THIRD SITTING
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
The sitting was opened at 14.35 with Mr Höfer, Vice-President of the Assembly, in the Chair.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - The sitting is open.
Distinguished colleagues, please accept my apologies if I was not entirely punctual in opening the sitting, but the first item on the agenda, the election of the President, is sufficiently important for us to wait for a slightly beefed-up attendance.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - The names of those substitutes present at this sitting which have been notified to the President will be published with the list of representatives appended to the minutes of proceedings.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - In accordance with Rule 24 of the Rules of Procedure, the minutes of proceedings of the last sitting have been distributed.
Are there any comments on those minutes? ...
The minutes are adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Translation) - The next item on the order of the day is the election of the President of the Assembly for the 58th and 59th sessions - that is, from 1 January 2010.
In accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure, no representative may stand as a candidate for the office of President unless a proposal for his candidature has been sponsored in writing by three or more representatives, and representatives who are members of a national government may not be members of the Bureau.
Rule 9.1 lays down that substitutes may not be elected to the Bureau of the Assembly.
Only one nomination has been received, that of Mr Robert Walter.
The candidature has been correctly submitted in the form prescribed by the Rules of Procedure.
Under Rule 12.4, if there is only one candidate, that candidate is declared elected by acclamation.
Is there any objection? I take it from that round of applause that the Assembly is unanimous.
I accordingly declare Mr Walter President of the European Security and Defence Assembly/ Assembly of Western European Union, for the 58th and 59th sessions.
May I offer my congratulations to our President. Your track record has justified our sense of trust in you, as has the way in which you have chaired our meetings and represented us outside. Yesterday, at the Arc de Triomphe, we were able to see at first hand the appreciation of our work. That is thanks to your activities, Mr President. I now invite you to take the floor.
Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) - Thank you, Mr Höfer, members and colleagues, for the confidence you have placed in me by re-electing me your President for a second year.
I spoke at some considerable length yesterday, so I shall not repeat that speech. However, in 2010, we have a very important agenda, because in the environment of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty there is a move to enhance the involvement of national parliaments in the scrutiny of the work of the European Union, and to bring about a stronger presence for the European Parliament. We in the Assembly, however, are very much aware that the Lisbon Treaty states quite clearly that the European security and defence policy - our common foreign and security policy - is still an intergovernmental matter. It is still the responsibility of our national governments and the authority that they derive from our national parliaments, which we all represent. No armed forces can be deployed on a military mission, whether it is an EU military mission, a NATO military mission, a United Nations military mission, or any other form of collective military mission, without the specific approval of our national governments and national parliaments. It is our national parliaments that vote the money to enable our armed forces to be deployed. It is our national parliaments that approve the actions of our governments in deploying our forces. It is our national parliaments that approve the actions of our governments in ordering military equipment. All of those remain in the domain of our national governments and our national parliaments.
Increasingly these actions are undertaken collectively and cooperatively, and many of them are collectively and cooperatively within the context of the European Union. Whether it is within the European Defence Agency in terms of cooperation in research and development of military equipment, whether it is in the Common Security and Defence Policy, in the EU Military Staff and the EU Military Committee in the context of peacekeeping and peace enforcement, or whether it is in the context of European nations acting collectively within the NATO Alliance, these are all actions for which we as members of parliament are ultimately responsible.
Yesterday evening we went to the Arc de Triomphe to remember the 181 European men and women who died in conflict situations this year. The parents, the relatives, the wives and husbands, and the children of those 181 men and women look to us as national parliamentarians when they recall the sacrifice that has been made by those men and women. Therefore, it is important that we continue to make the case for a body such as ours that acts on behalf of the national parliaments, and on behalf of the electorates of our 27 member states and our five associate members in the European NATO states. It is essential that we retain our authority to provide oversight and scrutiny of the policies that are conducted in our name at a European level, whether it is within the EU, in NATO or in other contexts.
With that in mind, it is my intention that this year, in the debates that will ensue, we make the case that this Assembly, the European Security and Defence Assembly, with all its history in Western European Union, is the body that can provide that ongoing parliamentary oversight. But it will need not just me talking to defence and foreign ministers and speakers of our parliaments; it will require every one of us in our own national parliaments in discussions with ministers in our national governments, to make the case for this kind of parliamentary scrutiny. If we fail to do that, we will have increased the democratic deficit in the European Union, and that will be the responsibility of all of us.
We must increase democratic accountability. We must ensure that the decisions that are taken in the European Council and in its committees and agencies are accountable to us as national parliamentarians. Therefore, I ask all of you to work with me over this coming year to ensure that we bring about that result, which is that we go forward as an essential part of the democratic architecture of Europe, and that we can say that we alone - but not always alone - represent the national parliaments, in partnership with the European Parliament and in partnership with anybody who claims a democratic mandate. But the ultimate mandate rests with our national parliaments, and therefore it rests with us.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for the confidence you have placed in me. I will do my very best to ensure that in the coming year we achieve our objectives. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT (summary) thanked the newly elected President for his speech and said that he had indicated the way forward for the WEU Assembly.
(Mr Walter, President of the Assembly, took the Chair)
The PRESIDENT - The next order of the day is the election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly, for the 58th and 59th sessions.
Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure provides that proposals for candidatures for Vice-Presidents shall each be sponsored in writing by three or more representatives. Representatives who are members of a national government may not be members of the Bureau. Also, Rule 9.1 lays down that substitutes may not be elected to the Bureau of the Assembly.
I have received the following nominations for the positions of Vice-President for the 58th and 59th sessions:
Mr Luuk Blom (the Netherlands)
Mr Gianpaolo Dozzo (Italy)
Mrs Josette Durrieu (France)
Mr Luc Goutry (Belgium)
Mr Norbert Haupert (Luxembourg)
Mr Gerd Höfer (Germany)
Mr Juan Moscoso del Prado Hernández (Spain)
Mr John Prescott (United Kingdom)
Mr José Vera Jardim (Portugal)
Mr Konstantinos Vrettos (Greece)
The nominations have been properly made in accordance with the Rules.
If there is no objection, in accordance with Rule 12.5 of the Rules of Procedure, I propose that these nominations be approved by the Assembly by acclamation.
Is there any objection? ...
I take it that there is no objection.
In accordance with Rule 12.6 of the Rules of Procedure, seniority is determined by age, although I do not propose to read out the dates of birth of the candidates.
The PRESIDENT - The next item of business is the continuation of the debate on the report of the Defence Committee, "European maritime surveillance", Document 2051.
We have heard the speeches of the Rapporteurs. The debate is open.
I call Mr Hancock, on behalf of the Liberal Group. You have four minutes.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) - I shall use one of those minutes to say how pleased and proud I am to see you re-elected as our President, Mr Walter. Over the past year, you have demonstrated that there is life after death for this organisation, as well as proved that if the right person is given the chance to lead an organisation, it can rekindle and reshape itself in a positive and forthright manner. You have demonstrated that you have the qualities and ambition necessary to be a worthy President for another year. I am delighted that you were unopposed in your re-election. On behalf of the Liberal Group, I give you our fullest support.
I congratulate the Rapporteurs on their report, which explains the issues far better than much of the press coverage does. I was delighted that our Estonian admiral was able recently to get some publicity on those issues. I was also delighted with the forthright way in which he spoke. I would not like to have been a sailor under him, as I think that he may have been a severe disciplinarian. Nevertheless, he gave a good account not only of himself, but of the role of this organisation.
At the conference we held in Lisbon, this issue was just starting to feature on the agenda. Nobody was really paying too much attention. We have seen horrendous stories of how ships are being taken, with defenceless crews being imprisoned or yachts hijacked when those on them are simply going about their normal business. Sometimes that has happened while warships have stood by. On two occasions, heavily armed British warships could have done something about such incidents, but for reasons best known to the command at the time, they did not take steps to protect citizens of the United Kingdom and others who had been subjected to hijackings and piracy.
It seems strange to be talking about piracy in this century, but it is confronting us every day. Only yesterday, a supertanker carrying US$20 million-worth of oil was hijacked very easily on its way from Saudi Arabia to America. The perpetrators were able to climb aboard a supertanker. Just climbing up the side of such a vessel in harbour is no mean feat; trying to do so from a small boat is an amazing one. It is very hard to understand why such people cannot be resisted, and how a water cannon cannot be used to blow them from the side of the ship, or why each supertanker cannot have people on board who are able to defend it. But is that what we really want? Do we want the trade routes of the world to be policed by armed merchant crews, taking us back to the days of the century before last?
The report offers us an opportunity, although it is not very open in its discussion of solutions. Once again, the only solution is widespread cooperation not only to hunt the pirates down on the seas, but to go after them, right to where they take the ships. For too long, Somalia has been able to achieve notoriety as a safe haven for evil banditry. It should not be allowed to continue. As a continent, many of our states rely on the maritime routes of the world being safe and free, and we have an obligation to take this to the pirates. There should be no excuse for any of our navies not to take appropriate action. When a supertanker nearly 1 000 km away from the coast of Africa can be hijacked, something has gone seriously wrong in the maritime defences of the trade routes of the world.
As states, we should be taking appropriate steps to do something about that. Through our governments, clear instructions should be given to our armed forces and to our navies in particular, that they should start to defend those trade routes as they were unfortunately forced to do - and they did it with great effect - 150 years ago.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Hancock.
The next speaker on my list, Mrs Curtis-Thomas, is not present so the debate is open.
First, I call Mrs Keleş, who is Rapporteur for the Council of Europe on the subject of piracy.
Mrs KELEŞ (Turkey) - Mr President, may I congratulate you on your election.
The present report concerns maritime safety in general but dwells on measures to combat piracy. Some people underestimate piracy and think that it is not worth spending time on. However, it is almost a worldwide phenomenon, influencing not only the safety of ships, but maritime transportation, international trade, the world food aid programme and the petroleum sector.
Safety measures such as avoiding sea routes where piracy takes place or having on-board protection teams increase the cost of transportation and are reflected in the prices of cargo. Piracy is increasing rapidly, as is the amount of ransom demanded.
Maritime surveillance is important because 90% of European trade and nearly half of world trade uses sea routes. As one of the founding members of the contact group on Somali piracy, Turkey continues to participate in its activities. A Turkish naval frigate joined Combined Task Force 151 in February 2008. Turkey also participates in the operations of the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 and contributed four frigates to its missions. The Turkish navy commanded the Combined Task Force 151 between May and August 2009. Turkey also had a frigate in the region within the framework of NATO's operation Ocean Shield.
Paragraph 76 of the report states that Turkey is aligning with the community acquis in border management, but adds that a further major effort is needed on migration, the fight against organised crime, money laundering and civil and penal judicial cooperation. These matters are not mentioned in relation to other countries and they are not within the context of the report.
The same paragraph states that the alignment of Turkish legislation with the community acquis is finished in terms of border management and that a national action plan for the implementation of an integrated border-management strategy was adopted in March 2006. The previous statements give a wrong impression and underestimate the achievements of Turkey. I would appreciate it if they were corrected.
Paragraph 76 also states that Turkey should cooperate more effectively in taking back illegal immigrants who leave from its coasts. It says that the prompt conclusion of an EU readmission agreement with Turkey is vital, along with adequate implementation of the existing bilateral readmission agreements with EU countries.
Turkey tries to implement the readmission agreement with Greece, but we should keep it in mind that almost all of the illegal immigrants who try to reach Europe by sea come from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other low-income counties. Preventing illegal immigration should be the common responsibility of all the countries concerned with European maritime surveillance.
Frontex states that 91% of illegal immigration to the EU takes place via the borders of Greece (70%), Italy (13%) and Spain (8%). Accusing Turkey in respect of the illegal immigrants that use its shores without mentioning those other countries does not reflect reality and is not an objective evaluation. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you.
I call Mrs Dalara.
Mrs DALARA (Greece) - Thank you and may I also congratulate you, Mr President, on your election?
In order to face the phenomenon of illegal immigration we must examine the possibility of creating a European body of border guards. However, any initiative on borders must be compatible with the national responsibility of member states on the one hand and respect for the human rights of migrants on the other.
Cooperation between Frontex and third countries must be developed to make the structures productive, as in the case of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation. Such countries might develop bipartite relations with countries with a special interest in migration.
It would be useful to ask the above-mentioned countries to participate in Frontex common projects as observers, with the precondition that consent must be given where the operations take place.
The aim of every measure must be to strengthen the ability of member states to face threats without imposing indirect limitations on the free circulation of people while also protecting personal data.
We support every attempt to safeguard the attractiveness of Europe and the Mediterranean. That is not only to avoid repercussions in tourism and other enterprises, especially during these difficult economic times, but for the maintenance and upgrading of our geopolitical space as a global cradle of culture and humanitarian values.
The PRESIDENT - The next speaker is Mr Sooäär.
Mr SOOÄÄR (Estonia) - May I congratulate you, Mr President? I thank the Rapporteurs for drawing attention to important matters affecting different maritime regions of Europe, especially the Baltic area. The security aspects of the Baltic are worrying more and more people, and not only in the surrounding region. The report mentions the Nord Stream gas pipeline project between Russia and Germany. According to recent reports this project has greater implications for Baltic security than previously understood.
Our national parliament recently debated this issue and scientists brought to our attention security concerns in addition to the environmental concerns related to the project. These include minefields from two world wars as well as the disturbance of the sea bed, which could have devastating effects on the delicate ecosystem of the Baltic. Already, the Baltic Sea has one of the highest dioxin levels in the fish population in Europe - up to 50 times more than in the Atlantic Ocean and official health warnings are issued annually.
Disturbances on the sea bed where dioxin concentration is at its highest could lead to the collapse of the fishing industry in the Baltic. These are additional worries to the commonly known risks of oil spillage associated with pipelines.
The Baltic is also the scene of the most confusing pirate story in recent maritime history. The ship, Arctic Sea, was hijacked off the Swedish coast. Who would have thought that piracy would be back in business and not off the coast of Somalia but here in Europe surrounded by NATO member states? One of our Rapporteurs, Mr Kõuts, could perhaps shed some light on this incident, but we may never find out what really happened on this ship. Was it a doomed intelligence operation or a new style of illegal arms trade as some analysts have speculated? Only the witnesses know, but their lips are sealed. We hope that this was not an overture to a new era of piracy in Europe. In any case such incidents pose new concerns for maritime surveillance and call for a new code of conduct for dealing with such situations in Europe. Strengthening the coastguards is an important step on this road. A coordinated strategy towards the Baltic Sea region also needs to be implemented as a matter of urgency.
The PRESIDENT - The debate is closed.
Do the Rapporteurs wish to respond?
I call Mr Vrettos.
Mr VRETTOS (Greece) (summary) stressed the importance of defending Europe's borders against illegal immigration. He said that in Greece immigrants could be seen crossing the waters, and that it was well known that many of them made their way to Greece by way of Turkey. He acknowledged that Turkey was taking steps to prevent this through the Frontex system, but that it was difficult to repatriate immigrants to countries such as Iran. He expressed his thanks to the Defence Committee, and recalled the flying visit that he and Admiral Kõuts had undertaken to Djibouti as part of the Committee's inquiry.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Vrettos.
I call Mr Kõuts.
Mr KÕUTS (Estonia) - Thank you, Mr President. I congratulate you on your re-election. I would like to thank all the participants in this discussion. I also want to thank Mike Hancock for his kind words. I am absolutely sure that we will form a strong command, not only here in WEU but on the ships as well.
The guarding of commercial ships by naval ships presents a strange, dangerous and growing problem. I want to raise two key issues in this context. The first is the need for a comprehensive approach. The second is the coordination and integration of our surveillance systems. We need to find solutions to the problem of so-called failed countries and to the political situations in those countries; otherwise our neighbours will have to work on this front for a long time. As a naval man, I can tell you that that would be very expensive - keeping those ships at work on that job for a long time would be a bit too expensive.
On coordination and integration, we need to share with our neighbours the information that we receive about organised crime. If the surveillance systems in some countries operate at a higher level than in others, we will not be able to use our information inside the European Union very effectively. That is why we need an integrated surveillance system right across Europe. We need to improve Frontex and the European Maritime Security Agency, and we must use greater efforts and resources to manage those organisations.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Kõuts. We are conscious of the considerable professional experience that you bring to this subject.
Does the Chairman of the Committee wish to speak?
Mr HENDERSON (United Kingdom) - Thank you, Mr President. I also offer you my congratulations on your re-election. We look forward to working with you.
On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Rapporteurs for their excellent work in producing this fine report. It was a very taxing deployment for them. They travelled overnight from Paris to Djibouti, spent the next day in Djibouti and flew back to Paris that night. That is the kind of itinerary that only admirals and their colleagues can cope with, and I thank them for making that effort to produce such a good report for us.
I was at a NATO conference recently where one of the military naval commanders acknowledged that this was also a taxing deployment for the naval forces involved. He drew this comparison: the number of naval vessels involved in this work in the Gulf area and the seas off Somalia is the equivalent of only five police cars patrolling France. That illustrates the task that they have ahead of them.
As the report identifies, there is a need for greater cooperation between, for instance, European Union and NATO forces. There is also a need for common training, and for sharing surveillance and intelligence capabilities. That will lead to more effectiveness, although only time will tell whether it will create a deterrent. That is a completely separate issue in relation to some of the low-level sailor pirates, because they are not the only people involved. There are many middlemen and others above them - money launderers, for example. The extent to which the action we are taking will act as a deterrent to them remains to be seen. The same applies to prosecution, on which an amendment has been tabled. Prosecutions must involve not only the sailors and fishermen engaged in the initial piracy; they must also involve those further up the tree.
The report is an excellent one. A further hearing on some of the issues will take place in Greece in May, and Konstantinos Vrettos has agreed to hold discussions. The Committee will ask the Rapporteurs to continue their good work and at least to make further information documents available to the plenary. I commend the document to the Assembly.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you very much, Mr Henderson.
The Defence Committee has presented a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled.
We now come to Amendment 1 revised, which reads as follows:
After paragraph 11 of the draft recommendation proper, add the following new paragraph:
"Consider the creation of an international criminal tribunal on piracy as proposed by the UN Contact Group on piracy;".
I call Mr Kõuts to support the amendment.
Mr KÕUTS (Estonia) - The amendment speaks for itself.
The PRESIDENT - Does anyone wish to oppose the amendment? ...
That is not the case.
I will now put the amendment to the vote.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
Amendment 1 is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation, as amended, contained in Document 2051.
Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft recommendation.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...
That is not the case. We will have a vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft recommendation, as amended, is adopted unanimously.
The PRESIDENT - The next item of business is the presentation of and debate on the report of the Defence Committee, "The war in Afghanistan: implications for the region", Document 2050, and the second revised draft recommendation.
The Rapporteurs have up to 15 minutes between them to present the report and revised draft recommendation.
I call Mrs Françoise Hostalier.
Mrs HOSTALIER (France) (summary) said that the report was very timely, given President Obama's announcement relating to a further surge of troops in Afghanistan and given the general recognition of the fact that the situation in Afghanistan affected the entire region. She recalled previous reports from the Committee made in 2006, 2008, and most recently in June 2009. This new report took account of the regional dimension, drew attention to the deteriorating situation, the risks of destabilisation in the region and the now acknowledged fact that the military solution was not the only solution. One notable development in the situation was the holding of the recent presidential elections. Even if the outcome of the election was less than ideal, the extent to which the Afghan people had stood up to the Taliban should be commended. She regretted the lack of support which had been made available by western authorities to support the election.
She noted that several ministers in the Afghan Government were now under investigation for corruption, and thought that this might represent a positive turn of events. Another major development was taking place in Pakistan which was now taking military action in the Swat Valley and Waziristan and sending clear signals to the Taliban that it would not be afforded safe haven inside Pakistani territory. The Committee's report considered both the implications for the immediate region and countries further afield such as Russia, China and the United States.
The Committee had held an interesting debate that morning, and had updated the draft recommendation in the light of recent events. The main lines of the recommendation were that all neighbouring countries should be involved as partners, not just mere observers, in the actions and decisions of the international community. The international community must define a clear strategy for engagement.
She emphasised that the Afghan people needed to be convinced that allied forces working in Afghanistan were not an occupation force. She could understand that it often felt as though progress was slow. However, she had recently met the chief of the Afghan air force, who had assured her that considerable progress had been made in training the Afghan army. He had stressed, though, that the job was only half done and that to lose outside support now would be disastrous.
It had been said often, but was no less true, that the challenge in Afghanistan was winning the peace not the war. The effort should now be on rebuilding the rule of law and a stable society, and the recommendations in the report were focused on this aim.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mrs Hostalier.
I now call Mr Kucheida, Rapporteur.
Mr KUCHEIDA (France) (summary) thanked the Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Defence Committee for all their efforts in drafting this report, and Mr Henderson, Chairman of the Committee, for giving generously of his time.
This was his third report on Afghanistan and he was sad to say that the situation had got worse since his first report in 2006. There had been a clear deterioration with respect to the military, civil, social, cultural and government situations. This had had an impact on public confidence in European involvement in the conflict. Recent figures had indicated that 68% of French citizens were opposed to further French involvement in the war. He suggested therefore that the real question was whether the EU should continue to commit troops to Afghanistan given the relatively limited success of operations to date.
Large quantities of money had been devoted to reducing the growth of opium poppies, but 104 000 hectares of poppies were under cultivation in 2005 and this figure had increased to 165 000 in 2006 and yet again to 192 000 in 2007. The recent problems surrounding the election of Mr Karzai raised numerous questions, and while he did not suggest that allied forces pull out of Afghanistan he felt that there was a need to consider an exit strategy.
He pointed out that President Obama had agreed to commit further troops, but in relatively cautious terms. There had been a history of failed military operations in Afghanistan by countries such as Britain and Russia and it was uncertain how many troops would be needed to ensure success.
He agreed with Mrs Hostalier that the real challenge was to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people; democracy could not be forced upon them, it had to be sought. Since 2001 the allies had been trying to solve problems that had their roots firmly entrenched in the past; the question was how much time this would take.
He accepted the Committee's proposals, but he regretted to say that he felt he would be in front of the Assembly again in a year talking about the same situation, during which time matters would have deteriorated even further. He suggested that new solutions were needed to deal with this crisis.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Kucheida.
I call Mr Tekelioğlu. In the interests of fairness, Mr Tekelioğlu, I have to tell you and the Assembly that you should have only 30 seconds because of the time taken up by your colleagues. I will try to be as generous as I can, but I ask you to be as brief as possible.
Mr TEKELIOĞLU (Turkey) - Mr President, I congratulate you on your re-election.
First, I thank Mrs Hostalier for her report and for her cooperation. Needless to say, security and stability in Afghanistan is prone to uncertainties. In some senses, Afghanistan's security is the world's security and thus must be restored. In this regard, the international community's commitment to help the Afghan people must continue without hindrance. Retreat without success is not and should not be an option.
We try to understand the troop surge by the United States and the United Kingdom for the Afghan build-up, and hope that this will contribute to the stability of Afghanistan. Nevertheless, we should not lose sight of the fact that there will be no victory in Afghanistan solely through the military.
On the other hand, I emphasise that Afghan strategy must be coordinated with Pakistan's strategy. First and foremost, Afghans must understand that our efforts are helping them and not hurting them. Thus, we must foster local ownership for the success of our strategy.
Most of the important points were made by Mrs Hostalier, so I want to mention Turkey's approach to Afghanistan, the contribution we can make and local ownership. The history of Afghan modernisation efforts starts in the 1920s and 1930s with the heavy involvement of Turkey and with Turkish assistance. Against that background, owing to historical and cultural reasons, the Afghans easily identify themselves with Turks and Turkey.
Let me cite a few examples. Turkish academics established and developed the political sciences faculty of Kabul University, which was later sponsored by France. From the 1930s to the 1960s, Turkey actively contributed to the establishment of the Afghan armed forces; the core staff of the armed forces have usually graduated from the Turkish armed forces academy. These efforts, as well as many others, coupled with non-interference by Turkey in Afghanistan's domestic affairs, constitute the source of the soft power that Turkey has been wielding in support of the Afghans today.
Today, historical ties with Afghanistan and the importance attached to the success of the international community and the Afghans themselves, are the primary drivers of Turkish contributions in Afghanistan. In support of the inextricable link between security and development, Turkey has been carrying out, in coordination with the Government of Afghanistan, its most comprehensive ever sustainable development assistance programme. In the security realm, Turkey has led ISAF operations twice in the past. Turkey assumed the command of the regional command capital between April and December 2007, and has undertaken that responsibility again for one year from 31 October 2009.
On development and reconstruction, projects carried out or sponsored by Turkish agencies are not only limited to Kabul province, but extend from Faryab in the north to Kunar and Paktia in the east, and to Kandahar in the south. Through its provincial reconstruction team in Wardak, Turkey has further extended the scope of its contributions to reconstruction and development.
In support of a regional approach and to facilitate a mutually reinforcing cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan, Turkey hosted three trilateral summits with the participation of the Presidents of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on 29-30 April 2007 in Ankara, 5 December 2008 in Istanbul and 1 April 2009 in Ankara. Turkey also hosted the ministerial meeting of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan on 25 August 2009 in Istanbul. The Turkey-Pakistan-Afghanistan trilateral process helps to foster better relations between different segments of the Pakistani and Afghan administrations and civil society. This constitutes a major dimension of Turkey's efforts in the regional context. In 2008, Turkey doubled its development assistance commitment to Afghanistan to US$200 million.
I could cite many more figures, but because of the time, I shall cut my remarks short at this point. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Tekelioğlu.
I think that I was very generous with the Rapporteurs, who have had just over 20 minutes between them.
The debate is open. We will be rigorous in limiting speeches to four minutes.
I call Mr Hancock, on behalf of the Liberal Group.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) - Personally, I cannot conceive of a situation in which I would put myself in place of Gordon Brown, Mr Obama or any other Prime Minister or President who is sending young people off to fight a war, but I can easily put myself in the place of a parent who is waiting for a phone call for five or six months of the year while their son or daughter is serving in Afghanistan. I would be waiting for the call telling me that that son or daughter had been killed or wounded, and I would be asking myself this question: why are we doing it? I would be asking why we are sending more people to Afghanistan, what price we are paying and whether it is worth paying.
For a short period in 2002 and 2003, there was an opportunity to give the people of Afghanistan a chance to have the peace and stability that we wanted to see, and to rid them of the pain and suffering of years and decades - indeed, hundreds of years - of persecution, fear and evil. We lost that opportunity, however, because the likes of George Bush and Tony Blair took their eye off Afghanistan and decided that it was in their interests, and supposedly in others' interests, to invade Iraq. As a result, the Taliban and al-Qa'ida were able to get off the hook very effectively.
If we are to believe what our intelligence services tell us, we have killed literally thousands of Taliban fighters. I remember when the Secretary of State for Defence in the United Kingdom told the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, that the Taliban had only 1 000 or so fighters and that the majority had been dealt with in the surge of 2001 and 2002. We were told that the war was all but over and that we were eradicating the poppy crop in Afghanistan, which was funding the Taliban. When we look at the maps produced by this Assembly, we can see the dark areas where we are told that poppies have been eradicated. What we are not told, however, is that those are the areas where poppies cannot easily be cultivated. The light blue and red areas are those where poppies are increasingly being cultivated. One of the areas where poppy cultivation has increased is in Kabul - the very centre of Karzai's regime - and here we are sending more young men and women to fight for that regime. On its very doorstep it is allowing the continuation of the very mechanisms that allow the Taliban to continue to fight and kill the young people who are sent to Afghanistan by our governments.
It is a disgrace for all our society that we are prepared to prop up a regime that says it is in favour of education and yet allowed 250 schools to close because they were educating women. It is a disgrace that, in a country that says that it is defending the rule of law, we are propping up a regime that stole more than one million votes. Is it right that we continue to send men and women to fight on our behalf to prop up such a regime? Are we kidding ourselves that we really are fighting the battle that we need to fight in Afghanistan? Are we convinced that we are preventing the terrorist attacks at home?
All the terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom in recent times that were supposedly carried out by militant Islamists came from within the United Kingdom; none came from outside. Yet we persist in the argument that we fight in Afghanistan because it will make us safer. In my view the very presence of United Kingdom troops in Afghanistan makes us more liable to attack than we were before.
(Mr Jelinčič Plemeniti, Chairman of the Slovenian Delegation, took the Chair)
Mr Obama has spoken some very good words. Although we were told that this was the wrong thing to do, he has now suggested an end-date - in his latest speech he said that he will start to withdraw United States troops in 18 months' time. We were told that that was the worst thing that could be done because we would be telling the Taliban that they did not need to fight the United States troops now, as they will have their own way in 18 months. Where is the consistency? Where is the policy? Where is the structure? President Obama told the American people that the new American general in Afghanistan could not believe how bad the situation was when he got there. Who had been briefing this general before he left? Can we seriously believe what we are being told about Afghanistan? I seriously believe that we cannot.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you. Your speech was a little longer than four minutes but it was so interesting that I did not want to interrupt.
The next speaker is Mr Dzembritzki.
Mr DZEMBRITZKI (Germany) (summary) thanked the Rapporteurs for the report. He said that Afghanistan would be talked about for a long time to come. He asked what alternatives could be considered and said that it was necessary to look for structure and improvements within the Afghan Government. He compared Afghanistan with Kosovo but noted that Afghanistan was much larger and so the situation was harder to resolve than it had been in Kosovo. He was not prepared to agree with those who said that international policy in Afghanistan was similar to the old colonial policy of the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union when these countries had been involved in the area: the current situation was not one of occupation and the Afghan people wanted the international community to be there. The international community was dealing with fundamentalists, who were against the Afghan population. It was a matter of winning the peace.
Turning to the elections, he noted that there had been 8 000 Afghan observers. He compared electoral participation rates in Afghanistan with those of the European elections and said that both had had a low turn-out. He mentioned an event that had taken place last week in Germany where young Afghan students studying in Germany had been invited to discuss the situation with German students. These young people were keen to go back to Afghanistan and contribute to their country's development. He encouraged the Europeans to stay and cooperate with the Afghan people, but cooperation within Afghanistan needed to be more effective. The Assembly should look at the bright side not the dark side of the issue.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mrs Aasted-Madsen.
Mrs AASTED-MADSEN (Netherlands) (summary) thanked the Rapporteurs. She said that they had been up to the task. They had had different opinions but nevertheless had produced a consensus report. The solution was not only military, but there was also a need to look from the outset at diplomacy and development. The Netherlands was in favour of making development aid available where the military had been sent. The Ambassador for Afghanistan in the Netherlands had begged Europe and the international community not to withdraw the military. If it was to be withdrawn the question was what had the sacrifice of young men and women killed in Afghanistan been for. There had been cooperation between the military and civilians, there had been achievements in regard to healthcare and education in Afghanistan and a banking system had been created. Expectations before the recent elections had been high, but they had been dashed by subsequent events. The Dutch Parliament by a majority had agreed that it would stop its military support as of next year. However, a new request from Afghanistan, the United Nations or NATO could result in a review of the decision.
The PRESIDENT - We now have five speakers on the list.
I call Mrs Kanelli.
Mrs KANELLI (Greece) - I also congratulate Mr Walter on his election to the post of President.
Dear colleagues, in trying to interpret history, as a Greek, I would go back to Alexander the Great and be proud that we did not reach Afghanistan. If we try to use history to explain today's mistakes, we will simply repeat them as a farce, or sometimes as a comedy or a tragedy. We are talking about Afghanistan, and the report is one of the most balanced, but we are ignoring European public opinion: people know practically nothing about Afghanistan. They know details about the war, but they do not know one tenth of one millionth of the information that they need to be truly cultivated as anti-racists who do not want another holocaust in Europe, who do not want Nazi methods and who do not want people to run against other people.
Instead, through Afghanistan, we teach them to create another anti-Arab, anti-Islamic, anti-Taliban, anti-al-Qa'ida holocaust. We are the guys who are doing that. I will give you some examples of the Afghanistan paradox. We say that the Americans want to protect the world. They want to withdraw, but the paradox is that they are going to send in more troops. They do not have enough money to educate their new generation. They are facing a big crisis, just like the rest of the western world, yet the Pentagon gave US$232 billion for this war, with other countries contributing. We talk about legal government, yet it is proven and published - the Americans accepted it - that Karzai's beloved brother has been on the CIA's payroll for eight years. Is this a legal government? Who are we going to collaborate with? The guys around Kabul?
We talk about the cultural effect on Afghanistan. Do we know the tribal system? Do we know what race the Taliban members belong to or what language they speak? We talk about women, yet in Afghanistan the cultural event after Karzai was elected for the first year was international wrestling and a bodybuilding contest. That was the contribution of western civilisation to Afghanistan - bodybuilding and beauty contests. When the communists were there, women were obliged to go to school and to visit the hospitals. Now, the burka has returned and that is accepted as a contribution to democracy. Do we not have the courage to inform the public in our countries what Afghanistan is about? Why do we have to pay for an American base of interest in the eastern Asian region? Why can we not spend the money on verifying democracy and the European model of modern life?
Opium production in Afghanistan has increased since the invasion by the "civilised" countries. It now accounts for 90% of international production. That is a success for western society. What would happen if an Afghan earning money from drugs decided to buy Liverpool or Manchester United? Would you accept his principles? Would you even accept his uniform if he tried to get into the ground to watch the match? Would you accept women wearing burkas going to see Liverpool? When we talk about modernisation and about cultural and diplomatic efforts towards the Afghanis, first of all we need to know them. We do not know them, and the danger is that we will turn out to be the excuse for a new anti-Islamic, anti-Arab, anti-I-don't-know-what western society that is going against the other half of the world. If we started to respect the Afghan people, we would probably have the courage to say, "No, we are getting out." If they want our opinion, we will not interpret it using 15 American-educated Afghan students to tell us what the Afghan people want. We would listen to them. Instead, we tell them to listen to us. They will close their ears, and that will destroy the effect that we have as a civilised European western world.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you very much for an interesting speech. There was a lot of truth in what you said. The lack of information is the most important thing, even for all of us, so we do need the reports and we do need to send people to those regions to collect information.
The next speaker is Mr Kallio.
Mr KALLIO (Finland) - I want to thank the Rapporteurs for highlighting some of the main issues relating to the present situation in Afghanistan and to our efforts to stabilise the situation. This report has been produced in the tense political environment in which discussions on Afghanistan are held today. I realise that it has been challenging, and we can only be thankful for the work that has been done. It is essential that we have a debate on Afghanistan in this European parliamentary forum.
Until we find ways to resolve the situation in a much wider regional framework, the steps that we take inside Afghanistan are a mere beginning. The report describes well the situation in the wider region and the lack of a coherent policy when dealing with the region. As I underlined in our previous Afghanistan debate, public understanding of and support for the efforts we are making in Afghanistan are eroding. A European political, economic and security strategy for Afghanistan can work only if the political conditions in Afghanistan are stabilised and the Afghan Government is committed to change. The last election process left much to be desired in this respect. Much assistance is needed for the Afghan army, and especially for the police forces, in order to generate civil sector reform and improve governance at all levels. For these efforts to produce results, it is necessary for the Afghan leadership to work much harder to distance itself from corruption and mismanagement.
The report calls for stronger European coordination of the activities in Afghanistan. Measures in that direction are, as such, important, and I am sure that they will come over time, as we gain experience of how to conduct joint operations.
Given the political climate in many participating states, and the environment that our soldiers are experiencing in Afghanistan today, I do not think that there is, at this time, a preparedness to take European coordination further. A debate on additional coordination would only complicate the already difficult domestic discussions. The Defence Committee came to very balanced conclusions, but the explanatory memorandum contained many good points, which we must consider much more closely when we plan other missions in future.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Spautz.
Mr SPAUTZ (Luxembourg) (summary) said that Afghanistan had been dominating the political agenda for months now. It was becoming increasingly pertinent to ask what was the sense and the aim of a mission that had lasted over eight years without there being any end in sight. The security situation was still precarious and Afghan institutions were improving only very slowly. He noted that the organisation Transparency International had declared Afghanistan the world's second most corrupt state. In spite of the recent election, President Karzai enjoyed no more credibility than before the election, and the Afghan people had not benefited from the process. One of the main aims of the forthcoming international conference in Afghanistan should be the normalisation of everyday life, as well as preventing any resurgence of al-Qa'ida. Afghanistan had been torn apart in the conflict in the last 30 years and international forces should assist Afghan democracy. He concluded by praising the approach taken by General Stanley McChrystal.
(Mr Walter, President of the Assembly, resumed the Chair)
The PRESIDENT - Thank you. I call Mr Paul Flynn.
Mr FLYNN (United Kingdom) - It is easier to repeat an old lie than it is to reveal new truths. That is our situation now. We have been fed a diet of untruths, of wishful thinking about Afghanistan, to disguise the dreadful situation there. The International Council on Security and Development, a respected body, said last year that 72% of the area of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban. This year that figure is 80%, and al-Qa'ida has not been invited back in. We ignore the excesses of Karzai, the thief, the man who has stolen £20 billion - more than £25 billion of international aid has gone into the country - who refuses to pardon a person who has been sentenced to 20 years in jail for accessing a document about human rights on the internet, but who released a group of young men from jail who had gang-raped a 13-year-old girl, because he believes that boys will be boys. He is the man who legalised marital rape. Malalai Joya, an Afghan member of parliament, says that the country is worse for human rights now than it was under the Taliban.
We can expect nothing better than the Janus-faced announcement that has come today from Obama. He could not do much more. He is the first black President. He has the middle name Hussein. He leads a country that is spending US$1 billion a day on the Afghan campaign, and that has a huge number of vested interests, which he cannot face down. On the other side of the Janus face, however, is the intelligent Obama, who knows that the situation is completely hopeless and that he will face a Vietnam if he is not careful. He has named an exit strategy, which is very brave. That changes our mindset: instead of believing in the myth of a military conquest, we know that we must work towards a deal.
There is no decent deal to be done, no deal with good people, no happy ending to the story. We must deal with our allies in the Northern Alliance who suffocated 200 prisoners. Do we have to rely on the Afghan police? In the village of Penkala, which was recently liberated, the elders said, "Whatever you do, don't send the Afghan police back. Last time they practised bacha bazi." Bacha bazi is the practice of using prepubescent boys as objects of sexual rape. Young boys were imprisoned in compounds in that village and in many others. The people who would do that are seriously depraved. The army are not paid and live by taking bribes and extorting money from their own people. Those are our allies, the brave new world that we will create. There is no good solution. We must do a deal.
We will likely end up with one of two possibilities. Either we will do a deal with the groups that are there at the moment - it will not be a good deal; it will be messy, and there will be injustices in it. However, it is far better to walk out after such a deal than to run out in panic as the Americans did from Saigon, which is the other alternative.
The public view the matter with disgust. In my country, 71% of the population want to bring our troops home now, and the same kind of figure can be seen throughout many other countries in Europe. The public will not allow their sons and daughters to be sent to die in vain in a hopeless war with no possible successful end.
I appeal to all other European countries to look at Britain's contribution. We were told in 2006 that we would go into Helmand Province - that was our surge. The promise was made that we would be there for three years - so we should have been out by now - without a shot being fired. We had then lost seven soldiers: five in accidents and two in military action. We have now lost 236 soldiers. It was said at the time that going in there was worse than the Charge of the Light Brigade, the most hopeless, futile event in British military history. On Monday, twice as many of our soldiers had died in vain in Afghanistan as died in the Charge of the Light Brigade. This blood-letting must stop. We must get a policy that is practical, that works and that recognises the seriousness and hopelessness of our present situation and policies.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Kieres from Poland.
Mr KIERES (Poland) - Mr President, members of the Assembly, we are talking about the war in Afghanistan and its implications for the region. This has been an important year for Afghanistan, not least because of Poland's military involvement. The ISAF mission has remained a priority for NATO, which took on a long-lasting obligation to help the Afghans to stabilise the situation in the country, boost institution building and the Afghan army and rebuild the economy. As the new American ISAF commander, Stanley McChrystal, said, "While the situation is serious, success in Afghanistan is achievable". This success is indispensable to secure stability in central Asia, an aim difficult to achieve because of political and ethnic reasons.
Mike Hancock gave you maps of Afghanistan. I know another map. We should remember that what affects Afghanistan also affects Pakistan. It is a legacy of the Durand Line, imposed at the end of the 19th century, which divided lands inhabited by Pashtuns between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is known that what adversely affects Pakistan may interest India and sadden China. Many interests and rivalries must be taken into account. Afghanistan also has a destabilising effect on its northern neighbours, and even on Iran due to extensive drug smuggling and the presence of Afghan refugees.
I want to speak not about military interventions, but about our European Union obligations. The European Union can and must play an active role in defusing the Afghan bomb. The Rapporteurs rightly remind us of Lord Robertson's words: "Those who are not prepared to go to Afghanistan will find Afghanistan coming to them".
The perception of the EU depends to a large extent on the EUPOL mission, which can reform important areas of justice and the rule of law affecting the daily life of Afghan citizens, which was referred to by our colleague from Greece. That is why the number of its staff should increase to 400, allowing it to work outside Kabul, especially to the east, and to set up new regional and provincial teams.
To sum up, the EU plan announced on 27 October for strengthening action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, entitled "Strengthening EU action in Afghanistan and Pakistan", seems to be a step in a good direction, as it is an example of a comprehensive policy, which is so far lacking in EU policy for Afghanistan and is likely also to affect its neighbours. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Lecoq.
Mr LECOQ (France) (summary) said that the report confirmed the opinions that he had formed of Afghanistan on a recent visit. In fact the report now raised more questions than it answered. He asked, for example, whether there could in fact be a legitimate Afghan Government if there was not such a thing as an Afghan nation. He said that the rush to implement a western solution was possibly not the best answer and questioned whether such an approach benefited the Afghan people. The military presence was clearly stimulating the Afghan economy and maybe that was why Afghans felt it to be legitimate, but that was not the purpose for which it had been intended. The purpose of the intervention had been to combat al-Qa'ida and to bring freedom. There was a need to develop a true economic response. The tipping point in the Iraq war had been when the international engagement became predominantly civilian rather than military. While the report gave a true picture of the situation, the recommendations did not speak strongly enough in favour of a ceasefire, negotiation and military withdrawal.
The PRESIDENT - The debate is closed.
The Rapporteurs have five minutes.
Mrs HOSTALIER (France) (summary) thanked contributors to the debate and commented that the subject could not leave anyone unmoved regardless of their political position.
She responded to Mr Hancock's question about the reasons for the conflict and agreed that there was a need to clarify the allies' objectives in Afghanistan. She also felt there was a need to ensure that Europe's voice was better heard.
She thanked Mr Dzembritzki and Mrs Aasted-Madsen for their contributions, which had underlined some of the positive aspects of the Afghan conflict, such as infrastructure improvements and improved access to education.
She agreed with Mrs Kanelli that there was a lack of impartial information available on the situation, but pointed out the report had stressed the need for public access to objective information about the conflict. She stressed that allied intervention was particularly important for women in Afghanistan who were actively asking for help. She argued this was one of the reasons why the allies were in Afghanistan and that withdrawing now would have serious consequences.
She said that Mr Kallio and Mr Spautz had both noted a lack of coordination among allied nations in Afghanistan and she agreed that this was worrying. Mr Flynn had commented on the need for more secure political structures, and she agreed that this was also important. She concurred with Mr Kieres' call for the re-establishment of the rule of law, but disagreed with Mr LeCoq's call for troops to be withdrawn since the Afghan Government was not ready to assume full responsibility for security.
The PRESIDENT - Does Mr Kucheida wish to reply to the debate?
Mr KUCHEIDA (France) (summary) stressed the need to remember why allied forces were in Afghanistan: the events of 9/11. History should not be rewritten to justify new objectives.
He said that the debate showed everyone had strong views on Afghanistan, but that by working together perhaps a new solution could be found.
The PRESIDENT - We cannot accuse our Rapporteurs of not being passionate.
I call Mr Henderson.
Mr HENDERSON (United Kingdom) - On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Rapporteurs for all their hard work. I say to my friend Jean-Pierre Kucheida that the geography teacher in him is clear to see in all the maps and spatial context given in the report. That is extremely important and valuable information that all of us would be wise to absorb so as better to understand the nature of the challenge in Afghanistan. I thank Françoise Hostalier for her detailed knowledge of what actually happens on the ground. Françoise has been to Afghanistan five or six times over the past 12 to 18 months. She knows what is happening on the ground, and what is happening to women in communities all around Afghanistan. That knowledge and understanding shows in the report and we thank her for it. I also thank our third Rapporteur for his understanding of the regional context and the importance of neighbouring countries.
It has been a difficult task for the Committee to try to come to some consensus. In referring to consensus, I do not mean some sort of soft option enabling everyone to say that they can go along with what is suggested. That would not serve any of our purposes, and it would certainly not serve the troops who are deployed in Afghanistan or the people of that country. Nevertheless, I think that there is a real understanding of the dilemmas that we face in Afghanistan, and it is summarised in the second revised draft recommendation, which is available to everyone.
It took us a long time to produce the recommendation. I thank the Rapporteurs and our staff for the work that they put into trying to get something acceptable and realistic. It would be very easy for all of us to state an ideological position or what we thought would be a perfect solution to the problem that everyone faces in Afghanistan. I speak as somebody who had reservations not about the intervention eight years ago, but about the way in which it took place. I expressed those reservations at the time in the British Parliament. I think that I was right about that, but I will not go into it today.
As Lord Tomlinson said this morning, if this Assembly is to be taken seriously elsewhere, we have to take ourselves seriously. This matter is a real test of whether we can take ourselves seriously and face up to the situation not as we would like it to be or as it would be in a perfect world, but as it is at the moment. If we withdraw troops, what will happen to the people who have been dependent on the security that those troops have provided over the last few months and years? If there is a withdrawal and the society collapses, it will be okay for the leaders. Many of them were American-educated and would be back in the United States before it happened. But what will happen to the ordinary farmers, shopkeepers and women, and to teachers and the rest of the people who work in schools? That is something that we should all ask. When we ask ourselves that question, we will recognise that a lot of the recommendation, as set out in paragraphs 1 to 15, covers that territory, which concerns what is realistic in the months and years ahead.
I will finish on a specific point raised by Mike Hancock. He said that it would be mad to announce the withdrawal of all our troops, as the Taliban would stay in their barracks, wherever they are, until such time as the withdrawal took place, after which they would run riot, causing damage throughout society. I am not sure that Mr Hancock is right about that, and it is not what the recommendations say or what President Obama said last night. He said that there would be some withdrawal of some troops. We have referred to a drawdown of troops. In the view of the Committee, as expressed in our discussions this morning, that drawdown should take place only when security can be guaranteed - not across the whole country, because that will not be possible, but in the territories, towns, villages and farms. We should not announce that drawdown in advance; it should simply take place.
This is a good report. If we take ourselves seriously, we will endorse the report. I know that some will be against it, but I hope that there will be as big a majority as possible.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Henderson. I thank all the Rapporteurs and everyone who took part in the debate. We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation.
Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft recommendation.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...
That is not the case. We will have a vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft recommendation is adopted.
The PRESIDENT - The next order of the day is the address by Mr Göran Lennmarker, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Swedish Parliament and of the Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairpersons (EU Swedish Presidency).
Mr Chairman, I am pleased to welcome you to the Chamber. The Assembly is honoured to receive such a distinguished guest who, as President Emeritus of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, already has much interparliamentary experience.
As Chairman of the EU Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairpersons, you head an important forum for interparliamentary debate and cooperation. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has appointed you as its special representative for Nagorno-Karabakh. As we saw last year in the conflict between the Russian Federation and Georgia, the frozen conflicts are very important.
Mr Chairman, we thank you for coming today and we look forward to hearing your views on these matters. Mr Lennmarker, you have the floor.
Mr LENNMARKER (Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Swedish Parliament and of the Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairpersons) (EU Swedish Presidency) - It is an honour for me to be here because parliamentary assemblies are very important.
European integration has been an enormous success. I have looked at the history of WEU and I wish to emphasise that European integration did not begin 57 years ago as some believe, but in 1948. European integration does not mean only the EU - it also means the Council of Europe, WEU and NATO as well as the OSCE, in whose Assembly I am particularly active.
It is important that European integration continues and the membership processes of Turkey, Croatia and other countries continue. There are 50 countries in Europe today, as many countries as there are states in the United States. Some 38 of those countries are either in the EU, NATO or the European Free Trade Area, or embedded into these organisations in the case of the very small countries. Countries in Europe feel secure and safe. They are usually prosperous and look to the future with confidence.
However, we also have unfinished business in Europe and that is one of the responsibilities that we have now and in coming years. One piece of unfinished business is in the western Balkans following the wars in the 1990s in the former Yugoslavia. The 20th century started with wars in the Balkans and it finished with wars in the Balkans. I am optimistic that we may finally sort out the problems in the western Balkans. We have a process of integration involving NATO and the EU - these are the goals for the countries concerned.
We know that there are disturbing messages from Bosnia and to some extent from Kosovo. However, if we now have a process, it means that those countries will gradually join NATO and then the EU. It is more demanding to join the EU but the western Balkans is in a process of stabilisation. The most successful disarmament process in the world has taken place in the western Balkans, the Florence process. After nasty wars in which more than 200 000 people died, we have a process in the western Balkans to stabilise countries, to reduce armaments and to reduce the threats to neighbours. That is the trick when we deal with disarmament.
I am also optimistic about developments in Serbia, a country bombed by NATO in the spring of 1999. However, NATO together with the EU protected the Serb minority in Kosovo for the past 10 and a half years. The action was not against Serbia but against ethnic cleansing.
There are six countries to the east of the EU and NATO that are now part of the EU Eastern Partnership. There is now an important role for the EU in helping to stabilise these countries - their sovereignty, democracy and prosperity. On 1 September last year, following the war in Georgia, the EU issued a declaration of solidarity with Georgia and its population. The EU wishes to see Georgia and the other five countries as masters of their own destiny.
There is a division of labour between Europe and the United States. It is important for the EU to focus on the Eastern Partnership. We must have a process that means that these countries can if they so wish come closer to Europe not least in building human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It is on its way in most of the countries but not all. However, we hope that that process will continue. It is also important to create a parliamentary dimension for the Eastern Partnership.
There are problems in the six countries, however. We have unresolved conflicts, sometimes known as frozen conflicts. That is an incorrect description. They are not frozen. They have an enormous cost. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict costs 20 to 30 lives a year. In addition there is a cost in terms of refugees. There is also an economic cost and a political cost in terms of attracting a political focus that would be better placed elsewhere.
Even here, it is important to focus European efforts - whether through the European Union or the OECD. We should work together. The EU sometimes has the specific task of reinforcing the other organisations. For example, it reinforces the standards of the Council of Europe. Its members are already members of the Council of Europe, but the EU can reinforce that. Also, we can resolve certain conflicts through the OECD.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict could be solved quite soon if the will were there. The recent rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia has also been helpful, even if some people in Azerbaijan do not think so. It shows the ability of those two countries to overcome a very difficult historic legacy. That is really encouraging.
I have a particular message to send to Russia in relation to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Sometimes, the Russian Federation has tried to draw a parallel between those two entities of Georgia and Kosovo. We Europeans always underline the territorial integrity of Georgia. If there is a parallel to be drawn between Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the one hand and Kosovo on the other, the Russians must see to it that the refugees and internally displaced persons have the right to come back. It was not, however, "ethnic cleansing" that was the de facto result there. It is important to protect minorities, and that is what NATO did - and does - in Kosovo. It makes sure that the Serbs who are there have protection. If the refugees and IDPs are to return to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, they will need protection. People will not go back to a place where their house has been burned down if they do not feel that they will be protected. They need that protection, which is why it is so important that the international community - whether it is the OECD or the European Union Monitoring Mission - has the right to go into those two Georgian territories to see to that.
We have seen the Tagliavini report on the reasons for that war. In a way, it spread the blame, depending on how we look at it. But let us disregard that for a moment. For a refugee, it does not matter whose fault it was. They should still have the right to go back. We must never ever accept "ethnic cleansing" in 21st century Europe. That would be the effect if we were to denounce the rights of the refugees to go back.
We have also seen the conflicts in Moldova and Transdniestria. That is not an ethnic conflict, and we are quite optimistic that it can be resolved. It is not a question of deep-rooted hatred from long ago; it is more a question of a territory not being under any control at all and being a base for very dubious activities. On the other hand, the prospect of Moldovan membership - I think that it should be in the European Union - could certainly persuade a lot of people that there should be a solution to the conflict with Transdniestria as part of the Republic of Moldova.
So these six countries should now be the focus for the European Union in the coming year. The Eastern Partnership could be a vehicle for reinforcing that. The Russian Federation forms an important part of Europe. There are 50 countries, if I count the 38 plus the five in the western Balkans and the six that I have just been talking about. There is now a division of labour. The United States has focused on using the reset button and on, rightly, trying to sort out the important armaments treaty. That mainly affects us all in the West, if I can use that broad label, and the Russian Federation. There are important factors involved, including the START Treaty and the Convention on the Future of Europe, which has brought stability to Europe. It is important that the adapted treaty comes into force and that everyone abides by it. There is also the question of nuclear disarmament.
I hope that the Americans will now succeed in agreeing on these matters in the short run. In that sense, this division of labour between the European Union and the United States could be quite successful. Looking at the 50 countries of Europe, we see that there is a possibility of having, in the not-too-distant future, a Europe that is "whole and free". That is an expression that I first learned from President Eisenhower in the 1950s. Until 20 years ago, that would have seemed totally unrealistic, but perhaps it will now be possible to achieve it in the coming years.
I want to add a word or two about European integration. I was a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe that drew up the Lisbon Treaty. That convention comprised a majority of national parliamentarians from 28 countries: the 27 member states and Turkey. I want you to remember that. I am very pleased that the treaty has now been in force for 36 hours or so. It does several things, but I shall focus on just one of them. It will shape the decision-making of the European Union, making it easier to combat international crime, and it will certainly help enlargement. I hope that it will also strengthen the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
There is a lot of debate at the moment about the G2 of the United States and China. That is a rather strange debate, because if there is a G2 in this world, it consists of the United States and Europe - or the EU, more specifically. The EU contains 12% of the world's population. It accounts for more than 50% of the world economy and more than 60% of military spending in the world. In a way, it is a pillar of the whole international system in relation to practically all types of international rules of the United Nations and its different sub-organisations. It spends 75% to 80% of the development aid in the world, and I do not know what percentage of the world's trade, but it is certainly of a similar dimension.
It is important for Europe to find a way to shape common foreign and security policy together, not only by coordinating national policies but by starting from a European perspective. If we want that kind of influence, we must create it together. However, if we are not united, our influence will be much less. I was in Washington recently, where we discussed the subject. It is also the United States' perspective that it is preferable to have a strong Europe, in regard not only to the individual member countries but to a European Union that is very active in foreign and security policy, in Europe and in the other regions.
As I said, the Common Foreign and Security Policy must start now, with Lady Ashton as the High Representative. We must start with a common European perspective, rather than trying to coordinate individual and national perspectives and perhaps ending up with the lowest common denominator. Things are moving on, if we compare the debates on the convention with the situation today. The recent debate about Afghanistan shows a greater feeling that we should do things together, even though we have responsibilities back home. We must decide whether soldiers from our own countries should participate in military operations. That is correct. In the Swedish Parliament, Kenneth Forslund and I are absolutely sure that we should decide on whether Swedish troops should be deployed outside Sweden.
Having said that, we need to understand that we need to do more of these things together. That is why this Assembly is so important.
We should do much more, because if we do not act together, we will not be able to achieve things. Is it not time for us to have much more integration of our arms? We are in a union of 27 member states, with 27 different defence establishments that sometimes buy 27 different things. I do not know how much money we waste through national pride. I say that also in reference to my own country - we are no better than anyone else. However, it is now time that we at least rationalise our defence budgets. We should get much more bang for our buck - or buck for our bang, whatever is the national priority - but at least we should do much more on the matter. I was also part of working towards that hope in the European Convention. We should look together at future projects. Export controls on armaments are not for us to act together on, but there is an excellent British initiative on the recommendation in relation to arms control. It is, however, time that we make rules together, especially if we have integrated industries and we do not know what is produced where.
On the important parliamentary dimension, we should strengthen that in the European Union in two ways. First, the European Parliament takes part in legislation on all areas, with some exceptions. In principle, however, we have two chambers: the ministerial council, which we might perhaps call a senate, and the European Parliament. That is how it should be in the 21st century. Directly elected people should be responsible for decisions. We can also strengthen the role of national parliaments by being bolder about what we do together and at national level. The competence is not exclusive to the Union, or those elected by it. It is up to our national parliamentarians to consider whether it is proper, according to the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, or whether to say no. Even if there is a mixed competence between the Union and national parliaments, national parliamentarians should be able to say, "No, no, no, that is not for the Union. We should do it more at a national level". That is an important step forward, as we will then be able to feel more secure to give competences to the Union, because we know that the national parliaments are part of the process.
I also want to create a parliamentary dimension for the Eastern Partnership, not only with the European Parliament, which has started the process, but involving the 27 national parliaments. Why? Because national parliaments are the ones that actually decide on these enormous reform processes back home. That is so particularly for the parliaments of central and eastern Europe, which in the last 15 to 20 years have done an enormous job of reforming their societies. The question is not only technical because the European Commission can release technical papers saying, "These are the rules of the Union". Those papers are open to everyone, but parliamentarians know that it is also a question of getting popular support for measures that are quite tough in the short term. The Latvian Parliament, for example, knows that this takes enormous political energy, and that is why it is so important for the national parliamentarians and parliaments to be involved in supporting and helping the six partner countries. Usually we do not learn from what we are good at, but from our mistakes. I had a meeting in Stockholm on the matter. We are in the process of finding not a new assembly - Europe has enough parliamentary assemblies - but a mechanism to do that.
I want to end on two other aspects of parliamentary cooperation. I have failed on one, as the Chairman of COFACC - the Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairpersons. I tried to get representatives from the two committees in the United States Congress, both Senate and House of Representatives, to join us. I said, "Come on. If we work together on Afghanistan, we should do this together". Unfortunately I could not find time to go there, for which I am sorry. It is important to have parliamentary dialogue with the United States. Let us take the debate that we had a few minutes ago as an example. We should not have one debate in Europe and another on the other side of the Atlantic, but debate the matter together. We have to find ways, with others, of having a true parliamentary dialogue, including all the different voices, which is the strength of parliamentary discussions - not one voice or one idea, but different ones.
It is also important to strengthen the role of the Parliament of Afghanistan. If the presidency is badly hurt following the elections, the parliament at least has elected members from all over the country. I think that it was a mistake to have a presidential system in a country that is so divided, geographically and in many different ways. By the way, 27% of Afghan members of parliament are women. It is therefore important for parliamentarians to meet our counterparts in the Afghan Parliament. Of course, Afghanistan's Parliament is primitive in some respects, but it also has outstanding personalities who, in discussions, give us a clear impression of the state of the country. I met the Deputy Speaker of the Afghan Parliament, who said, "I knew many on the Taliban side because we were comrades in arms during the 1980s fight against the Soviet invasion and occupation. It is not easy just to forget that. I write a letter to Mullah Omar every second week, and get a response. I can never forget what we did together".
There are those who have different ideas of how we should move to the future. I will not go into the substance, but it is at least important to have contact with the Afghan Parliament. I am trying to get closer, continuous parliamentary contact between the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the five central Asian parliaments. Those countries are neighbours of Afghanistan and border it. Perhaps even contact with the Pakistan Parliament could help and certainly provide us parliamentarians with a much deeper knowledge of these very important issues.
I have shared a few points with you. I could go on for ever, but it is better to stop now.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you very much. If I might crave your indulgence for a moment, two of our colleagues have asked whether they can ask you questions. I will ask them to be brief and I will take the questions together.
I call Mr Mota Amaral.
Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) - I congratulate you, Mr President, and I wish you all success. What is your interpretation of one of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty on dialogue and cooperation among national parliaments of the Union? Do you consider that that cooperation will go on as usual, or should it be under the authority and control of the European Parliament?
The PRESIDENT - Thank you. That is one question. The second question is from Mr Frécon of France.
Mr FRÉCON (France) (summary) thanked Mr Lennmarker for the information he had provided. He wanted to talk about the Eastern Partnership, which was made up of six countries of the former Soviet Union. The main purpose of the partnership was to move these countries closer to the EU through the signing of agreements. He had three questions. First, what progress had been made in parliamentary terms in the last six months? Second, what would be the role of the national parliaments of the 27 EU countries within the broader framework? Finally, would this partnership - which did not include Russia - help solve conflicts within the Caucasus region?
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Frécon.
Mr Lennmarker, you have several questions there rather than just two, but I am sure that you will be able to answer them.
Mr LENNMARKER - Thank you, Mr President. I shall certainly try to do that.
There was a lot of discussion about how national parliaments could cooperate. Some of you may know about COSAC, which allows for cooperation between EU committees and national parliaments. I have been part of that, but to be honest I am dubious about where that road will lead because it tends to deal with formalities. Speaking for myself and the foreign affairs committees, COFACC, which comprises the foreign affairs committees from the different houses in the 27 member countries, deals with matters of substance rather than with formalities, exactly as this Assembly has just done on Afghanistan. That is also coming into other specialist committees in national parliaments. The advantage is that they consist of those responsible for the policies discussed. For example, a member of a transport committee discussing European networks will comprise parliamentarians. They have responsibility and legislative responsibility. That is exactly how it should be.
The European Parliament should be part of that. It should be one of those, not above them. The EU is not above the member states. The EU is our 27 countries. We want to solve certain problems and competencies which we give to the Union. When it comes to deciding on that, in essence we should be equal. I always want to have the European Parliament there as a partner. They are former national parliamentarians so they know exactly what parliamentary life is about. They should not be above, but part of it. In that sense, the whole idea of European committees is gradually disappearing. We are elected to be responsible to our electorate. We should deal with things that we know about and for which we have authority. That perhaps will be the future.
Mr Giscard d'Estaing had some ideas during the Convention to create some sort of a senate. Many of us were rather sceptical about that. It would be a third chamber in the EU, if the Council of Ministers is some sort of a senate already. Ministers are members of that senate. I am still dubious about the idea of having a senate. This type of cooperation between national parliaments is there. This Assembly is also part of that in specialising in security and defence matters. Perhaps there should be no new institutions, but we should see to it that we work with the institutions that we have and that there is quality in what they are doing. We should get away from spending half an hour on saying thank you very much before we deal with real matters. We should be courteous to each other. We do not need to be rude. But it is important that we have straightforward debates.
When it comes to the progress that has been made on the Eastern Partnership, yes there are matters under way in the four platforms. There have been different initiatives there. This is only the starting point. For example, civil society is important. There was a meeting in Brussels and one can certainly imagine that for countries such as Belarus and Azerbaijan it is important to have such meetings on civil society. They are two countries where it is not that easy to have a civil society, as you well know.
The European Parliament is trying to shape a parliamentary body consisting of 60 members of the European Parliament and six times 10 members from the six countries. As far as I understand, I will be speaking to the European Parliament on Monday, so I will have a proper report on that. But I think that there are some difficulties there because it is trying to shape all the decision-making mechanisms and it is necessary to know how many members there will be, and so on. It is better to ask the European Parliament itself, but I think there will be some difficulties there.
My idea for the national parliaments is that they should not take decisions but that there should be an open body for consultation. That means that there can sometimes be more from one country and fewer from another, because it is not a question of taking a decision. As I said, there is no need for a new parliamentary assembly just now. The important thing is that we should deliver.
With regard to the 27 national parliaments there are two things that we should do. One is to have bilateral cooperation. For example, if the National Assembly of France or the Senate wishes to cooperate with a country that needs something, there should be bilateral or perhaps trilateral cooperation. Some of the central eastern European parliaments will demand that. If you are in a parliament facing a financial crisis and it is not that easy to find money, there could be trilateral cooperation. Perhaps some richer western parliaments could put in money and help, and those who have gone through difficult reform processes could share that knowledge.
Another aspect is to strengthen the role of parliaments. We know that to build a democracy requires a viable parliament which is not just a nice picture where the president de facto has all the powers and everybody follows exactly what he does. We need real viable parliaments, otherwise a reform process will never be anchored in the population, because all different ideas need to be represented. That is another important point.
The third point is that there should be some element of multilateralism. There will be those of the six who will wish to go far and those who will wish to go somewhat slower. But in those countries that wish to go somewhat slower there will be those that wish to go fast, if you follow my thinking.
In Belarus, there are those who are very eager to get close to the European Union. The President of that country is perhaps not so eager, if I can put it that way. Nevertheless, we support those who want to be part of what is happening, which is extremely important.
I am sorry, but I write so badly that I cannot make out what the third question was.
Mr FRÉCON (France) (summary) asked about the Caucasus region.
Mr LENNMARKER - I have done a lot with regard to the Caucasus. In the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly I am responsible for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Yesterday, I met ministers from Azerbaijan and Armenia. I follow matters there closely, and the parliamentary aspect is very important.
The way of providing a solution is to bring to bear the European perspective. What has Europe done after terrible conflicts? It has engaged in shaping and integration after the worst historical experience of any continent. Europe could say, "Your conflicts are as nothing compared with those that have happened in Europe". Tens of millions of people were killed in European conflicts, and Europe overcame that and its people learned to live together, even in situations where territories were not that fixed - something that is not unique in the world or even in Europe.
That is a very strong message. The view that the southern Caucasus could be integrated, first within itself, is important. Three small newly independent countries should focus their political energy not on combating each other, but on working together, exactly as Europe did back in the 1940s and 1950s in trying to overcome the past. Looking from a wider perspective, if the border between Turkey and Armenia is opened, in spite of a very difficult past, including what happened in the first world war, the process of continuing a complicated history together could be an enormous step.
We Europeans, as part of the European Union, also have a responsibility. The Black Sea region is part of Europe. When it comes to the Eastern Partnership, it is said that no promises are made and no doors closed. That was what was agreed, and I stick to that agreement, but my personal view is that the Black Sea region is part of Europe. I totally reject the idea that those of us who were born lucky are good Europeans and perhaps it is those who were born less lucky who are not as good Europeans as we are.
The question also touched on whether Russia should or should not be involved. The whole European idea is not to exclude but to integrate. We cannot build cooperation by acting against Russia. That is not the European idea. Perhaps a quarter of the population of Ukraine have relatives on the other side of the border. That is how things have been, and it is not in our interest to have, so to speak, a newly cemented border between Ukraine and Russia. It is in our interest to see that Europe is not divided, and that includes Russia, even if its policies might be against integration. The Eastern Partnership is in effect also helping Russia. If there are six sovereign neighbours that are confident in building democracies and prosperity, it is good for Russia. It is not good for Russia to have weak neighbours that it thinks it can manipulate.
No country is in the backyard of any other country. No country is even in the backyard of the European Union. These are independent sovereign countries that have the right to enjoy their own sovereignty and make their own decisions. That is the fundamental lesson to learn from Europe's history in the 20th century.
The PRESIDENT - Mr Lennmarker, thank you very much for your speech and for answering our questions, which you have done in a very detailed way. I have one small presentation to make as a token of our thanks.
The PRESIDENT - The next item of business is the presentation of and debate on the report of the Defence Committee "European Union support for United Nations peacekeeping operations - reply to the annual report of the Council", Document 2049.
The Rapporteurs have up to 10 minutes to present the report.
I call Mr Rouquet.
Mr ROUQUET (France) (summary) said that there had been a continuous expansion of peacekeeping operations under the banner of the United Nations in recent years. The United Nations Charter defined the European Union as a regional power, and institutional ties between the two organisations had been important since the advent of ESDP. There were, however, wide discrepancies in the speed with which both organisations could respond to international crises. EU member states provided 40% of the financial resources for United Nations operations in Africa but only 2% of the manpower. He noted that the EUFOR Tchad/RCA had encountered some difficulties in its operation.
A sub-committee chaired by Mr Henderson conducted a fact-finding mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina last October and they met a number of officials in the region including the EU High Representative. Those meetings allowed the delegation to take stock of the situation.
He said that the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina remained tense. He noted that there were factions within Europe that might wish to close the Office of the EU High Representative and transfer its executive powers to local authorities. Thus far the conditions laid down for the withdrawal of EUFOR had not yet been met, and so it would remain in place until the end of 2010 at least.
The main objectives of EUFOR in the region were to maintain a climate of security and to ensure that peace agreements were complied with as well as providing support for the High Representative. It also supported local authorities in various duties such as demining and local air space control. He noted that it also had an active role in searching for suspects wanted by the International War Crimes Tribunal.
He suggested that there were four options for the future of EUFOR in the region. First, the status quo could be maintained. Secondly, troop numbers could be reduced but it could continue to carry out its current mandate; this would likely mean a greater involvement of NATO forces. Thirdly, it could take on a non-executive role, transferring executive functions to local authorities and focusing on training and support. Finally, the operation could be closed, and a plan drawn up for the withdrawal of EUFOR. The EUFOR Commander felt that the third option was the most preferable.
Last November the political directors of the Peace Implementation Council had met the High Representative and expressed their serious concerns about the lack of progress made towards a situation where the Office of the High Representative could be shut and noted the serious challenges still faced by the region.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you.
The next speaker is Mrs Aasted-Madsen. I was going to say that you have minus seven seconds but I shall allow you the full two minutes.
Mrs AASTED-MADSEN (Netherlands) (summary) told the Assembly that following the Committee's visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina she had met the Bosnian representative to the United Nations. She stressed that tension still existed between the different population groups in the region. The Serbs, Bosnians and the Croats all used different history books in their schools; in order to have a common future it was necessary to build on a common past.
(Mr Kõuts, Chairman of the Estonian Delegation, took the Chair)
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mrs Aasted-Madsen.
The debate is open. I call Mr Chiti.
Mr CHITI (Italy) (summary) thanked the Committee for its report. He noted that this debate was taking place after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which had given the EU a more consistent voice on security policy. He questioned whether there might be a role for an EU representative on the Permanent Security Council of the United Nations.
He also spoke on the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of military operations overseas. He stressed the importance of WEU in this regard.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Chiti.
The debate is closed.
Do the Rapporteurs wish to reply?
That is not the case.
Does the Chairman of the Committee wish to speak?
Mr HENDERSON (United Kingdom) - I just want to thank the Rapporteurs on behalf of the Committee for doing such an excellent job. It is clear that, in future, we in Europe are more likely to be working on United Nations mandates than on any others, so we had better get used to that and find the best working relationships. The document takes that forward for us and, on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank the Rapporteurs for their hard work and for their generosity of spirit on our visit to Bosnia in October.
The PRESIDENT - We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 2049.
Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft recommendation.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...
That is not the case. We will have a vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft recommendation is adopted unanimously.
The PRESIDENT - The next item of business is the presentation of and debate on the report of the Political Committee, "Current developments in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament", Document 2052.
I call the Rapporteur, Mr Michael Hancock, to present the report. You have 10 minutes.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) - It is too hot in here for people to want to stay any longer. I am surprised that there are so many people still in the Chamber, considering how unpleasant the climate is in here. However, I am delighted that you are here for this debate, which is really exposing us to this report that is trying to address the issues of nuclear proliferation, and to the optimistic view that at some stage we will get close to having some form of disarmament.
It is ironic that we are dealing with this matter today, because tomorrow is the date on which the current Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - the START Treaty - between the United States and Russia expires. So we are just 24 hours or so away from the expiry of what we considered to be a major breakthrough in the debate on nuclear arms. President Obama and President Medvedev met in Moscow in July 2009 to sign a framework document in order to provide some guidance for the negotiations on the future agreement. I am sorry to say that that provides a limited time frame for a new document to be agreed. They set it out in July, and the expiry date is December. There is little or no chance of anything coming into force before the middle or end of next year.
In the meantime, the missile defence shield in Europe is being discussed. It was promoted by the Bush Administration and reversed by the Obama Administration. Some people see that reversal as a negative step; others see it as a useful addition to the debate that might allow Russia to be brought more closely into the fold. Some see it as a more optimistic approach by the Americans towards Russia, and believe that abandoning the nuclear defence provided by the missile shield has been helpful in taking the debate forward.
The system itself was fatally flawed, and offered little or no security to most of south east Europe, Turkey or Israel. So, from that point of view, it would simply have given greater protection to the United States, if it worked. It might also have provided some cover for northern Europe, but the rest of Europe would have been left to the fate of whatever missiles were fired at it.
Obama's solution is to have a more adaptable, reliable, less expensive scheme that would develop the sort of protection that countries would want without ratcheting up the idea of Russian nuclear weapons being stationed in Kaliningrad, which the Russians have made it clear that they will not pursue. Therefore, we have already seen benefits, and despite the objections that might have come from some parts of Europe, there is a chance of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty that would deliver something of substance to Europe and the rest of the world. We must, however, be ever mindful: we heard the comments in the debate about Iran; we discussed in detail Israel, which already undoubtedly possesses nuclear weapons; there is the situation in North Korea; and there are other countries at the forefront of major disputes, particularly Pakistan, that are capable of delivering a nuclear weapon to a sizeable chunk of south-east and north-east Asia.
The report tries to address the issues, in one way or another, in Iran. I hope that we can draw Iran in to support us in combating the problem of drugs coming from Afghanistan. That was not mentioned at all in the debate, and that is to be regretted. Iran can and does play a part, and it has a huge drug problem, with hundreds of Iranian police and military having been killed in battles with drug cartels bringing drugs across the border from Afghanistan. If we are to convince Iran that it does not need the protection of a nuclear weapon, we should try to develop a different approach. The Iranian President declared just hours ago that Iran would not only continue its development of nuclear resource, but enhance it. He said that it would start to locate sites not just in years, but months - 10 new sites, with five already identified. He gave a timescale of five months for the other five sites, which would enable the generation of huge amounts of enriched uranium. That would make development of a nuclear weapon easy.
Despite such serious concerns, we must act responsibly and positively to bring Iran in rather than forcing it further apart. Europe has a role to play, notwithstanding its reluctance - it has mainly been left to the United States. In North Korea, two nuclear bomb tests have been conducted and several missile tests. Intelligence reports now say that it has as much as 50 kg of plutonium, which is enough for six to eight nuclear warheads capable of doing horrendous damage in a wide geographical space in Asia. If the six-party talks set up between North and South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the United States in 2003 are to mean anything, they must start proving their worth by trying to negotiate down North Korea's insistence on having such weapons. China needs to play a more key role. We talk a lot about China, which benefits substantially from western purchases of its goods. We seem to want to buy everything from China, which seems to be able to sell everything without accepting any responsibility for the part it plays in the wider world. In negotiations, we must say to China that it must give something to the rest of us for all the expensive goods we buy from it. For all the wealth it takes from the west in one way or another, we should demand of it that it puts something back into the world community. I regret that China is reluctant to show any initiative in relation to North Korea. China should and could do so much more, as it should in relation to Russia and in dealing with Afghanistan.
The most fragile and probably difficult issue of all is Pakistan. None of the nuclear missile sites of Pakistan are located more than 150 km from the Afghan border, and some are as close as 50 km or less away. Such weapons are extremely dangerous and make neighbours extremely vulnerable. It is extremely dangerous for any country to have such weapons at its disposal, but the idea that the Taliban could exert so much pressure in that area that they might become a nuclear based force if they ever got, or shared, power in Pakistan is terrifying. We need to do more to help Pakistan to secure those nuclear weapons. We must also give confidence to India that those weapons would not be used against it.
The possibility of escalation between Pakistan and India is for ever with us, but we spend little or no time trying to resolve the outstanding issues between those two countries. The effort put into resolving the Middle East question is one thing, and the military and political efforts to resolve the problems in Afghanistan are significant, but how much effort does Europe make to resolve possibly the most dangerous conflict of all: that between Pakistan and India, both nuclear states, both capable of widespread destruction, and one engulfed at present in a war against both inborn terrorists and those that have infiltrated the country from Afghanistan.
Many of us have craved the global zero - the total elimination of nuclear weapons - for all our political lives. Many older than me in this room have wanted it since the end of the second world war. I am sure we all hoped that the dropping of bombs on Japan, at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, would be the first and last time that those weapons were used in anger. We have lived through 60-odd years since then, and the dangers of those weapons being used have been with us throughout. The risk of their use in a haphazard, casual way is a now even more important problem. If anyone engages in nuclear proliferation, it makes it easier for a state to achieve nuclear weapon status. That would be a mistake and a grave error of judgment and a significant risk to the rest of us.
We must do more to convince our own governments. I would love to see the United Kingdom give up its nuclear weapons. We have already downgraded a number of warheads, but we still have such weapons. We believe - foolishly, I believe - that we have an independent nuclear deterrent. I cannot conceive myself of a situation in which the United Kingdom would ever be engaged in a conflict in which we would use nuclear weapons on our own. It simply would not happen. There is a strong suspicion, given that much of the technology that would power our nuclear weapons is manufactured and maintained by the United States, that we would not even have the capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon without the United States' agreement. Why do we keep them? I think the reason is probably that the British public, me included, would hate the thought of France being the only nuclear power in Europe other than the Soviet Union. That is more of a psychological barrier to overcome. If we engage with military strategists about why we have a nuclear deterrent and why France has one, we must ask: against which threat would France retaliate by using a nuclear weapon? Would France do it alone? I doubt it. Why are two such large countries as the United Kingdom and France persisting with such weapons. The longer we do so the more engaged are those who want them in the argument that, "If you can have them, so can we."
If you think that nuclear deterrents today are the same as they were 60 years ago, that would be the logic of the argument: give everyone one and say that we are all equal now and can all punish each other, because we all have the capability to fire it. That is absolute nonsense. You know that and I know that, so that will not happen. The better alternative is to say that we should reduce the number of weapons and aim to make the world a safer place for all of us by trying to cut nuclear proliferation. We should not make it easier for people to get weapons and we should do our best to get those countries that have them to reduce the number that they have and, ultimately, to get to the figure that every forward-thinking human being who cares about the future of the planet wants - a global zero strategy on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. If we achieve that I am sure that a lot of our children and grandchildren will live in a much more decent environment in the future than many of us grew up in. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Hancock for your excellent presentation.
The debate is now open.
First, I call Mr Chiti.
Mr CHITI (Italy) (summary) said that he thought the discussion was important. Initially there had been two opposed military blocs with nuclear capabilities, but now there had been nuclear proliferation in other countries. If humankind did not eliminate nuclear weapons, then nuclear weapons would eliminate humankind. It would be a disaster if nuclear weapons fell into the hands of terrorists. A new political stance had to be adopted. No country should be denied peaceful nuclear energy, but a stop must be made to the development of nuclear weapons. He suggested that a uranium bank be established to provide for the provision of nuclear material for peaceful purposes. The new American Administration could not avoid the discussion of missile defences. He suggested that the role of France and the United Kingdom as nuclear states be examined.
The PRESIDENT - I call Mr Franić.
Mr FRANIĆ (Croatia) - Thank you, Mr President. Being a senior research scientist in the field of radiation protection and nuclear physics, I feel obliged to comment on one extremely important aspect of this excellent report, on which I congratulate Mr Hancock and the members of the Political Committee. Paragraph 136 stresses the importance of the civil sector in the implementation of effective safeguards. That aspect also includes nuclear safety as well as radiation protection, which is also extremely important in combating nuclear terrorism and the illicit trafficking of nuclear material. All that is closely connected not only with nuclear and radiation sciences, but also with seismics, geophysics and acoustics. That means natural and technical sciences at large.
The question arises of who will perform this in the foreseeable future. Maintaining nuclear knowledge is becoming a more and more difficult and complex task in today's world. This issue has been addressed a number of times by His Excellency Mohamed el-Baradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Quite a few students worldwide are enrolling at technical universities and taking science courses, but they simply do not find themselves in the field of science and technology as a professional career. Among those, the fraction that chooses nuclear-related issues is negligible.
We as parliamentarians at a national and international level are decision makers in our national countries and we must play a more proactive role in changing the attitude towards science and technology, including on nuclear matters. That also includes awareness building regarding nuclear issues and addressing public opinion. Soon in the future we will face energy shortages, and nuclear energy is one of the foreseeable options, which opens up a number of important questions.
We must align with the efforts of international organisations, such as the Joint Research Centre on a European level and the IAEA on an international level, and bring all our efforts, influence and knowledge to bear in supporting their actions, targeted on preserving nuclear knowledge on a worldwide scale. That will inevitably contribute to global safety and security and non-proliferation of nuclear material.
The PRESIDENT - The debate is closed.
Does the Rapporteur wish to reply?
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) - First, I offer my sincere thanks to the staff of the Assembly for the help they have given, and in particular Kostas for the undoubtedly supportive way in which he has helped me and assisted in the development of the report over a considerable period. I would also like to thank my own staff in the House of Commons for their help on this. I hope that at some stage their names will be credited in the report. I would also like to thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to produce this report. It is an important report for the reasons that I stated earlier. Fear of a nuclear attack being delivered supposedly on our behalf to another nation, with retaliation, is something that has affected all of us for all our lives. We should be doing everything we can to alter that situation for future generations.
I am grateful to both colleagues who have contributed to the debate for their thoughtful words. In particular, I say to our Croatian colleague that it is always good to hear from somebody who has day-to-day experience of working with the issues that we are discussing. It always amazes me in parliament that there is always somebody in the room who is an expert on an issue because they have dealt with it in their working career. I have never been in the lucky position of being the one in the room who has the expertise or who could say with some confidence that I knew a lot about any subject. I have always been envious of people who are able to talk from first-hand experience and tell us about the importance of the roles they have played.
If I may, I shall now change roles and speak as the Vice-Chairman of the Political Committee. In my reply, I would like on behalf of the Committee to thank the Rapporteur for his excellent report. Mr Hancock is a unique character who was able to get to grips with the report, and despite all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that struck him, he was able to deliver a report with confidence and with a certain amount of diplomacy in trying to deal with the sensitivities. He is to be congratulated, and on behalf of the Assembly and the Committee, I will pass those remarks on to him.
I should like to thank the members of the Committee for the part that they played in once again helping to produce such a report. As with Mrs Durrieu's report on the Middle East, which was dealt with this morning, and the report on Afghanistan, the robust debates that we have play a big part in the work of the Committee. They hone reports and give them a commitment that the rest of the Assembly can pick up on. If committee members genuinely feel that they have played a part in the production of a report - I refer to the wider membership, and not just the ones who are privileged to be rapporteurs - it is very important. On Afghanistan, it was clear that the members of the Defence Committee played a significant part in putting the report together. The same was true of the way in which the Political Committee shaped Mrs Durrieu's report. That is a very special quality that the Assembly has. Members of committees are prepared not merely to attend meetings and nod things through, but to robustly present their positions. In some instances they compromise, but in most instances they are prepared to contribute constructively to the formation of a report. I genuinely believe that the reports that this Assembly produces, and in particular the report that we are talking about now, will be a good example of the strength of this organisation.
If ever we do come to an end, there will be a significant gap in the library of knowledge on European security and defence. If we have done nothing else, we have provided some of the frameworks that others are using as arguments about the defence and security of our continent. We should be proud of that, and that is why I commend the report to the Assembly.
The PRESIDENT - We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 2052.
Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft recommendation.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...
That is not the case. We will have a vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft recommendation is adopted.
The PRESIDENT - The next item of business is the presentation of and joint debate on three reports of the Committee of Quaestors: "Draft budget of the Assembly for 2010", Document 2056; "Opinion on the budgets of the ministerial organs of the WEU for 2009", Document 2057; and "The Auditor's report on the accounts of the Assembly for 2008", Document 2058 and Addendum.
I call the Rapporteur, Mrs Doris Barnett, to present the report on the draft budget.
Mrs BARNETT (Germany) (summary) said that the annual examination of the Assembly's budget provided a useful opportunity to consider all aspects of the Assembly's work.
The ESDA gave its members the possibility of discussing together issues normally reserved for heads of state, ministers and to some extent also the national parliaments. Parliamentarians from the 27 EU member states and neighbouring countries - a total of 39 countries - were invited to participate in its activities. Its work provided useful input for the defence and foreign affairs committees of the national parliaments and formed a bridge at parliamentary level among the different countries. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty the European Parliament would also discuss security and defence issues. The European Parliament had not been granted additional powers as security and defence policy remained intergovernmental, but it was an important partner for the Assembly.
It was paradoxical, given the involvement of so many countries in its work, that the Assembly should continue to be funded only by the 10 full WEU member states. It would make sense for other countries to be able to make a contribution, but the Council had decided otherwise. At the time of the signing of the Brussels Treaty nobody in their wildest dreams could have imagined what Europe would look like 55 years later. With the EU countries now engaged in peaceful cooperation and governed by democratic structures the moment had perhaps come to give consideration as to whether the Assembly structures were still in keeping with the times. While it was true that freedom, peace, and security were founded on the mutual trust and understanding that the Assembly, together with the other parliamentary assemblies, had contributed to building up painstakingly over the years, it was quite reasonable to ask whether the structures provided for by the Brussels Treaty needed to be updated.
The presentation of the 2010 budget also gave her the opportunity to thank the Assembly staff who over the last year had worked so hard to achieve the target set previously of zero nominal growth. This had been no mean feat, for the Assembly had already reduced the length of its sessions and gone as far as it could to achieve cost savings. It had already suffered a major loss of purchasing power. The 2010 budget took account of the salary increase foreseen by the Coordinated Organisations as well as the negative inflation rate in France. Certain budget items were incompressible. However, the salary increase had been limited to 1.98% rather than the recommended 2% in order to allow for a small contingency margin. Of the amount that was left after deduction of salaries and pensions, over a third went to funding the Assembly's share of the common costs for the Paris premises. Little was left over (4.5% of the total budget) for the real work of the Assembly, which included the drafting of reports, fact-finding missions and sessions. The Assembly's finances were not helped by the fact that three out of the 10 contributing member states had paid their contributions very late, if at all, making it necessary to take out bridging loans and pay interest.
In order to improve the financial situation, the Committee of Quaestors had put forward a number of recommendations: that associate member states in future be invited to make a voluntary contribution to the Assembly's running costs; that the Institute for Security Studies be asked to pay rent on the rooms it occupied in the Assembly building; and that the General Secretariat be co-located with the Assembly in Paris in order to save the cost of the Brussels premises.
(Mr Walter, President of the Assembly, resumed the Chair)
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mrs Barnett. I congratulate you and your Committee on the marvellous work that you do on our accounts. I call the Rapporteur, Mr Greenway, to present the other reports from the rostrum.
Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom) - I had intended to make a presentation from down below, but I am happy to come to the rostrum to discuss the documents. I begin by congratulating the Chairperson of our Committee, Doris Barnett, and saying how much I endorse what she has said. I will not repeat it all, except to say that the Assembly may recall the suggestion that I made two years ago about the common sense of bringing all of the WEU Secretariat here to this building in Paris, which WEU owns. I also raised the issue of the European Union Institute for Security Studies on the third floor of the building, which is there rent free.
I wish that the WEU Council, at ministerial level, would listen to what we are saying. We are constantly told that we must trim our budgets and Doris Barnett has told us how tight and difficult things are. We must thank Gilles Combarieu and our Secretary-General who have, like conjurors or magicians, ensured that we can meet our obligations to our staff and remain in business. However, it is a precarious business and the Assembly should not rest on its laurels. On the contrary, 2010 will be a tough year and, unless something improves, 2011 will be even worse. The three suggestions made by Doris Barnett in the report must be accepted and supported fully by the Assembly.
Moving to the two reports in my name, I should first like formally to move the report on the ministerial organs of WEU. Yet again, we have a problem with these figures, in that not all the moneys from the past have been properly reconciled. In drawing up these budgets, we needed to take into account not only the rate of inflation, as Mrs Barnett said, but the increase in remuneration as decided in the framework of the coordinated organisations with which we are obliged to comply.
I have mentioned the unreconciled WEU budgets from previous years. There is nothing sinister about that. It is simply that there are moneys outstanding from many years past, all of which have to be accounted for in these accounts. The fact that they are unreconciled makes it unnecessarily difficult and complex to read and understand the accounts.
We make the same point in this report about our budget as Mrs Barnett made in hers: we need a thorough review of the Secretariat-General's residual responsibilities, with a view to the rationalisation of WEU's overall administration. We think that the case for that is now overwhelming. I should therefore like to recommend to the Assembly the draft recommendation at the beginning of the report on the opinion on the budgets of the ministerial organs for 2009.
I should also like to move the draft motion and report on the final accounts of the Assembly for 2008. A separate sheet sets out the draft motion, and I wish to draw your attention to two elements of it. We ask the Assembly please to approve the accounts that have been submitted and to discharge the President of the Assembly of his financial responsibilities. We are satisfied that the audit has been done correctly. Anyone who studies this report closely will find that the Auditor-General from Portugal went through our affairs with the finest-toothed comb that anyone could possibly wish to see. We had some disagreements over his approach, but we are satisfied that the accounts should be approved by the Assembly.
Moving on to another point that our Chairperson, Mrs Barnett, made in her speech, we ask you to note with concern that, although all member states paid their full contributions for 2008 during the year, a number of participating states were late in paying their periodic instalments. The result was that, at various times, the Assembly had recourse to seeking loans from its bank, at additional cost to the Assembly as well as to the member states that paid their contributions on time. That is something that we need to be aware of. I know that this matter has been raised in some of the political groups this week. There are outstanding payments from a number of major countries. I understand that they are expected almost any day now, and as soon as those moneys are received, the outstanding contributions to the political groups for the current year will be made.
Finally, I should like to draw to the Assembly's attention the fact that, at the Quaestors Committee meeting earlier this afternoon, we agreed an amendment ensuring that we approve the accounts, save for appendix VI, which refers to the accounts of the Federated Group. The Committee has asked that those accounts be referred back to the group for clarification. By way of explanation, I should point out that the figures for the Federated Group's affairs represent an amalgamation of the figures for the Christian Democrat Group and for the European Democrat Group. Although we have no reason to believe that those figures are anything other than completely accurate, the problem is that the treasurers of those two groups have seen and signed only their own individual accounts. We have therefore asked the Federated Group to clarify the matter and to let us know how it will deal with it. There seem to be two possibilities. One is that it will formally sign appendix VI as proposed. The other - which would reflect the fact that, sadly, the two groups have decided to split with effect from January - is that they each put forward an appendix showing their own figures. In my judgment, there is nothing sinister about the figures, but it is important that we have absolute transparency and complete accuracy.
In all other respects, I am happy to confirm that the accounts as laid before the Assembly in my report have been fully audited, that they are accurate and that they can be approved. I urge the Assembly to accept them and to discharge you, Mr President, of your financial responsibility.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Greenway. I will be relieved to be discharged of my financial responsibility.
The debate is open.
We have two speakers who have indicated that they wish to speak.
The first is Mrs Brasseur, who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Group.
Mrs BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) (summary) congratulated Mrs Barnett and Mr Greenway on their work. She made five points. First, of the 39 countries that attend meetings of WEU, only 10 paid a contribution towards its running costs. She felt this was an anomaly and that the other countries should be invited to contribute. Secondly, among the 10 countries that contributed, there were some that routinely paid late. This created difficulties for the Assembly's administration. Thirdly, the Assembly's operating budget had continually fallen since 2006. Over the last eight years the purchasing power of the budget had fallen by 38%. This could not continue. Fourthly, she proposed that the secretariats of the Council and Assembly could be merged to produce savings. Finally, the draft 2010 budget showed yet another reduction in purchasing power.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mrs Brasseur. We shall turn out the lights in a moment.
I call Mr Chope.
Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) - Mr President, may I congratulate you, on your re-election? It is a pleasure to serve under your presidency. I also congratulate Mrs Brasseur on her contribution. It is important that someone should lead by example. One group of people is not participating in this debate, the WEU Council. Are you listening? Will you take any notice? The messages that we have heard so far have been repeated over many years with no evidence that the WEU Council takes notice.
I might be regarded as a hardliner in many things, but I think that on the squatting rights of the European Union Institute for Security Studies we should serve notice that we will evict it unless it pays its rent. Last weekend, a member of the European Parliament came to my constituency, and said that he would have to leave early because he was going on an EU parliamentary trip to Angola with 85 other parliamentarians, I think, or at least 85 other people. If the EU can afford such a trip, how can it say that it cannot afford to pay rent for the space occupied by the European Union Institute for Security Studies? It does not add up.
May I also briefly refer to the amendment in my name and that of my colleague, Humfrey Malins. I am delighted that John Greenway, in his excellent speech, told us that the Committee recommended acceptance of the amendment. Effectively, the amendment says that appendix VI cannot be approved. That is for a good reason: although the consolidated accounts for the Federated Group have been signed by Mr Malins as treasurer, by me as one of the former auditors, and by Mr Zacchera, another of the four auditors, we have not signed the accounts. Although we have seen the accounts for the European Democrats, we have not seen those for the Christian Democrats. However, the Christian Democrats have seen our accounts, so there is no reciprocity. In his earlier remarks, Mr Greenway implied that there was fault on both sides. I suggest that it would be an irresponsible auditor or treasurer who signed accounts that he had not seen. Until we see the accounts of the Christian Democrats group within the Federated Group, Mr Malins and I cannot sign them. I am delighted that that has been recognised in the acceptance of the amendment. We hope that this bit of dirty linen will be washed in private, but we have suffered a lot of frustration in asking for and being refused the opportunity of seeing the Christian Democrats' accounts.
In conclusion, may I pay tribute to Doris Barnett? She has done and continues to do a first-class job as Chairman of the Committee on which I have the privilege to serve. It is not a high-profile job but she brings energy and rigorous analysis to it. I hope that people will listen to the pleas to pay the money that they owe. A number of member countries are not paying their dues on time, including, I am ashamed to say, the United Kingdom. I hope that that will get better when we have a change of government next year. We also have a problem with France and a bigger problem with Spain. It is unacceptable that countries do not pay up on time.
Most of all, I hope that the WEU Council will do justice to the words of our Chairman by listening to what she has said during the debate and continues to say. If they do so and follow our advice, they will not go wrong.
The PRESIDENT - That concludes the list of speakers. The debate is closed.
Does Mrs Barnett wish to reply to the debate?
Mrs BARNETT (Germany) (summary) thanked the speakers in the debate for their support. She would ensure that her speech was translated into English and sent to the WEU Council, which would be invited to respond.
Finally, she noted that one should be wary of attempts to do away with organisations on the grounds that they overlapped with others within Europe. The WEU Assembly's role was very different from that of the European Parliament. It was doing a good job and it was important that it should continue.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mrs Barnett.
Does the Rapporteur, Mr Greenway, wish to reply?
Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom) - I thank the two speakers for their support and to say to Mr Chope that I did not in any way intend to imply that there was fault on both sides, simply that there seems to be some disagreement, and I am sure that the Federated Group will resolve it as quickly as possible.
The PRESIDENT - Thank you, Mr Greenway.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft budget contained in Document 2056.
Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, if 10 or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft budget.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call?...
That is not the case. We will have a vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft budget is adopted unanimously.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 2057.
Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, if five or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft recommendation.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call?...
That is not the case. We will have a vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft recommendation is adopted unanimously.
We now come to the draft motion contained in the addendum to Document 2058, to which an amendment has been tabled, which reads as follows:
1. In paragraph (i) after the word "submitted" insert the words:
", save for Appendix VI,".
I call Mr Chope to support Amendment 1.
Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) - I move it formally.
The PRESIDENT - Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...
That is not the case.
What is the view of the Committee?
Mr GREENWAY (United Kingdom) - In favour.
The PRESIDENT - I will now put the amendment to the vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
Amendment 1 is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft motion, as amended, contained in Document 2058 addendum.
Under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, if 10 or more representatives or substitutes present in the Chamber so desire, the Assembly shall vote by roll-call on a draft motion.
Does any member wish to propose a vote by roll-call? ...
That is not the case. We will have a vote by show of hands.
(A vote was taken by show of hands)
The draft motion, as amended, is adopted.
I thank the Committee of Quaestors, particularly its Chairman, Mrs Barnett, for its work, and Gilles Combarieu for all the work he does. We have successfully concluded the votes on the three reports in the joint debate.
The PRESIDENT - That concludes our business.
I remind colleagues that we will shortly be conferring honorary membership of the Assembly on a number of former members of the Assembly and you are all welcome to come to that ceremony just outside. That will be followed by a reception which will also be held just outside to which everyone is welcome. I wish you a very good evening and hope that we have a good social occasion in the next hour or so. Thank you very much.
I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10.00 with the orders of the day agreed at the start of this sitting.
The sitting is closed.
(The sitting was closed at 18.50)
