and answer some of the questions that
have been asked and address points that have been raised. I say to
the distinguished member of the German Parliament – if we are to
talk as adults and respect one another – that what this measure
really amounts to is an attempt to exclude our country from
pan-European dialogue, and that is a very serious matter.
Another
serious issue is that we are in danger of opening up Pandora’s
box. We talk about Ms Savchenko – I fully respect the woman, but
unfortunately she is in prison and the situation is a Pandora’s
box. We will end up with members of our Parliamentary Assembly who
are subject to serious judicial sentences and have been found
guilty. Mr Lugovoy is subject to an arrest warrant in the United
Kingdom, but what about Viktor Bout who was illegally moved out to
the United States? Could he find himself on the list, and then be
able to participate in the Parliamentary Assembly? No. What are
the real reasons for excluding the Russian Federation from
pan-European dialogue? I appeal to all members of the Assembly to
assess the situation in which we now find ourselves. Nobody is
blackmailing anybody. We are holding out a hand. We want to engage
in dialogue with a view to bringing to an end a conflict with a
country that is our fraternal neighbour.
Mr
POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – To tackle the substance of
this issue, we must consider three elements: first, the status of
parliamentarians in the Committee of Ministers; secondly, the
effectiveness of the sanctions that our Assembly voted for in
April; and thirdly, the overall political and diplomatic
situation.
We
suspended the voting rights of our Russian colleagues last year,
but what was the result? First and foremost, we deprived ourselves
of the possibility of discussing issues with our colleagues in
both the plenary session and the committees, and our President had
to make the greatest of efforts to keep open the channels between
Strasbourg and Moscow. I note, moreover, that the Russians
continued to participate normally in the Committee of Ministers.
Why should we parliamentarians cut ourselves off from any kind of
room for manoeuvre and thereby bring about the doom of
parliamentary diplomacy?
We
are all parliamentarians, and I am shocked that the sanctions that
were decided by the European community and parliamentarians should
affect other parliamentarians in this way. I am shocked that our
Assembly’s Rules of Procedure mean that people can demand the
suspension of voting rights of other parliamentarians. I am
shocked that those Rules of Procedure are used against human
rights and the separation of powers. I am shocked because
suspending the voting rights of a parliamentarian is a trend that
is out of line and too close to an authoritarian or even
totalitarian concept of the way that a Parliamentary Assembly
should exercise powers. I am also a member of the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly. Russians are still members of that
assembly, and the OSCE has been much more effective in trying to
resolve this conflict than the Council of Europe – let us think
about that.
My
second point concerns whether we think that sanctions have in any
way changed the way things are on the ground. I do not think so.
Fighting in Donbass has started up again over the past few weeks,
and the report of the Astana summit and the Normandy format, which
was initially expected on 15 January, does not augur well.
Discussions on the future status of the separatist regions in the
east of Ukraine – one aspect of the Minsk agreement – are
getting nowhere.
In
spite of everything, I remain convinced that it is in the
interests of both Ukraine and Russia to de-escalate the situation.
Kiev is aware that it is impossible to retake the Donbass by force
of arms, especially given the fact that the ongoing war is ruining
its economy and preventing it from implementing the structural
reforms that the country so badly needs. Moscow is isolated on the
international scene, and its economy is suffering from European
Union sanctions, even though the dramatic fall in the price of oil
has contributed to the situation. Parliamentarians must have
freedom to vote; that is the most important thing I have to say.
Ms
L’OVOCHKINA (Ukraine) – Many of you know that the
south-east of Ukraine, the Donbass region, and Crimea, did not
participate in the parliamentary elections that were held in
Ukraine, and those regions are under-represented in the Ukrainian
Parliament, and completely unrepresented in the Ukrainian
Government. I belong to the political force that represents
south-east Ukraine, and I want to emphasise to the Assembly that
some people are directly suffering from the conflict – I mean
those who stay in Donbass, Luhansk or the occupied territory of
Crimea. The rest of the people in south-east Ukraine – Kharkiv,
Odessa, Zaporizhia, Dnipropetrovsk and other cities – are simply
afraid of war coming to their doors.
As
a representative of south-east Ukraine in this Assembly, I wish to
say that the people want nothing but peace. Peace is essential for
the people of Ukraine. However, I must also be frank and open and
say that there are political forces in Ukraine that request and
promote war, and I believe that the Assembly should discourage the
ancient-style initiatives of our Prime Minister, such as building
a wall between Russia and Ukraine.
We
should discourage the desire for war of Mr Turchynov, the head of
the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine. He makes
open political statements saying that only war and victory will
resolve the situation in the east of Ukraine. He even has a
nickname, “bloody bastard”, in Ukraine, and I believe that
such things are done to distract the Ukrainian population from the
government’s economic failures, ongoing corruption, and the lack
of reforms. I agree with the rapporteur, who said that dialogue is
needed, but dialogue is also needed within Ukraine –
comprehensive constitutional reform should be the basis for
dialogue among the regions of Ukraine. There must be a dialogue
between us and the Russian Federation at the presidential level,
at the parliamentary level and at the government level. However, I
also agree with the rapporteur that pressure must be kept up. I
believe that we should keep the sanctions in place to encourage
Russia to engage in meaningful and essential dialogue with Ukraine
and the whole of Europe.
Mr
PUSHKOV (Russian Federation) – As we have confirmed quite
a few times, Russia is interested in keeping up a dialogue and
co-operation with the Parliamentary Assembly. That is why, even
after the sanctions were introduced against our delegation, in
contradiction of the principles of parliamentarianism, Russia
still had contacts with the Parliamentary Assembly. Although we
could not take part in the workings of the Assembly as an equal
partner – sanctions precluded that – we still maintained
contacts and we had a number of meetings with the Presidential
Committee, in Paris, in Strasbourg and in Moscow, we took part in
the workings of some committees of the Parliamentary Assembly and
we accepted the monitoring missions in Russia.
Therefore,
in the spirit of dialogue and co-operation, the Russian delegation
is willing to address the Russian authorities to allow
representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly, if they wish, to
visit Ms Savchenko in the place of her detention, to have a clear
idea of her physical state and to be able to exchange opinions
with her. I want to let you know that Ms Savchenko is not just a
member of parliament; she is a military person who is accused of
the serious crime of assisting in the killing of two Russian
journalists. In spite of that, we are quite willing to make this
move.
We
are also willing, as we informed the Presidential Committee, to
let a mission of the Monitoring Committee visit Crimea to prepare
a report on human rights there. At the same time, we insist on a
report being prepared on the violations of human rights in Eastern
Ukraine. We heard just now that there is a war party. Yesterday,
when we discussed the issue of refugees, we bypassed the question
of why about a million people have left Eastern Ukraine – to a
large extent, they were running from the devastation that was
brought to the area by the Ukrainian army. The Minsk agreement
calls for a cease-fire on both sides. I think that it is well
known that at least a large part of what happens in Eastern
Ukraine is the responsibility of the Ukrainian military forces.
We
are not blackmailing anybody and I suggest that we refrain from
using such offensive language. The Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe should take a balanced opinion. Without Russia,
will the old European inter-parliamentary dialogue be more
productive or less productive? Will it help to bring about a
solution to the crisis in Ukraine? Who wins from ending such a
dialogue? What will prevail, finally – emotions or reason? It is
up to you to give the answer.
Mr
SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation)* – May I make a little
digression to 2009, when we discussed a similar issue? At that
time, the then President, Mr de Puig, who I think was a great
parliamentarian, asked us all a question: “Have we done
everything we can to deal with the situation?” That is the right
question to ask today, too. As I see it, all of us – I include
myself; I am criticising myself first and foremost – have taken
up positions that are not consistent with the main aim of this
Organisation, as expressed by our Secretary General, to represent
all sides of the question. I do not see all sides of the question
being represented. One side, yes, but what about the other side?
How can we have dialogue with only one side represented?
If
we have dialogue, we do not have to assess the situation in the
virtual world, on the Internet. We do not have to talk about the
people living in Russia who are former Ukrainians. Let us talk
about who is undermining the Minsk agreement. Let us talk about
who is preventing a settlement from being achieved. As I see it,
the Parliamentary Assembly did not understand the situation in
Ukraine when it was developing. The key to any conflict is in the
roots – the beginning – of that conflict. At that time, nobody
wanted to look into what was happening and we see the results
today.
If
we adopt a hard-line resolution, it will not change anything. It
will keep things one-sided, as they have been so often before. We
should bear in mind the fact that up to 75% of my fellow Russians
have no objection to the idea of Russia no longer being a part of
the Parliamentary Assembly. That is a matter of concern for me
and, I think, not just for me alone.
Mr
MARIANI (France)* – In three weeks, I will be present –
like a number of you, perhaps – in Vienna for the Parliamentary
Assembly of the OSCE. The OSCE exists to deal with questions of
security; that is its purpose. At the OSCE, I have met Ukrainians,
Russians, Americans and Europeans – all members of parliament.
Despite the situation, in the OSCE, dialogue is on-going. As Mr
Pozzo di Borgo said, the governments are continuing to engage in
dialogue. Other international organisations and diplomats are
continuing with the dialogue. What do we want to do? Do we want to
be the only Assembly where the dialogue has been completely broken
off for a whole year?
Let
us look at the results of the last nine months. The result has
been zero – nothing. Who in this Assembly could think for one
second that depriving a delegation of the right to vote would
bring about peace? If that were the case, of course I would
deprive the delegation of the right to vote. However, like you, I
am familiar with history. I know that the blockade of England by
Napoleon and the sanctions against Cuba by the United States led
to nothing. If sanctions were to bring about peace, then okay –
let us wait and see. The fact is, however, that sanctions lead
each time to a loss of dialogue and a loss of confidence.
If
we give a chance for dialogue once again for a short period, would
that bring about peace? I do not know, but at least it would give
peace a chance. We can all list massacres and say, “Remember
Mariupol and Odessa.” Is that a solution or might we in a few
months’ time find ourselves in a position where we could add a
few more towns to that list? Twenty-four hours ago, Mr Sheridan
reminded us that a million people have been displaced in Ukraine
and that many lives have been lost. How many refugees are there? I
do not know, but, unlike Mr Walter, I do not think that this is a
matter of being brave or pusillanimous. I want everyone to defend
their deeply held convictions, whether they support Mr Schennach’s
report or not. On Monday, Mr Reynders stressed that Russia’s
involvement in the Council of Europe is crucial, not only for
Russia, but for us. I am convinced that it would be
counter-productive to vote against Mr Schennach’s report,
because we would then continue in our current position of
ignorance. We need to remain in dialogue. Sometimes it is
difficult to understand one another. Mr Schennach, I will support
your report.
Mr
SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)* – This is a moment of truth
in our Parliamentary Assembly, of which I have been a member for
14 years. We have been together on many difficult occasions; when
blood was shed in Chechnya, we worked hard on that and found a
solution. We were deprived of our right to vote then, too, but
that did not help. Any sanction, split, or undermining of
parliamentary diplomacy will not work. We need to unite our
nations, look for the points on which we can agree, and use that
as a basis for finding a solution.
The
same thing happened in 2008-09, when the whole world laboured
under the illusion that the Russian Federation had attacked poor
defenceless Georgia. Once again, we worked hard on that, as we did
in the case of the Chechen Republic, and of South Ossetia. You
will recall Frank Judd, Andreas Gross and Rudolf Bindig; Andreas
Gross is still with the Assembly. Now Mr Schennach is proposing
something constructive: setting up a working group and having a
special report on the situation in Crimea. We are talking about
taking steps together that will allow us to find the truth and do
away with the lies polluting the political sphere – lies that
those who want to build a unipolar world are interested in
telling. That is resulting in blood being spilled in the Russian
world.
The
Russian Federation is a great power; it will not hold out its
hands, begging for its credentials to be ratified. We want to
participate in the most all-encompassing organisation of Europe,
which is the Council of Europe, and in particular in its
Parliamentary Assembly. Today more than ever before, we must find
a way that will either bring us closer together or divide us and
send us in different directions, resulting in a split of Europe. I
think we must stay together to build our common European house on
the basis of the great Council of Europe values. I call on you to
vote in favour of the Schennach report and against the destructive
Amendment 28.
Ms
ZELIENKOVÁ (Czech Republic) – In response to the
occupation of Crimea, we withdrew Russian voting rights and
deprived Russia of all leading positions within the Parliamentary
Assembly last April. We also reserved the right to annul the
credentials of the Russian delegation if Russia did not reverse
its annexation of Crimea. How has the situation evolved since
then? Russia, illegally and illegitimately, made Crimea part of
its territory. As a consequence, an atmosphere of fear was
established. Human rights violations, murders, kidnappings,
imprisonments and intimidation of not only direct opponents of the
occupation but all Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians have become part
of daily life in Crimea. Tens of thousands of people have fled,
having been deprived of their dignity, property and homeland.
We
all know what followed: Russia tried to apply the same scenario to
the area of Donbass. As with the Crimean crisis, Moscow claims
that it has nothing to do with this annexation of Ukrainian
territory. However, we all know that Russia is the initiator and
administrator of the armed rebellion against the Ukrainian state.
Our observers, journalists and secret services daily inform us of
convoys of armoured vehicles, including fighting vehicles, weapons
and dozens of Russian soldiers heading from Russia to the
Ukrainian territories, which are under attacks from rebels.
We
are aware that this war chased hundreds of thousands of people
from their homes. We are aware that it caused a lot of hatred, and
that it will be long before these people can again live together
peacefully. We are also aware that no one hurt the
Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine as much as President Putin.
We are aware that without Russian support, the war would be long
over. We must annul the credentials of the Russian delegation
today, rather than simply renewing the recent limitations in the
Parliamentary Assembly because Russia has just started a new war.
Russia must also realise that if it continues with its expansive
politics, it will not be welcome in the Council of Europe any
more.
Ms
CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – I thank the rapporteur for his
very balanced report. We are in an extremely difficult situation.
What is the right thing to do? I wish I knew. What I do know is
that we have an obligation towards the people of Ukraine, and we
must strongly condemn Russia’s lack of respect for international
law. Through its actions, Russia has inflicted unbelievable pain
and suffering on innocent people. War is unacceptable, as is
annexation of the territory of another country.
In
this tragic situation for Ukraine, Europe, and even Russia itself,
many speakers in the Assembly have called for the Council of
Europe to show its strength. We can all agree on that, but what is
strength in this most dangerous crisis for Europe since the Second
World War? In my opinion, it would be showing strength to
contribute to a peaceful solution, which is something that,
unfortunately, no one has been able to achieve – in other words,
to make a difference. We have a common goal: peace in Ukraine. We
differ, though, when it comes to effective means. Last year, we
tried to force a solution by limiting the Russian credentials, but
that did not work. The suffering of the Ukrainian people is
growing, and the war continues to escalate.
The
report suggests another solution, based on the work done in the ad
hoc sub-committee on Russia’s neighbourhood policy. The Russian
delegation took part in discussions in these meetings. They gave
some limited signals of being willing to take part in further
dialogue and in setting up a special working group with high
representatives from the Duma and the Verkhovna Rada, as well as
independent international experts. I find this road map worth
trying. A precondition for the Russian delegation is that their
credentials are not limited this time. Some have called this
giving into Russian blackmail. It could also be seen as an attempt
to keep the dialogue going in hope of finding a solution for
peace. The benefit of bringing in independent experts might be
that this working group could go deeper into the conflict than we
have been able to so far.
For
this Assembly, human rights are at stake. For Russia, I think this
war is more about naval bases in Crimea and access to the Black
Sea. If independent experts could contribute to finding solutions
to the underlying conflicts, perhaps we could gradually manoeuvre
into a better position to end this tragedy. In that sense, I think
the resolution represents a balance between head and heart that is
worth trying until June.
Mr
ARIEV (Ukraine) – Before distinguished colleagues vote, I
call on them to look at some photos I have of Mariupol. Of course,
you could visit Donbass and speak to the relatives of people
killed by Russian weapons, but the photos might help you
understand the situation from a distance. If you want further
evidence of Russian involvement in Ukraine, you could look at the
photos of Russian soldiers in Donetsk pictured with the leader of
the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic”, or at the photo
of that same person’s military ticket, which was issued by the
Russian Federation’s ministry of defence. We have enough
evidence of the Russian military’s presence on Ukraine’s
territory.
I
have been asked why we have to impose sanctions on Russian
parliamentarians, if perhaps it is not fair, but I remind the
Assembly that they are guilty of many things. First, they voted
for the annexation of Crimea – people present in this Chamber
voted for that. They also voted for Russian troops to invade
Ukraine – they gave permission for that. We have heard no
regrets from them and they have not taken a step back. Has there
been any dialogue since Resolution 1990 was adopted last April?
Yesterday we heard definitions of the word “dialogue” and I
called on the President to stop it, because it was offensive to
Ukrainians and contained elements of hate speech. Paragraph 16 of
Resolution 1990 reserved the right of the Assembly to annul the
credentials of the Russian delegation. We do not insist on that,
but it is illogical that sanctions be kept at the same level,
because the Russians have not taken a step back.
The
report is full of impressive quotations and facts, but there is a
lack of coherence. It is like giving a €15 fine for murder. If
there are clear facts, they must be met with corresponding
sanctions. As a compromise, I call on the Assembly to support
Amendment 15 and only one of the oral sub-amendments.
Mr
BELYAKOV (Russian Federation)* – We have heard a lot of
criticism today of the Russian delegation, but the delegation is
not uniform in its composition. I represent an opposition party
and we have often worked with European institutions on accusations
of falsification of election results. Over the past five years, at
least two of my colleagues have suffered: one was killed by
firearms and the other was seriously wounded.
When
a large number of declarations started to appear in the mass media
about the supposed presence of Russian soldiers on Ukrainian
territory, as the chairman of an anti-corruption committee in the
Russian Federation, I was very interested in finding documentary
evidence. I very much regret, however, that I did not manage to
find anything. Many have talked about supposedly thousands of
Russian soldiers crossing the Ukrainian border with tanks and
artillery, but where are the dead and wounded Russian soldiers?
Where are the prisoners of war? I have looked for proof of their
supposed activities on Ukrainian territory, but I have not found
any.
The
European media constantly report that military aircraft and tanks
are entering Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, but there is no factual
evidence for that. Apparently there are photographs. Show them to
us – I would like to see them on the television, but that does
not happen. There is a flow of propaganda.
The
situation reminds me of what happened in Iraq. We will discuss
media liberty tomorrow. All the media said there were weapons of
mass destruction and even nuclear weapons in Iraq and that we had
to take over Iraq in order to save democracy, but that turned out
to be completely untrue. That is exactly what is happening today
to the Russian Federation.
We are in favour of
parliamentary dialogue. We have participated in a lot of meetings
and have included Sergey Naryshkin, the speaker of our parliament,
in the Russian delegation. How much more evidence do you need to
be convinced that we want to engage in dialogue? It is deplorable
that so many lies are being repeated. A lot of people in this
Chamber do not understand that they are under the influence of
mendacious propaganda.
Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine)
– The main argument we hear now is that we need dialogue. We
Ukrainians have waited for that dialogue for the past one to two
months. We have even waited for that dialogue these past three
days, not only with those present in the Chamber, but with the
speaker of State Duma of the Russian Federation, Mr Naryshkin, who
had the opportunity to attend a round-table meeting.
We are referred to
as the Ukrainian junta. The speaker of State Duma – a state
servant – does not recognise the Ukrainian President, Government
or parliamentarians, and yet they want dialogue? What are we
waiting for? We are waiting for Russian delegates to apologise for
their decision to send Russian troops. That was the decision of
their State Duma, but they do not see what they voted for –
troops in my country. Thousands have been killed, tens of
thousands wounded and 1 million have lost their homes. Perhaps you
should apologise for that. Perhaps you should apologise for the
annexation of Crimea. But all you say is, “No, they’re not our
troops. There are no tanks in Crimea.” Please go to Crimea to
see them. You say, “There are no dead or wounded Russian
soldiers,” but who are we giving each day to your government?
Who now controls 220 km2 of Ukrainian land? Russians
and the terrorists they finance.
Please answer this
question: what are these “humanitarian” convoys passing
through our land? Why are more and more people being killed by
your weapons after the convoys have been through? You give no
answer. I am sorry, but that is not dialogue.
I thank the
rapporteur for his excellent report, which includes all the facts
about Russian troops, but we want the compromise offered by
Amendment 28. It is an excellent amendment, which gives Russia
three months to fulfil its obligations to Ukraine, Georgia and
Moldova. We will see how things stand in April. If progress has
been made, we will go forward. If not, then sorry – this
Organisation has principles and we will not change them because
somebody wants to kill somebody else.
Mr
KVATCHANTIRADZE (Georgia) – A week ago, I had the chance
to visit Ukraine, and I can confirm that the situation in that
country is extraordinarily worrying. It has regressed since this
Assembly’s previous session. Russia continues cynically to
challenge the international community and violate all the basic
principles of the Council of Europe and its Assembly. There is no
reason not to maintain the status quo for the Russian delegates,
at least until the next session.
Unfortunately,
nobody in Russia’s political establishment understands the
imperatives of democracy – we have witnessed that in this
Chamber. Russian policy towards Ukraine, which is not the best
example of democracy, reflects nothing other than the relationship
between a sovereign and their vassal. Russian stirred up
separatist tensions and provided military support. Like Mr Slutsky
yesterday, Mr Belyakov said that there is no evidence of a Russian
military presence on Ukrainian territory. But why have Russian
soldiers stated that there are hundreds of Russians graves in
Russian cities far from Ukrainian territory?
If
the Assembly does not vote to maintain the status quo for the
Russian delegation, Ukraine will be returned to the Russian sphere
of influence. Perhaps not all of the Assembly’s resolutions and
recommendations have historical value, but the one that we are
debating today certainly does. People have a growing sense of
disappointment and irritation about the wavering of the European
institutions and their member countries towards Russia’s
militaristic policy. We must be firm in our support for the
peaceful resolution of all conflicts.
If
we were to reinstate full membership for the Russian Federation
today, we would be violating our principles under pressure from
the Russian military machine. Since the previous session, the
situation in Ukraine has worsened and become more unpredictable.
It will be difficult, but freedom and life are never easy; to die
or to become a slave is easier. If we fail to maintain the status
quo today, we will be victims of the situation. I call on all of
you not to make that historical mistake.
Mr
JAPARIDZE (Georgia) – Membership of the Council of Europe
and the Parliamentary Assembly is a privilege, not a right. Member
states subject themselves to its jurisdiction and its decisions.
If the Parliamentary Assembly is to have any meaning, its members
must accept its rules. Unfortunately, the Russian Federation, by
its actions in Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere, has shown that it
has no intention of living according to those rules. It illegally
annexed Crimea, it encouraged and supported the separatists in
east Ukraine and it has been occupying Georgian territory since
2008.
Ironically,
members have been arguing that the Russian delegates should be
allowed to take part in the Parliamentary Assembly again at a time
when Russia’s military pressure on Ukraine is increasing. It is
more evident today than it was when Russia was first banned from
voting in Parliamentary Assembly sessions nearly a year ago. Since
then, nearly 5 000 Ukrainians have died as a result of Russian
aggression. Recently, Russia agreed so-called treaties with
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is clear that Russia tramples on
democracy and basic human rights wherever it goes.
Our
Assembly stands on commonly accepted, normative foundations and
beliefs. Russia’s successive violations of the national
sovereignty of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine and its illicit use of
force show clearly that it has no intention of honouring our
common principles. Restoring the credentials of the Russian
delegation would legitimise the use of force and would indicate
that violating the norms and principles that make the
Parliamentary Assembly a meaningful forum is acceptable. It would
undermine the political and moral standing of our Assembly.
If
and when the Russian authorities show that they are willing to
live by the rules accepted by the Parliamentary Assembly, we can
reconsider the situation. That should be the compromise that you
urge us to think about, Mr Schennach.
Mr
LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – The issue of the credentials of
the Russian delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly pertains to
our self-respect and our respect for our Organisation and the
principles on which it was built.
On
accession to the Council of Europe, Russia committed itself to the
general obligations in the Statute of the Council of Europe,
according to which, “the pursuit of peace based upon justice and
international co-operation is vital”. Nevertheless, over the
past 20 years, the Assembly has constantly reproached Russia for
its relationships with its neighbouring states, including its
failure to return diplomatic property to the Baltic states and its
aggressive conflicts in Moldova and Georgia.
Russia
is trying to prove that the rule of force is above the rule of
law. At stake today is not merely the credentials of a particular
delegation of a particular state, but the viability of the Council
of Europe. We forgave Russia for its hostilities in Transnistria,
and we got a war in Georgia; we forgave it for South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, and we got its annexation of Crimea and a war in
Donbass. If you forgive it for Ukraine, be ready to be next. If we
allow Russia to ignore the key principles of the Council of
Europe, we will destroy the Council of Europe by depriving its
existence of meaning.
Putin’s
Russia has set itself in opposition to the whole world. We applaud
all the states that have introduced sanctions against the
aggressor; they are supporting not only Ukraine but the basis of
world order. Modern international law suggests that aggressors
should be called to account not only by the victims of the
aggression but by any member of the international community. That
is what the European Union, the United States of America, Canada,
Australia, Japan and many others are doing now. The Council of
Europe must join the single voice of the civilised world.
Angela
Merkel said in her new year address: “There can be absolutely no
doubt that we want security in Europe with Russia and not against
Russia.” She said that there can, however, be no question “of
Europe accepting the law of the jungle where the stronger side
violates international law. We cannot accept this, and we will not
accept it.” Please keep that in mind and do not bring the jungle
into the Council of Europe.
Ms
GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – A year ago, the Council of
State of the Russian Federation voted for its troops to burst into
the territory of Ukraine. The Russian politicians who are in the
plenary hall today voted for war against Ukraine. They have
allowed Ukrainian women and children to be killed.
Some
people in the Russian political arena have suffered visa
sanctions; they have been refused the right of entry into European
Union countries. However, they are here today in Strasbourg as if
nothing had happened because they have diplomatic immunity as
members of the delegation of this Assembly. At the same time
Ukrainian MP Nadiia Savchenko, who also has diplomatic immunity,
remains in a Russian prison.
Today,
we see that Russian policy is based on a lack of respect for any
standards or rules. A year ago, Russian President Putin declared
to the entire world that there were no Russian troops in Crimea.
Then he acknowledged the presence of the Russian army on the
territory of the peninsula. Every day, we receive information
about repression against the Crimean Tatars. Our colleague, the
leader of the Crimean Tatars, does not have the right to enter
occupied Crimea.
The
President of the Russian Federation has also stated that if
necessary he would put women and children in front of Russian
troops. At the moment, pro-Russian terrorists are setting up
weapons on the roofs of civilian districts, in school playgrounds
and hospitals. Women and children are suffering the most from the
war in the Donbass. Terrorists have subjected a Boeing aircraft, a
bus close to Volnovakha and the civilian district of Mariupol to
attacks using Grad rockets. The Russian authorities are
blackmailing the world and Ukraine and demanding the opening of
negotiations with the terrorists, the national republics of
Luhansk and Donetsk. They are doing the same with the shield made
up of women and children.
That
is why today we ask the entire world, as well as this Assembly, to
show solidarity with Ukraine. We are grateful to all those who
say, “I am Mariupol, I am Ukraine. I am against the terrorists
and the countries that support the terrorists.”
The
Ukraine President, the Ukrainian authorities and the people of
Ukraine are for a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbass,
but is dialogue possible under the shelling and the firing of Grad
rockets? We appeal for an immediate return to the Minsk protocol.
Those agreements should be enacted. We need a genuine cease-fire.
The Russian Federation and the terrorists must free all prisoners
and hostages. Ukraine alone must control its borders. Our army is
on the territory of Ukraine. It is doing its duty. What are
Russian soldiers and weapons doing in Ukraine? That is why we
demand first of all a return to the agreements signed in Minsk.
Only afterwards will we be able to talk about the return of the
rights of the Russian delegation.
Ms
KHIDASHELI (Georgia) – Mr Slutsky has become my
inspiration in this session. I agree with you when you say that
today is the moment of truth for the Parliamentary Assembly. Ms
Beck said correctly that this is not about Georgia or Ukraine but
about the Council of Europe. The vote that will take place here is
about the words that we love to say so much here all the time
about our values. Today, in the vote, we will show whether those
values are still there, or they are just words.
For
the past three days, I have kept hearing words of solidarity: “We
know, we regret, we understand the feelings of Georgians and
Ukrainians.” I am sorry to say to my colleagues that this is not
about Georgians and Ukrainians. This is about the whole of Europe.
This is about every European sitting in this Chamber. When we talk
about the aggression in the middle of Europe and the bombs falling
in the middle of Europe, this is not about the feelings of
Georgians or Ukrainians. It is about all of us. It is about every
European, regardless of how many kilometres they live from
Mariupol, Tskhinvali, Sukhumi or the other cities that have been
occupied by the Russian Federation.
In
this debate, we are still hearing questions about the possibility
for dialogue. The door to dialogue was open for nine months. I
underline that over and again. It has been said here many times.
The dialogue has been offered to Russia every day, morning and
evening from April, when the resolution was passed, but the
Russians decided to go away and not be part of the dialogue.
Today, I am hearing that we need to have them on board. Yes, we
Georgians also want them to be on board, but please do not forget
that the board that the Russians see is cleansed of Georgians. The
board they see is cleansed of Ukrainians. That is the alternative
they are giving to all of you. Either you agree with that or you
disagree. Today’s vote will answer that: whether you want just
Russians on board, or you want everyone sitting in this room,
including Georgians and Ukrainians, on board, where that dialogue
should take place.
Lord
ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – How do I follow such a fine
speech? Our rapporteur has made an honest and strenuous effort to
find a way through but I believe that his report is based on an
illusion. Paragraph 13 states, “there have been clear signals
that the Duma is now willing to engage in such a constructive
dialogue with the Assembly.” Where is the evidence?
We
are told that we can visit the imprisoned member of parliament. Is
she to be a bargaining counter? She should not have been
imprisoned in the first place. She is under parliamentary
immunity. We are also told that a delegation can visit Crimea.
What could it possibly find? The key point is that Crimea has been
annexed by Russia against all international norms. Can any
visiting delegation gainsay that? Russia and her allies are in
total control of Crimea.
Voting
rights have achieved great symbolic significance here, as if, if
we were to drop the voting ban on the Russian delegation, suddenly
all doors would open and President Putin would say, “Fine, I can
now have compromises.” Everyone believes in dialogue. Dialogue
is the raison d’être of our Assembly, but dialogue
assumes that there is a willingness to engage in serious dialogue.
If our Russian colleagues want to have dialogue, they can have
dialogue now. They are here. Is there a serious dialogue? It is
they who have chosen to boycott the Assembly. If they want
dialogue, let them do it.
I
pose this question: why did we impose sanctions in the first
place? It was because of Crimea and the destabilising efforts of
Russia in Eastern Ukraine. Those tanks were not bought in shops.
They were imported from Russia. Has there been any change since we
imposed that sanction? No. It has become worse. I invite
colleagues to read the defiant speech of President Putin in his
state of the nation address in December.
Why
should we move? It is Russia that should move. Of course we expect
concessions also from the Ukraine Government. What message would
be sent if we were now to dilute the sanctions and say to our
Russian colleagues, “Yes, you can have voting rights”? It
would be counter to what is being done in other international
forums. It will encourage Russia and reduce this Organisation’s
credibility. It would send the wrong signal. Surely we should
maintain the status quo.
What
we are talking about is very serious. Yesterday, it was Georgia
and Ukraine. Perhaps it is far from your doorsteps. Tomorrow it
might be Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. The next day it might be
Poland. We are not far away from the moment we have all seen with
the iron curtain. Let me reiterate. Today saying no to those
sanctions means that we apologise to the Russians. Every one of us
who voted in April will be apologising for the mistakes we made in
April. I strongly advise you not to do that and not to give them
the green light for another occupation and military advance.
THE
PRESIDENT – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The
speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present
during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to
the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind
colleagues that the texts are to be submitted in typescript,
electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the
list of speakers is interrupted.
I
call Mr Schennach, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes.
Mr SCHENNACH
(Austria)* – I thank all who have spoken this afternoon
on a decisive issue for this Assembly. Something has changed from
when I was here in April. We have all discussed the matter and we
have also heard from the Russian Federation – I acknowledge
that.
We must conduct this
dialogue, but at the same time we have concluded that there is
great mistrust. A decision before the Monitoring Committee
provides for acceptance of Amendment 28, which states that we will
decide on voting rights later. Axel Fischer from Germany made the
proposal not in June, but in April.
We could try to
secure confidence by achieving five things: the immediate right to
visit Nadiia Savchenko; immediate set-up of the monitoring
committee or group for Crimea; deployment of the group between the
Rada and the Duma; right of entry for the Crimean leader; and
setting up the ad hoc committee. The opportunity to prove the
willingness to do these things was provided. There was an oral
amendment. We thought about deleting “Standing Committee”, so
that that dialogue could be conducted – and then we could create
something together.
I appeal to the left
– to my own political group, the Socialist Group – and to
national delegations, such as yours Ms Djurović, to view all of
this as an opportunity for a compromise. Then it will be not 51%
to 49% or 55% to 45%, but 80% or 90% of us here saying yes to
dialogue, as we realise that what is happening in Ukraine is one
of the most terrible situations that we are witnessing currently
in Europe.
I urge you all to
lend your support to such a compromise. If we do that we will be
strong, and we can use the full clout of this Assembly for good.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT –
Does one of the vice-chairpersons of the committee wish to speak?
I call Mr Cilevičs.
You have two minutes.
Mr CILEVIČS
(Latvia) – Thank you, President. We are all politicians
and this means that our responsibility goes beyond just naming and
shaming. In many cases, including this one, it is not so difficult
to say who is responsible and who is guilty; it is much more
difficult to ask what we can do to find some ways to improve the
situation. We are all united in a strong wish and determination to
do our best to stop violence and human suffering and – let’s
call a spade a spade – to stop war in the heart of Europe.
However, we have quite different views, as we heard in this
debate, about how to achieve this in practice and about what our
Assembly can do to ameliorate the suffering of Europeans – of
our people.
Our rapporteur, Mr
Schennach, has been working really hard. He prepared an excellent
report that many speakers praised, even if they disagreed with the
conclusions.
We had heated and
emotional but, generally, in my view, very constructive debate in
the Monitoring Committee. Now the decision is in your hands. The
future will show whether we were correct when taking decisions and
whether, indeed, we helped to resolve this problem and contributed
something, or whether we were guided just by emotions. It is very
difficult. When we vote, we always do so partly with our hearts
and partly with our brains. So let us try to find the proper
proportion between the heart and the brain. Thank you, President.
THE PRESIDENT –
The debate is closed.
The Monitoring
Committee has presented a draft resolution, Document 13685, to
which 29 amendments have been tabled. However, I must inform the
Assembly that amendments 14 and 2 have been ruled out of order and
will therefore not be considered.
I understand that
the Vice-Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee wishes to propose
to the Assembly that Amendments 29, 27 and 22 to the draft
resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee,
should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.
Is that so?
Mr CILEVIČS
(Latvia) – Yes.
THE PRESIDENT* –
Does anyone object?
There is no
objection.
Amendments 29, 27
and 22 are adopted.
The remaining
amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the
revised compendium, which was issued this afternoon. Colleagues, I
remind you that speaking time for each amendment is restricted to
30 seconds.
We come now to
Amendment 3. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
Mr ZHELEZNYAK
(Russian Federation)* – In paragraph 2 we want to add the
idea of setting up an investigative sub-committee to look at all
the events occurring since August 2013. I think the work of such
an investigative sub-committee could make it possible for the
Parliamentary Assembly to get a better sense of the origins of
this conflict and therefore make it easier to find a solution.
THE PRESIDENT* –
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr
Schennach.
Mr SCHENNACH
(Austria) – We are against the amendment, because we do
not need this now: we have a lot to do. That was a proposal from
2014 and now we have other political actions to achieve. The time
will come when somebody has to investigate – in about 10 years –
but we do not need it now and it makes no sense to have it in this
report.
THE PRESIDENT –
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CILEVIČS
(Latvia) – Against.
THE PRESIDENT* –
The vote is open.
Amendment 3 is
rejected.
We
come to Amendment 4. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the
amendment.
Mr
ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – There is all sorts of
information in the mass media, and it is not always verified. We
must base what we do on proven facts, which is why we propose
inserting the word “alleged” before “deaths and
disappearances”.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Schennach.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – For the Council of Europe, facts
are set out in the report of our Commissioner for Human Rights,
and as rapporteur I used exactly those words.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
4 is rejected.
I
call Mr Aleksandrov on a point of order.
Mr
ALEKSANDROV (Russian Federation)* – My voting machine is
not working. Is that deliberate?
THE
PRESIDENT* – It is because your delegation does not have the
right to vote.
Amendment
5 falls because Amendment 4 was not adopted.
We
come to Amendment 6. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the
amendment.
Mr
ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – We once again suggest
inserting the word “alleged”, this time before the words “arms
supplies”, because once again we are convinced that what is
written in the draft resolution is based on a lot of hypotheses,
not facts. If we want to preserve our self-respect, we must base
what we do on facts. If those facts later turn out to be untrue,
we will have egg on our faces.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Ariev.
Mr
ARIEV (Ukraine) – Last year we heard a speech here from
our colleague the leader of the Crimean Tatars, Mustafa
Dzhemiliev, who clearly proved the disappearances and deaths of
activists in Crimea. It is an absolutely proven fact, so the word
“alleged” should not be used.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr CILEVIČS
(Latvia) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT* –
The vote is open.
Amendment 6 is
rejected.
We come to Amendment
7. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the amendment.
Mr ZHELEZNYAK
(Russian Federation)* – We propose that what is required
of the Russian authorities should be extended to the authorities
of other Council of Europe member states and observers, because
there are many confirmations that the volunteers in eastern
Ukraine include citizens of many states, not just the Russian
Federation.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Schennach.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am against the amendment. Some
volunteers from other states might be there illegally, but we are
talking about responsibility and no other states are involved.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
7 is rejected.
We
come to Amendment 8. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the
amendment.
Mr
ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – We propose broadening
the drafting by using the term “opposing forces”, rather than
“insurgent forces”, so that the requirement not to supply arms
is imposed equally on all sides, because that is the best way to
de-escalate.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Schennach.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – The amendment would weaken my
report, which has very clear wording already.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
8 is rejected.
We
come to Amendment 9. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the
amendment.
Mr
ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – I once again insist
that it is a fact that there are people from different member
states engaged in military activities in eastern Ukraine, not just
from the Russian Federation, and we need to ensure that they all
leave.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Schennach.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – It is possible that there are about
a dozen volunteers from other countries, but I am using the
wording of the OSCE. If 98% of the volunteers are Russian, the
text we have is correct.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
9 is rejected.
We
come to Amendment 10. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the
amendment.
Mr
ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – We are talking about
criminalising participation by civilians in armed conflicts
abroad, but such criminalisation is something that other Council
of Europe member states should do in equal measure, not just the
Russian Federation. That could de-escalate this conflict and many
others. We therefore propose deleting the word “Russian”.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Schennach.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – Paragraph 7.3 is very clear that
this is about Russian volunteers, so clearly 7.4 should refer to
“Russian civilians”.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
10 is rejected.
We
come now to Amendment 11. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the
amendment.
Mr
ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – The amendment suggests
that the prosecution to the full extent of the law of participants
as volunteers in the armed conflict should apply to all citizens
in all states under all laws. If the provision were limited only
to Russian citizens, that would reduce the effectiveness of the
decision and citizens of other states would be able to participate
in such armed conflicts. Would that not be slightly paradoxical?
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Schennach.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – My report makes it very clear who
has responsibility and who has to do something. This is a battle
about the wording, not about reality.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
11 is rejected.
THE
PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 1. I call Mr Chope to support
the amendment.
Mr
CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The amendment expresses our
grave concern that the Russian Federation is now denying that it
is even party to the Minsk agreement and protocols. Both Mr
Naryshkin and Mr Slutsky assert that, as Russia is only an
observer, it is under no obligation to honour the Minsk agreement
and protocols. That is outrageous, and I hope that people will
support the amendment.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone want to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Kox.
Mr
KOX (Netherlands) – As the rapporteur states time and
again, we should ensure that we have facts in the report. I follow
the situation closely, but I am not aware that that is the
official position of the Russian Government. It is the idea of our
colleague Mr Chope, who says that other people have said that. We
should stick to the facts and this is not factual. Surely
President Putin does not see himself as a simple observer of the
Minsk accord. The amendment does not make sense.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is in favour.
THE
PRESIDENT*– The vote is open.
We
come to Amendment 21. I call Ms Gerashchenko to support the
amendment.
Ms
GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine) – We have a lot of proof of
military presence in Donbass and we are asking the Assembly to
consider the republics as terrorist organisations supported by the
Russian Federation.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Kox.
Mr
KOX (Netherlands) – We should take care that we do not
use terms too easily. The Council of Europe has its own Convention
on the Prevention of Terrorism, which deals with such issues.
Introducing that terminology to the report does not help us. The
situation is already difficult enough and these organisations are
not on the list of terrorist organisations. Let us stick to the
text proposed by Mr Schennach.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
21 is rejected.
THE
PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 13. I call Mr Sobolev to
support the amendment.
Mr
SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – You must understand that Ms Savchenko
has had no decision from a Russian court for six months. She is
only in detention, so she can be freed in 24 hours. If Russian
prosecutors want to take action, they can, but she is not guilty
and no Russian court has approved this.
THE
PRESIDENT* – We come to the oral sub-amendment to Amendment 13,
which was tabled by Mr Schennach, which is, at the end, to insert
the words “and hand her over to a third country”.
The
oral sub-amendment is admissible, provided there are no
objections. If anyone thinks that it should not be considered,
please indicate that by standing. Ten full members or substitutes
would have to object to the oral sub-amendment. That is not the
case
I call Mr Schennach
to support the oral sub-amendment.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – We need a solution about Nadiia
Savchenko within a very short time and we cannot wait for
discussion between Russia and Ukraine. We have international
mechanisms – The Hague, Strasbourg and the presidential country
of the Council of Europe – so she could be handed over to one of
those three countries.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral
sub-amendment? I call Lord Anderson.
Lord
ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – Does it make any difference?
We are asking for her to be returned, directly or indirectly. In
any event, any reasonable third country would pass her to Ukraine,
so I do not think the sub-amendment makes any difference
whatsoever to the fate of the prisoner.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is in favour.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
The
oral sub-amendment is adopted.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 13, as
amended? I call Mr Kox.
Mr
KOX (Netherlands) – Facts are important. It is known that
three weeks ago you, Madam President, and the Presidential
Committee were informed by our Ukrainian counterparts of this
serious problem with the immunity of a member of our Assembly.
Since then, you have done a lot, the Assembly has done a lot and
there are the beginnings of an agreement with Russia that we
should do something about it. Adding that this should all happen
within 24 hours does not make the chances of Ms Savchenko’s
being released as quickly as possible any better. Let us stick to
the facts and not accept the amendment.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is in favour.
THE
PRESIDENT*– The vote is open.
We
come to Amendment 12. I call Mr Zheleznyak to support the
amendment.
Mr
ZHELEZNYAK (Russian Federation)* – The 14th army left
Transnistria a very long time ago. A very small contingent of our
soldiers, who are there simply to protect the weapons and
munitions, is very important to defend the rest of Europe. Despite
its obligations, the Ukrainian side does not allow us to move
those munitions and that equipment through its territory to
Russia, so we have to keep them there.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Ghiletchi.
Mr
GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – In 1995, in Istanbul,
the Russian Federation undertook the obligation to withdraw its
troops and military equipment from the territory of the Republic
of Moldova. Sixteen years later, it proposes to annul this
obligation. That is how it views dialogue. Unfortunately, there is
a technical problem. We should ask it to withdraw military troops
from the territory of the Republic of Moldova, as has been stated
several times in the resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against the
amendment.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open. [Interruption.] The noise
you can hear is the wind outside, so do not feel afraid.
Amendment
12 is rejected.
We
come to Amendment 24. I call Mr Kandelaki to support the
amendment.
Mr
KANDELAKI (Georgia) – The amendment would delete part of
the original paragraph that mentions positive signals coming from
the Russian Federation. People are dying every day, and this fact
cannot be counted as any kind of positive signal. So, naturally,
the part that eulogises Russian so-called positive signals should
be deleted.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Schennach.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – With this sentence we state our
experience. We got these signals as a result of the ad hoc
committee, and the Monitoring Committee is following them.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against the
amendment.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
24 is rejected.
Mr
BAKRADZE (Georgia) – Paragraph 16 of the resolution that
we adopted in April says:
“The Assembly reserves the right to annul the credentials of the Russian delegation, if the Russian Federation does not de-escalate the situation and reverse the annexation of Crimea”. Today, we do not see the reversal of the annexation of Crimea. Crimea is as it was. The situation in eastern Ukraine is more tense now and is escalating. I call on you, dear colleagues, to demonstrate that our words are credible and that we can keep our promises on important political commitments.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Schennach.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – The majority in the committee voted
for Amendment 28, not for Amendment 26, which is radically against
the spirit of the report.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against the
amendment.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
26 is rejected.
Amendment 15
therefore falls.
Mr
KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I do not wish to press the
amendment.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Amendment 25 is not moved.
Ms
SOTNYK (Ukraine) – I want to highlight two main points.
According to paragraphs 5, 7, 10 and 11 of the report, Russia has
committed flagrant violations of international law because no
progress has been made since last April. The report recognises the
worsening situation in Ukraine. There are no grounds to lift the
restrictions previously imposed on members of the Russian
delegation. That is why I propose to add a restriction on voting
rights and the right to be represented at the Bureau of the
Assembly, the Presidential Committee and the Standing Committee.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Schennach.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee also voted with a big
majority against the amendment because, like the previous
amendment, it goes against the spirit of the report and would make
the compromise in Amendment 28 impossible.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against the
amendment.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
25 is rejected.
Identical
Amendments 17 and 19 therefore fall.
Ms
ZELIENKOVÁ (Czech Republic) – Under this amendment, we would
reject the Russian delegation’s voting rights.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I
call Mr Schennach.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – The same majority said no for the
same reasons as before.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee is against the
amendment.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Amendment
16 is rejected.
Identical
Amendments 17 and 19 therefore fall.
We come to Amendment 28, to which an oral sub-amendment has been
tabled.
If Amendment 28 is carried, Amendment 20 will fall. I call Mr Omtzigt to support the amendment.
Mr
OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – This is the compromise amendment
that was mentioned.
Last year, we said we would take away the voting rights from the Russian delegation, but that if things got better they would get them back. Things have not got better, so the amendment suggests that we take away the voting rights again this session, but that we will be willing to talk later in the year if Russia sticks to its commitments in the Minsk agreement, and by withdrawing its troops, in which case voting rights can be restored. It also suggests taking away the places of the Russian delegation in the Bureau, Presidential Committee and the Standing Committee.
THE
PRESIDENT* – We come now to oral Sub-Amendment 1 that has been
submitted by Mr Pedro Agramunt. It goes as follows:
“In
Amendment 28, to delete the word “June” and replace with
“April”Th
The Assembly would
therefore resolve to return to the issue, with a view to
reinstating these two rights at the April 2015 part-session. I
consider oral Sub-Amendment 1 to be in order under our rules.
However,
do 10 or more members object to oral Sub-Amendment 1 being
debated?
That
is not the case.
I
therefore call Mr Agramunt to support oral Sub-Amendment 1.
Mr
AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Oral Sub-Amendment 1 is very simple
and concerns the date when we will consider this issue in more
detail and see whether we can have greater dialogue in this
Assembly. It is not much, but it is at least something, and almost
all members of the committee agreed with it.
The
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral
sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What
is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee was in favour of the
oral sub-amendment.
The
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
Mr
Schennach has submitted a second oral sub-amendment, which is to
delete the words “Standing Committee” from Amendment 28. I
call Mr Schennach to support the oral Sub-Amendment 2.
Mr
SCHENNACH (Austria) – Oral Sub-Amendment 2 is a
compromise. Mr Agramunt said that this is a question of dialogue,
so please delete the words “Standing Committee”, which will
mean that we can continue our dialogue in the Standing Committee.
THE
PRESIDENT* – I consider oral Sub-Amendment 2 to be in order
under our rules.
However,
do 10 or more members object to oral Sub-Amendment 2 being
debated?
More
than 10 members have objected, so oral Sub-Amendment 2 cannot be
debated.
Amendment
28 has therefore been amended by oral Sub-Amendment 1.
Does
anyone wish to speak against Amendment 28, as amended? I call Mr
Kox.
Mr
KOX (Netherlands) – This is very difficult for us all. If
we reach a compromise, I do not understand why some colleagues
ruin that compromise and then amend the amendment in a way that
makes it unacceptable for us all. That is not the spirit of
compromise and dialogue. Keeping the Russians out of the Standing
Committee – the smaller Parliamentary Assembly – but having
them here does not make sense. Stefan Schennach’s proposal was
correct, but now that we boycott that part of the dialogue, I must
ask colleagues to reject the amendment.
THE
PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee of Amendment
28, as amended by oral Sub-Amendment 1?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee was in favour.
The
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
We
now come to Amendment 23. I call Mr Gross to support the
amendment.
Mr
GROSS (Switzerland) – The amendment states what the
working group is allowed to do, which is to help realise
everything in the resolution.
THE
PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
That is not the case.
What
is the opinion of the committee?
Mr
CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The committee was in favour.
THE
PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.
We
will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution
contained in Document 13685, as amended. A simple majority is
required.
The
vote is open.
I
thank rapporteurs and members of the Assembly for a good debate.
6. Next public
business
THE
PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting
tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the Agenda that was approved on
Monday morning.
|
 |