Russell-Johnston, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3
p.m.
THE PRESIDENT.- The sitting is open.
1. Minutes of proceedings
THE PRESIDENT.- The minutes of proceedings of the previous sitting have
not yet been distributed. We will consider these at the next sitting.
2.
Conflict in Chechnya and credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation (resumed
debate)
THE PRESIDENT.- We will now resume this morning’s joint debate on
the reports on Chechnya and the credentials of the Russian delegation. Forty-six speakers
remain on the list for the general debate. I would remind you that the debate will be
interrupted at 4.15 p.m. I hope that that will provide enough time for responses from the
rapporteurs and the votes. Speeches have been limited to four minutes.
In the debate, I call first Mr Saglam.
Mr SAGLAM (Turkey).- The situation in Chechnya continues
to be of very great concern to Turkey. A war is being conducted in the territory of one of
the member states of the Council of Europe, and excessive and indiscriminate force is
being used against the entire population, including civilians. Large-scale human rights
violations and great human suffering are being caused in Chechnya by the Russian military
campaign. In consequence, violations of international humanitarian law are taking place
and there is no determined will to restore law and order through peaceful means.
The rule of law, human rights and democratic values, which are our
guiding principles, are being defied in Chechnya. We should convincingly convey our belief
that the conflict cannot and should not be resolved by military means. We should not allow
visits by representatives of the Council of Europe to be exploited as an endorsement of
Russian attitudes. The Itar-Tass reporting of President Russell-Johnston is an example to
be avoided in future.
Negotiations should begin immediately between the Chechens and the
Russians so that a peaceful solution to the conflict can be found. International media and
humanitarian organisations should be granted free access to the region, and refugees
should be allowed to return home. Most of all, an international presence should be
established in the region to monitor the situation and to improve humanitarian conditions.
All members of this august body should try to help build a lasting peace in the Caucasus,
a region that has long suffered instability and bitter fighting.
We should show the determination and persistence necessary to stop the
violence in Chechnya and to introduce the principles of the Council of Europe to the
territories of a member country. The Russian Federation should be reminded that it must
honour its commitments as a Council of Europe member. I agree with most of those who have
spoken today that there should be an immediate ceasefire and that negotiations should
begin between the Russian authorities and the Chechens. It is our responsibility to see
that those things occur.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you very much, Mr Saglam.
The next speaker will be Mr Weiss.
Mr Peter WEISS (Slovakia).- The most terrifying aspects of wars,
apart from the intention of those who begin war, are the suffering of innocent civilians
and the sorrows of refugees. We saw those things happen in Kosovo during the bombing in
Yugoslavia, and we see them now in Chechnya. As we watch the aching faces of children and
of civilians who are the victims of military actions on both sides of the conflict, we are
all rightly appalled by the violation of basic human rights. We must consider all that is
happening, and we must act.
In my opinion, the current events in Chechnya have resulted from the
deliberate attempts of the Russian authorities to deal with three typical Russian
syndromes. The first is their fear of the possible disintegration of Russia, which would
be difficult for Russian society. It is also questionable whether Europe could accept such
an uncontrolled disturbance. The second syndrome is Russia’s guilt about the history
of its former empire - the Soviet Union - which has accelerated the current paradigm of
separatism. Thirdly, Russia also suffers from post-Afghan syndrome.
However, the dramatic conflict in Chechnya should not be a reason to
ostracise Russia or to exclude it from European institutions, although the temptation to
do so exists. The National Council of the Slovak Republic has thoroughly monitored
developments in the northern Caucasus. We absolutely disapprove of absurd terrorism and
regional extremism, as well as of nationalism and xenophobia in all their forms. We oppose
any erosion of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, and we are against
further destabilisation of the region.
On the contrary, we want to stabilise the situation and to give Russia
room to
develop - finally - a modern society and democracy. For the sake of freedom, democracy and
respect for human rights, we should not hesitate to help Russia. Nevertheless, there can
be no long-term stability unless we treat the cause of the conflict. Creating stability at
the expense of applying democracy is no way out. We need also to minimise the never-ending
urge to solve problems with weapons.
The current events in Chechnya require us to use political instruments
to promote awareness of the humanitarian mission. That is why I support Lord Judd’s
suggestions and the views of the Political Affairs Committee. They are a demonstration of
pure reality and responsibility. They appreciate that there are two sides to the conflict
and that the future of Russia is at stake.
It is not only the rising political elite in Russia who are in danger.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe - indeed, the whole of Europe - faces
the danger of two serious setbacks that would have unpredictable consequences. The
first danger would be an end to democratisation in Russia. Secondly, the current reforms
in Russia could, under the pressure of separatists, easily fall to pieces with a big bang.
We may experience other Chechnyas in future.
Today we must engage in the moral aspects of this matter, but we should
also reach a political decision. The worst that we could do would be to ostracise Russia.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Weiss. I call Mr Ziuganov.
Mr ZIUGANOV (Russian Federation) said that the present conflict
was the fifth war to have broken out in the Caucasus. The conflict had been caused mainly
by the collapse of a united country and by the struggle for oil. The war had begun with an
attack on the parliament in Grozny. Weapons had flooded into Chechnya, all the schools had
been shut down, 30 000 people had left their homes and 100 000 had died in the first
stages of the conflict. All that had occurred at the time when the Organisation had made
the Russian Federation a fully fledged member of the Assembly, but much had taken place
since then.
During the past four years a great deal of legislation had been passed
in Russia to bring it in line with European standards. The Duma had discussed the Chechen
problem more than thirty times. When Russia had been accepted for membership of the
Council of Europe in 1996, that had been a wise decision, made in the light of an
understanding of the political situation. It was important to realise that, unless the
problem of terrorism was brought to an end in Chechnya, it would spread throughout the
rest of Europe. Russia was prepared to work alongside its European partners to find a
solution to the problem.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mr Saakashvili.
Mr SAAKASHVILI (Georgia).- My country is directly affected by
the Chechen war. We, like everyone, recognise Russia’s legitimate interests in
fighting a terrorist threat. Some of the terrorists who participated in the attack on
President Shevardnadze two years ago were trained in Chechnya.
As a result of the excessive use of force, however, the refugee influx
from Chechnya into Georgia has aggravated our domestic humanitarian problem. Our country
already has 250 000 internally displaced persons from Abkhazia. On several occasions,
Russian military planes bombarded Georgian frontier villages, wounding Georgian nationals.
Russia apologised for only one episode and denied the others.
Encouraging signs are emerging from Mr Putin’s meeting with the
presidents of three Caucasian states. However, we are waiting not only to hear tactical
promises but to see a fundamental change of mentality. Today, Mr Ivanov told us that
attempts to squeeze Russia out of the Caucasus will fail and that Russia has always played
a stabilising role in the region, meaning not only the northern Caucasus but independent
states in the Caucasus. I object to the imperial flavour of that assertion and
Russia’s self-definition of its role.
Can Russia’s direct military involvement in conflicts in the
region be described as stabilising? Can stirring up the conflict in Abkhazia, and then
training and arming Chechen fighters - generously described by Russian officials at the
time as "volunteers" - and sending them to fight the Georgian Government be
described as stabilising? The same Russian officials now describe those Chechen fighters
as terrorists. Can we describe as stabilising the direct bombardment of Georgian towns and
recent intrusions into our territory?
The Georgian Government refused to allow Russian troops to use its
territory for the war in Chechnya, thus avoiding full-scale internationalisation of the
conflict. As a result, we have been continually accused by Russian politicians of helping
the Chechens and supplying them with arms. Indeed, a few days ago Georgian security forces
prevented an attempt by personnel from Russian military bases to sell large quantities of
arms to Chechen fighters in Georgia.
When Russia declared that no one would force it to leave the Caucasus,
why did it not think to ask the opinion of the Caucasian states? Russia, with its imperial
ambitions, wants to dictate to independent nations how they should behave, menacing them
with the use of force. Such a Russia is not welcome in the Caucasus. We would adamantly
support and join forces with a peaceful, democratic Russia that respected the sovereignty
of independent nations and safeguarded human rights on its own territory. We would support
a Russia that would use its resources for stabilisation.
I remind you of Mrs Durrieu’s words to the Assembly two years ago:
"Russia is the biggest de facto destabilising factor in the Caucasus, but
potentially the most stabilising one." Russia has still fully to reveal that new
beautiful face. That will come about only through the painful realisation by all
mainstream Russian politicians that the Russian empire is dead and the 19th century rules
of the game should be altered to fit the requirements of the new millennium.
Separatism and terrorism are a threat to everyone. That is why we need
to work with Russia and to give it a second chance in the Assembly. There are three
principle reasons for that. First, there will be a new Russian delegation, and we have to
take a closer look at it. Secondly, I have been closely observing the Russian group here
for the past three years, and although its members have mostly remained the same, there is
in many ways a new political culture. Thirdly, I agree with Mr Atkinson that if Russia
lost its voting rights we would lose our influence over Russia. Losing Russia would be the
worst thing that we could do at this crucial moment in European history.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. Mr Mota Amaral, Chairman of the Monitoring
Committee, was to have spoken but he had to return to Lisbon. I have agreed that
Mr Solé Tura will read Mr Mota Amaral’s speech on his behalf.
Mr SOLÉ TURA (Spain) said that the Monitoring Committee had
appointed Mr Mota Amaral its spokesperson on Chechnya.
Russia was in breach of its obligations to solve internal conflicts by
peaceful means. The Monitoring Committee would be continuing its procedure in Russia, and
planned to produce a report soon. The committee had appointed Mr Atkinson as co-rapporteur
to work on the report with Mr Bindig.
From his own personal point of view, he agreed with all that had been
said, in particular the recommendations in the report about the need to end the use of
indiscriminate and disproportionate force and to stop attacks on the civilian population.
The achievement of peace would require continued dialogue with the Duma, which would be
made difficult if the Council of Europe suspended Russia’s voting rights.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Solé Tura. I call Mr Kovalev.
Mr KOVALEV (Russian Federation) reported barbaric events in
Chechnya, including the disappearance of journalists and hostage-taking. The Chechen
authorities had not been able to deal with those incidents and Russia could not just look
on. Young highly armed terrorists were carrying out dreadful acts with weapons designed to
kill indiscriminately. That indicated a lack of will to reach a peaceful settlement. The
inability to obtain information on what was happening in Chechnya was not as dangerous as
the war itself.
THE PRESIDENT.- Please finish now, Mr Kovalev.
Mr KOVALEV (Russian Federation) said the Chechen authorities
needed to recognise the need for a political settlement for peace to be brought about.
THE PRESIDENT.- You ran more than a minute over. That is not good. I
call Mr Gürkan.
Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- Chechnya is a burning problem in the
northern Caucasus. It continues to be an area of ethnic tension and instability for Russia
and all of the surrounding region. We all have strategic as well as humanitarian reasons
to care about what happens in Chechnya. The war there might destabilise Georgia and
threaten the stability of the southern Caucasus. It could also jeopardise western access
to the energy resources in the Caspian region and is likely to impose progressively
heavier burdens on the Russian economy.
The issue should be resolved within the territorial integrity of the
Russian Federation, but through peaceful political means and with due respect for human
rights. However, recent statements by the Russian authorities - perhaps not here in
Strasbourg, but in Moscow - showed that they are intent on solving the problem by
exclusively military means. That is contrary to the principles of the international
community and is a source of great concern.
Despite his earlier romancing of some colleagues, Mr Putin has
described the situation as a war that redeems Russia’s honour and global standing.
That approach has put Russia on the road to nationalist adventurism and caused bloodshed.
The option of a political solution has been eliminated and the safety of innocent
civilians is totally disregarded.
It is clear that any struggle against separatists who use terrorist
means cannot be a neat gentlemen’s war, but there should be a balance between the use
of effective force and decent respect for individual rights and international norms. The
Turkish example could become a model of how to deal with terrorists and separatists
without killing thousands of civilians.
Regardless of how they conduct their struggle against the Chechens, we
have a profound disagreement with our Russian friends on the treatment of refugees. The
refugee crisis is the most outstanding aspect of the multi-faceted negative effects of the
situation and it seems to be deteriorating ever further. Russia has far more to gain from
approaching the problems co-operatively than from falling into the trap of nationalist
adventurism. I believe that the international community, and especially the Council of
Europe, has a critical role to play in this regard. As the great Turkish poet Nazim
Hikmet, whose grave is still in Moscow, said, our world deserves "to live like a
tree, single and free, and as a forest, in brotherhood".
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mr Hornhues.
Mr HORNHUES (Germany) pointed out that the Council of
Europe’s primary purpose was protection of human rights. The supreme human right was
the right to life. The Council had an opportunity to influence the conflict and should do
more than pass a resolution. The President of the Assembly had heard statements from
President Putin offering the Council of Europe the chance to become operatively involved -
an offer which should be taken up immediately to establish whether it was meant seriously.
There were two sides to the conflict and the Assembly should consider whether there was
any sense in offering an amnesty against further persecution to the rebels.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. The next speaker is Mrs Hoffmann.
Mrs HOFFMANN (Germany) had been involved in monitoring the
elections in 1999 in Moscow for the Council of Europe. Her impression was that the Russian
population supported President Putin’s actions. The people did not know everything
that was going on, as the media had only partial information on the conflict. The Council
of Europe needed to do more to get information to the Russian people.
The Council of Europe had to appeal to the Russian authorities to allow
international observers in. Solving the problem was a matter for Russia and not something
that could be done from outside. Words would not bring the Russian authorities around.
Punishing them would only produce an anti-European reflex and Russia would drift further
away. The Council of Europe needed to use political influence and Russia required its
support. A former President of the Russian Federation had said that he was in favour of a
peaceful end to the conflict.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mrs Hoffmann. I call Mr Zhirinovsky.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) was surprised and
bothered about what he had heard. Mr Kovalev was a disgrace to Russia. The Georgian
representatives had talked about the oil pipeline. Turkey should look at what was going on
in its own backyard with the killing of Kurds. During the second world war, Germany and
Nagasaki had been bombed indiscriminately. The Council of Europe was standing up for a
regime in Chechnya which deserved no recognition at all. They were bandits. The Council of
Europe should just withdraw Russia’s credentials - he did not want to get his hands
dirty. If it did that, he would not want to be a member of such an Assembly.
The Russian Federation did not want to be part of a Europe that stood
shoulder-to-shoulder with bandits. Matters should be dealt with in a more civilised way. A
Polish delegate had talked about courage, but he should remember that it was the Soviet
Union which restored western Poland to Poland. The Czech delegates had been very quiet:
perhaps the Assembly should consider the 3 million Germans who had been mistreated in
Czechoslovakia.
The Assembly should consider the lessons of European history. Russia
had often come between the west and the threat of an evasion from the east. The Assembly
should be sure to throw out the Russian delegation and bring the Chechen bandits in to
take its place. The 21st first division of the Russian Army was defending human rights in
Tajikistan, but nobody had referred to that, nor had anyone referred to the 3 million
refugees whom Russia was sheltering. Nato had bombed schools and hospitals in Kosovo: why
should Russia not take the same approach to the Chechen bandits? There were thousands of
extremist parties in Russia waiting for the Organisation’s support. If the
Organisation supported bandits, he wanted nothing more to do with it.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mr Dokle.
Mr DOKLE (Albania) said that the situation in Grozny was
terrible. The Assembly was not defending bandits: it was defending the human rights of the
great and of the small. The Organisation could not simply watch while such conflict took
place within a member state and while such violations of human rights were occurring. The
Judd report provided an excellent appraisal of the situation in Chechnya. It was not
appropriate to cite historical examples on one side or on the other. Russia was entitled
to combat terrorism, but it could not be allowed to turn that into all-out war. The draft
recommendations sought to help Russia approach its problem from the perspective of
European values. Other member states provided better examples of how to tackle similar
problems. There were terrorist problems in Northern Ireland and in the Basque country, but
neither the British nor the Spanish governments had turned to such massive military
action.
Russia should be shown that freedom and human rights were the most
important values. If the Russian Government believed that the war could be used as some
kind of shield for the presidential elections, it should remember that the greatest
politicians had always acted in the best interests of their countries and their people. He
was convinced that the Russian people could not support anti-humanitarian actions. He
quoted the Russian poet Lermontov, who had lived for a long time in the North Caucasus,
and who said: "it is in God that there is freedom". Now there was war between
brothers and great loss of life. The sooner action was taken to end that, the better.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Dokle. I call Mr Wójcik.
Mr WÓJCIK (Poland).- We base our discussion on the Russian
military action in Chechnya on facts and assumptions. Even if we assume that many Chechens
belong to terrorist groups, we cannot accept that the whole community is collectively
responsible. Not only innocent civilians but Chechen soldiers die every day fighting the
Russian army. We cannot blame them for fighting in good faith to defend their homeland,
their villages and families.
We have been deeply involved in the campaign for the abolition of the
death penalty and we are now proud that Europe is a continent without the death penalty. I
wonder how many of us who have been deeply engaged in that campaign can quietly watch the
execution of a whole nation and accept the explanation that that is the only way of
solving the terrorist problem.
Some of us have understandable doubts and I ask frankly whether the
Chechen terrorists really exist. The kidnappings and murders are not sufficient evidence.
The fact that they occur proves only that some individuals, groups or clans are inclined
to commit terrorist acts, and we cannot maintain that they represent the Chechen people.
Moreover, we should ask ourselves whether it is not much more likely that they are acting
for external powers.
If we continue this line of reasoning, we should ask whether it is
possible that there are people or powers that want to maintain tensions and are looking
for new divisions and sources of tension. If that is true, the Chechen people are mere
victims and we, the Council of Europe, would be naïve to assume a leading role in such a
spectacle.
In his statement, Minister Ivanov tried to convince us that the Russian
army is defending European civilisation against the expansionist Islamic world. However,
bombing villages and killing civilians will not stop fundamentalism. It will only provoke
more violence and aggression on the part of the extremists from outside Chechnya, who will
readily use such a situation to increase their presence in the region, and it may lead to
the start of a bloody guerrilla war. Europe therefore will not feel more secure after the
Russian army’s military action.
The Council of Europe can be an organisation of political significance
only on condition that it consistently defends freedoms, rights and democratic values,
otherwise we will not be taken seriously.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Hancock of the
United Kingdom and the Liberal Democratic and Reformers’ Group.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom).- We are fortunate that few of us
will ever have to live through saturation bombing, endless bombardment, our homes being
burnt out, our wives, sisters or girlfriends raped and killed, our neighbours held
hostage, and witnessing public executions. We should be grateful for that. From what we
have heard in the Assembly, and from the eye witness accounts that we see daily on our
television screens and read in our newspapers, that is what people in Europe are living
with every day, and they have been doing so, on and off, for the past five-and-a-half
years. That is why the Council of Europe has a responsibility to act.
What can we do? We have two choices. We can endorse and work on the
framework produced by our rapporteurs - I believe that the report offers the foundation
for at least a step in the right direction - or we can send Russia away from the Council
of Europe, not for a token period, but for the foreseeable future. We can tell Russia that
it will be admitted only when the Parliamentary Assembly is satisfied that it is fit to
return. Those are the only real choices open to us.
Let us consider the reality. We witnessed an agile example of dancing
with reality by Foreign Minister Ivanov today. His account of the facts would have put the
leading acrobat in the Moscow State Circus to shame. He missed the point. He went from
unmitigated excuses for the reality to the surreal, when he suggested what the Russian
army was doing in parts of Europe.
We must accept that the Assembly is limited in what it can do. Last
night we witnessed the grotesque spectacle of senior members of the Assembly rushing
around and asking members to sign up for Amendment No. 1, which would take away the voting
rights of the existing Russian delegation. What a bizarre suggestion - that, as some of
punishment, we should deny the Russian delegation the right to vote here tomorrow morning.
When we meet next April, there will be a new delegation, which will have to seek
recognition of its credentials.
What an example to set the rest of Europe. By taking away its voting
rights and punishing the Russian delegation, we would be showing that the Council of
Europe really does have teeth! That is absolute nonsense. I have a great deal of respect
for, and I have spent many happy hours with, René Van der Linden. I ask him to think
again and to withdraw the amendment, which would make nonsense of this place. I urge
members not to be tempted to go for the third way. There is no third way. There is only
one realistic approach to the situation - to try to work out a political solution. That is
our purpose.
We do not put our lives on the line, fighting for rights. There are
young men and women all over Europe doing that to uphold human rights, because our
governments send them to do it. It is not only Russian mothers who care when their sons
come back in body bags. Did British mothers feel any differently when their sons were
killed in Northern Ireland and other parts of the world? Mothers everywhere are concerned.
Chechen mothers are concerned that their children are dying in the campaign.
We are concerned, but let us not dance with the surreal and the
bizarre. Let us stay in the real world and support a proposition put forward in the report
on Chechnya, which offers hope for a political solution. Let us hope that President Putin
and others who seek power in Russia will give us the credit that we deserve and will give
justice not only to the Chechen people, but to the people of Russia. What we are
discussing is not a conflict, but a war. Let us strive for a political solution. It will
not come about tomorrow or next week, but it will happen sooner if we adopt the report
than any other way.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mr Prusak of the Russian Federation
and the European Democratic Group
Mr PRUSAK (Russian Federation) thanked Lord Judd for his report.
He did not agree with all its contents, and had tabled some amendments, but he would not
complain about it because it gave an opportunity for important discussion.
The situation in Chechnya could not be compared to that of Spain or
Northern Ireland. Major political changes had been taking place all over the world,
especially in the Asia and Pacific regions. The involvement of US forces in Iraq, the
Balkans, and Vietnam had arguably made the humanitarian situation much worse.
He urged the Assembly not to limit the credentials of the Russian
delegation, because that would make co-operation impossible.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Prusak. The next speaker was to have been
Mr Glotov, but he has yielded his place to Mr Fyodorov.
Mr FYODOROV (Russian Federation) was against the war in
Chechnya, where policy should be determined by one overriding value - the right to life.
There was no one Chechen representative who could negotiate a settlement or guarantee a
ceasefire. It was tragic that it was not possible to reach a negotiated settlement. There
was a need for increased pluralism in Russia, but that process would not be helped by
restricting Russia’s rights in the Council of Europe. Such a move could only serve to
boost Russian nationalist feeling.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Fyodorov. The next speaker will be Mr
Pollo, and he will be followed by Mr Timmermans, who will be the last speaker in the
general debate.
Mr POLLO (Albania).- I am prepared not to make my speech.
THE PRESIDENT.- In that case, it will be possible for Mr Kofod-Svendsen
to speak after Mr Timmermans.
Mr TIMMERMANS (Netherlands) outlined particular recommendations
in the English text of the report and called for a ceasefire on both sides in Chechnya. It
was said that a peaceful resolution required the maintenance of channels of communication
with Russia, but Russia appeared not to be prepared to respond to calls for a negotiated
settlement. The withdrawal of Russia’s right to vote in the Council of Europe would
show the unacceptability of Russia’s current actions in Chechnya.
THE PRESIDENT.- Because of Mr Pollo’s withdrawal, the last speaker
will be Mr Kofod-Svendsen.
Mr KOFOD-SVENDSEN (Denmark).- This afternoon, we have a clear
alternative. In November and December, we condemned Russia’s actions in Chechnya. Now
we have to ask ourselves whether we should continue to use words or whether we should act.
If we continue dialogue with the Russians but at the same time act, we will send the
strongest possible signal from this Assembly.
We have an obligation to defend our Organisation’s principles and
standards, and we must react when our principles are violated. We must therefore consider
the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which suggests the best way
to manage a difficult situation.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I must now interrupt the list of speakers. I
remind you that members who are on the list and present in the Chamber but who have not
been called may submit their speeches in typescript to the Table Office within twenty-four
hours of the end of the debate for publication in the official report. I am always
surprised that so few members take advantage of that opportunity.
I remind you that the rapporteurs for each report and related opinions
have a maximum of four minutes to share between them to reply to the debate. In other
words, when I call Lord Judd, as I will in a moment, he will have four minutes which he
may or may not, according to his inclination, share with Mr
Bindig and Mr Iwinski. It is up to you whether you want to be generous.
I call Lord Judd to reply. He has four minutes.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom).- This has been an honest debate, and
I thank all those who have participated. It has made clear beyond doubt our grave concern
about the totally unacceptable action on both sides of the conflict, and has underlined
Russia’s special requirements as a member of the Council of Europe, which means that
high standards of action are required.
The debate has also made plain our demand that the onslaught on
innocent civilians must stop and that an early ceasefire is imperative. It has underlined
our conviction that there can be no military solution, and that a political solution and
negotiations are urgent and essential. It has also made plain our desire to ensure that
the Council of Europe plays a constructive part, with the Russians, in building peace
through our presence in the region. The debate has left no one in any doubt about our deep
anxiety about the children, women and men who are suffering as we speak. It has reinforced
our determination to be effective in bringing peace.
The report and the recommendations of the Political Affairs Committee
spell out a realistic, tough and specific agenda for action. The report makes plain the
issues on which there must be progress and leaves no room for doubt that, if there is no
convincing progress, the issue of Russian membership will come before the Assembly in
April.
On the matter of whether we should withdraw from our Russian colleagues
their right to vote, it is my firm conviction - I cannot emphasise enough how much I
believe this - that to wound them in the eyes of the Russian public and send them back
disabled and lame will undermine our aim urgently to open up a debate in Russia in the
next few weeks. For that reason, I urge colleagues to accept that the logic of the report
and recommendations is that our Russian colleagues should remain full members of the
Assembly with all their rights until April, when we will undertake a fundamental review of
whether there has been progress.
THE PRESIDENT.- One minute and forty seconds is left. I call Mr Bindig
on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the debate had produced an
important result. The majority of members disapproved of the action in Chechnya and agreed
that human rights had been violated. It was good to stand up and defend the Council’s
values.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mr
Iwinski on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography.
Mr IWINSKI (Poland).- The situation in the northern
Caucasus cannot be considered a black and white issue. We are most concerned about the
ordinary people there. I make a strong plea that no refugees or internally displaced
persons are made to return without their consent. We have called on the Russian
authorities to respect international humanitarian laws such as the Geneva Convention.
There are now about 250 000 hostages, including two female Polish
scholars. We should do our best to help to release all the hostages.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I now call Mr Davis, as rapporteur, to speak
about the second report. The same rules apply. You may afford time to Mr Vis and Mr
Frunda. You may also take account of the fact that at the end, as Chairman of the
Political Affairs Committee, you may reply to both reports for two minutes.
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- I shall make just one speech, rather
than impose on my colleagues.
I am very glad that Mr Ivanov returned to the Hemicycle this afternoon
to listen to our debate. It gives me an opportunity to emphasise to him that the
overwhelming majority of members of the Assembly are united in condemning the Russian
authorities’ actions in Chechnya. We support Russia’s territorial integrity, but
we also condemn terrorism wherever it appears, ethnic cleansing and the Sharia law.
Because we condemn all that, we can say to the Russian authorities that we condemn also
the scale of their military operations in Chechnya.
Some people have claimed that the recommendations in Lord Judd’s
report are meaningless, but I believe that those people do a disservice to the Council of
Europe by failing to recognise that the recommendations and the report adopted by the
Political Affairs Committee represent a step forward. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the draft
recommendation in Document 8630 show that the committee wants to increase the pressure on
the Russian authorities. We want not only dialogue but action. We want action from the
leadership of the Council of Europe. Some of us reject the idea that the Council of Europe
should wait for a ceasefire before we try to contribute to settling the problems in
Chechnya.
We all want dialogue with the Russians, but Lord Judd and the Political
Affairs Committee take the view that we will not make progress if we slap the face of the
person with whom we are talking. Taking away Russia’s voting rights may make us feel
better, but it will not help to achieve the result that we want.
THE PRESIDENT.- I call Mr Vis on behalf of the Committee on Rules of
Procedure and Immunities.
Mr VIS (United Kingdom).- There has not been a challenge to the
opinion of the committee, so I have nothing to add.
THE PRESIDENT.- I call Mr Frunda on behalf of the Committee on Legal
Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr FRUNDA (Romania).- The debate has only strengthened my belief
in my committee’s amendment. We all want discussions with the Russian authorities. We
all recognise the borders of the Russian Federation and the right to fight against
terrorism. Mr Ivanov and the Russian governing coalition have said nothing about
human rights and how the government will act to defend them. If we do not act to defend
human rights everywhere, including in the Russian Federation, we will no longer have the
right to accuse smaller countries that are guilty of less serious violations of human
rights. We have to be consistent with our principles. Our amendment would help our friends
among the democratic forces in Russia.
THE PRESIDENT.- The debate is closed. We will now deal with votes on
the report on Chechnya and, after that, on the credentials of the Russian delegation.
The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft recommendation in
Document 8630 to which twenty-nine amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in
the order in which they appear in the Notice Paper, as follows: Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 2, 3,
4, 23, 18, 24, 25, 11, 5, 14, 26, 6, 27, 7, 8, 12, 16, 17, 15, 9, 13, 10, 28, 1, 29. If
Amendment No. 26 is agreed to, Amendment No. 6 will fall. I remind you that speeches on
amendments are limited to one minute.
We come to Amendment No. 19, which is, in the draft recommendation, at
the end of paragraph 1, add the following text:
"as well as requesting that persons guilty of terrorist acts,
human rights violations and abductions be prosecuted and all hostages be immediately
liberated".
I call Mr Fyodorov to support Amendment No. 19.
Mr FYODOROV (Russian Federation) said that the amendment would
balance the draft recommendation, as it acknowledged the responsibility of both the
federal authorities and the Chechen authorities to uphold the standards of the
Organisation.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 19 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 20 which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 4, leave out the words "to respect the European Convention on Human
Rights" and insert the following words:
"to ensure respect of the European Convention on Human Rights as
well as the rule of law and democratic principles".
I call Mr Fyodorov to support the amendment.
Mr FYODOROV (Russian Federation) said that the amendment was
legal and technical and better represented the responsibilities of the Russian Federation.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 20 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 21, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 5, leave
out the words "the neighbouring republics of Chechnya from attacks" and insert
the words:
"its population, including the population of Chechnya and
neighbouring republics and regions, from terrorist attacks".
I call Mr Fyodorov to support Amendment No. 21.
Mr FYODOROV (Russian Federation) said that the amendment allowed
banditry in other regions and districts of the Russian Federation to be taken into
account.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 21 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 22, which is, in the draft recommendation, at the end of
paragraph 5, add the following words:
"The Assembly confirms its strong condemnation of all acts of
terrorism, kidnappings, public executions and human rights violations committed in
Chechnya".
I call Mr Fyodorov to support Amendment No. 22.
Mr FYODOROV (Russian Federation) said that the amendment was
intended to cover all manner of terrorism and human rights violations committed in
Chechnya.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 22 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 2, which is, in the draft recommendation, at
the end of paragraph 7, to add:
"As a result of this indiscriminate and disproportionate use of
force, innocent non-combatants in Chechnya are suffering most serious violations of such
fundamental human rights as the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to
security".
I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 2, on behalf of the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the amendment spelled out which
specific rights in the European Convention on Human Rights were violated by the
indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Zhirinovsky to speak against the amendment.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said that there had been no
indiscriminate or disproportionate use of force. In fact, the Russian authorities had been
far too soft in their approach. Soldiers were operating outside Grozny in freezing
conditions and under constant threat to defend the civilian population against the Chechen
fighters. The greater part of Chechnya was already free, people were living in safety and
most of the refugees had now returned.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of hands…
Amendment No. 2 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 3, which is, in the draft recommendation,
after paragraph 7, add the following new paragraph:
"Russia is thus found to be violating some her most important obligations under
both the European Convention on Human Rights and international humanitarian law, as well
as the commitments she entered into upon accession to the Council of Europe."
I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 3, on behalf of the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the purpose of the amendment was
to provide a clear summary of the opinion of the Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
I call Mr Zhirinovsky to speak against the amendment.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said that the claim that
Russia was in breach of its obligations was illogical. Russia had no other option than to
fight against criminal elements, but the Assembly was turning that into a violation. It
seemed that Europe was on great terms with the bandits. What would western European
countries do in that situation? Europe should be grateful for Russia’s actions. Had
Stalin been in power, no one would have known anything about it.
THE PRESIDENT.- Please respect the time limits, Mr Zhirinovsky.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The Political Affairs Committee is
for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 3 is adopted.
We come now to Amendment No. 4, which is, in the draft recommendation,
after paragraph 7, add the following new paragraph:
"The Assembly considers that the military operations of the
Russian Federal forces in Chechnya violate the rule of law, since the scale of these
operations is not covered by the law on the fight against organised crime but no emergency
situation was declared, so that the operations are arbitrary and not regulated by
law."
I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 4, on behalf of the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the purpose of the amendment was
to make the report more balanced by inserting information which had been received from the
Russian delegation.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Zhirinovsky to speak against the amendment.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said that he had visited
Chechnya many times, whereas Mr Bindig was relying on information from Berlin. Why should
an emergency situation be alluded to? The bandits were being armed by countries
represented in the Assembly, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The Political Affairs Committee is
for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 4 is adopted.
We come now to Amendment No. 23, which is, in the draft recommendation,
replace paragraph 8 with the following new paragraph:
"The Assembly condemns the failure of the Chechen leadership
during the period 1996-99 to ensure the rule of law, respect for fundamental human rights
and individual freedoms in Chechnya, in accordance with international obligations
undertaken by the Russian Federation."
I call Mr Fyodorov to support Amendment No. 23.
Mr FYODOROV (Russian Federation) said that complying with human
rights standards was not just a wish but a requirement and the purpose of the amendment
was to reflect that.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Lord Judd to speak against the amendment.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom).- Of course, we are concerned about
the responsibilities of the Chechen leadership during that time, but we also believe that
the federal authorities and government at the time had their share of responsibility as
well. Therefore, in the form in which it is drafted, I find the amendment unacceptable.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The Political Affairs Committee is
against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 23 is rejected.
We come now to Amendment No. 18, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 9, after the words "The Assembly", insert:
"demands that the Chechen side introduce an immediate and complete
cease-fire and".
I call Mr Timmermans to support Amendment No. 18.
Mr TIMMERMANS (Netherlands).- We wanted even-handedness in the
call for a ceasefire. It would be wrong to ask only the Russian side to introduce a
ceasefire, because the Chechens should be included. That was not in the draft
recommendation, so we wish to add it.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Yemets to speak against the amendment.
Mr YEMETS (Ukraine) said that it was incorrect to refer to
Chechnya as if it were a nationality.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The Political Affairs Committee is
in favour of this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 18 is adopted.
We come now to Amendment No. 24, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 9, delete the words "to do everything in their power to obtain" and
insert the words:
"to ensure".
I call Mr Fyodorov to support Amendment No. 24.
Mr FYODOROV (Russian Federation) said that the purpose of the
amendment was to strengthen the tone of the draft recommendation.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The Political Affairs Committee is
for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 24 is adopted.
We come now to Amendment No. 25, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 9, after the words "these acts", delete the rest of the paragraph and
add the following words:
"to put an end to all violations of human rights, including
abduction of hostages, torture, the slave trade, prosecutions without trial and capital
punishment, as well as to respect democratic standards and the rule of law."
I call Mr Fyodorov to support Amendment No. 25.
Mr FYODOROV (Russian Federation) said that the purpose of the
amendment was to state more clearly what was required of Russia.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Lord Judd to speak against the amendment.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom).- I hope that our Russian colleagues
will understand why I feel unable to support this amendment. It is simply that in the
drafting of the report I deliberately used umbrella phraseology for the things that have
gone wrong.
When the delegation was in Russia, we were told several times of very
specific allegations about what the Russian forces had done wrong. We had no means of
investigating, but we were told those things. I have used generalised language and not
detailed and specific allegations. If we were to accept the amendment, the argument would
become unbalanced because we would not have included in the report the detailed
allegations about conduct by the Russians.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is against the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands...
Amendment No. 25 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 11, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 10, replace the words "all efforts" by:
"efforts which do not violate human rights".
I call Mr Manchulenko to support the amendment.
Mr MANCHULENKO (Ukraine) explained that the purpose of the
amendment was to take account of the December 1999 call for a complete cessation of the
conflict.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Lord Judd to speak against the amendment.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom).- I hope that those who tabled the
amendment will understand that I am not against their objective, but I believe that it
would be better achieved by the next amendment. It would be absurd to have two amendments
covering exactly the same ground, so I would rather that we did not accept this amendment
and I hope that we will accept the next one.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is against the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands...
Amendment No. 11 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 5, which is, in the draft recommendation,
at the end of paragraph 10, add:
"as long as they are in accordance with internationally accepted
norms and standards".
I call Mr Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights, to support the amendment.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the aim behind the amendment was
to avoid the draft recommendation being too general.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands...
Amendment No. 5 is adopted.
Amendment No. 14, tabled by Mrs Fyfe and others, has been
withdrawn. We will therefore move on to consider the next amendment, unless anyone wants
to move Amendment No. 14, which they would be entitled to do…
That is not the case.
We come to Amendment No. 26, which is, in the draft recommendation,
replace paragraph 14.i with the following text:
"to de-escalate the conflict, to stop using young conscripts and
cease indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force in Chechnya affecting the civil
population and ensure its safety".
I call Mr Glotov to support the amendment.
Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) said that the purpose of the
amendment was to underline the need for de-escalation of the conflict.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Lord Judd to speak against the amendment.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom).- I wish firmly to oppose the
amendment because it seems to me to water down what we are saying in the report. The
report refers to the need to stop the conflict, and the language in the amendment is not
as strong. I call on the Assembly to reject the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is against the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands...
Amendment No. 26 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 6, which is, in the draft recommendation at
the beginning of paragraph 14.i, insert:
"to introduce an immediate and complete cease-fire and, in
particular,".
I call Mr Bindig to support the amendment.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the purpose of the amendment was
to recognise the need for a ceasefire.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Zhirinovsky to speak against the amendment. I remind you,
Mr Zhirinovsky, that you have one minute and no longer.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said Chechnya had been a
focus for terrorism over the past ten years. If there were to be a ceasefire, hundreds of
people would be snatched from their homes by bandits, whose activities would be given a
green light.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands...
Amendment No. 6 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 27, which is, in the draft recommendation,
replace paragraph 14.ii with the following text:
"to start immediately political dialogue with elected Chechen
authorities who renounce terrorism, with the objective of a political solution on the
basis of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation".
I call Mr Glotov to support the amendment.
Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) said it was imperative to have
political dialogue with the Chechen authorities. The amendment provided that
clarification.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Lord Judd to speak against the amendment.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom).- I take second place to nobody in
condemning terrorism - its consequences are appalling - but I believe that, if we are
serious about promoting dialogue as a means of building peace, we need to have
imagination, flexibility and a willingness to be as open as possible about all the people
whom one endeavours to involve in the process. The players have to be involved. That is
why I cannot accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is against the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands...
Amendment No. 27 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 7, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 14.iv, replace the word "avoid" with:
"refrain from".
I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 7, on behalf of the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the amendment made the text more
specific.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?…
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The Political Affairs Committee is
for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 7 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 8, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 14.vi, to replace the words "to create conditions allowing" with:
"to allow".
I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 8, on behalf of the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said the purpose of the amendment was to
take account of the immediate needs of refugees.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Glotov to speak against the amendment.
Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) saw no need for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The Political Affairs Committee is
for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 8 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 12, which is, in the draft recommendation,
paragraph 14.ix, replace the word "representatives" by:
"legally-elected representatives of the authorities".
I call Mr Manchulenko to support Amendment No. 12.
Mr MANCHULENKO (Ukraine) said that Russia had not implemented
the decision of December 1999 that the use of force should be stopped.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Lord Judd to speak against the amendment.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom).- The amendment would be too
restrictive. We are in a creative process of opening up and trying to get all the people
who matter involved. If we start laying down too many stipulations in advance, that may
kill the whole exercise.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The Political Affairs Committee is
against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 12 is rejected.
We come to Amendment No. 16, which is, in the draft recommendation,
after paragraph 14, add another sub-paragraph worded:
"to task the Russian Federation to guarantee the full application
of a fundamental aspect of democracy, namely the entire and independent operation of the
media."
I call Mr Derycke to support Amendment No. 16.
Mr DERYCKE (Belgium) said colleagues had complained about the
lack of objectivity in the debate because of the media. The presence of the media was a
precondition.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Zhirinovsky to speak against the amendment.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said that at the end of
military action a large group of military people would meet, but the bandits would kill
them all. The Russian press should not bring in western colleagues so long as the bandits
were there. People would only ask why they were sent to be killed.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The Political Affairs Committee is
for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 16 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 17, which is, in the draft recommendation,
after paragraph 14, add another sub-paragraph worded:
"to request the Russian authorities to authorise the arrival in
Chechnya, immediately hostilities cease, of a mission headed by the Council of Europe
Human Rights Commissioner and composed of experts from the competent international
organisations (UN, OSCE, Council of Europe) to look into the requisite measures for
restoring democratic institutions and ensuring that human rights are fully
respected."
Mr DERYCKE (Belgium) said Mr Zhirinovsky had been too hot under
the collar too soon in discussing Amendment No. 17. The Assembly should not wait too long
before sending in experts.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Zhirinovosky to speak against the amendment.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said there was a mistake in
the Russian interpretation of the credentials. Russia was paying $ 13 million and the
least the Council could do was to provide an appropriate translation. If people were sent
in to Chechnya, they would disappear. Russia had the freest press in the world and it was
very interesting, unlike boring western papers.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- For different reasons, and on the
advice of the rapporteur, the Political Affairs Committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands…
Amendment No. 17 is rejected.
Amendment No. 15 has been reissued due to an error in the list of
signatories.
We come to Amendment No. 15, which is, in the draft recommendation,
after paragraph 15.ii, insert the following new sub-paragraph:
"consider the question of human rights violations in the Chechnya
conflict at its next meeting in order to take the necessary actions within its statutory
powers;"
I call Mrs Ojuland.
Mrs OJULAND (Estonia).- The amendment asks the Committee of
Ministers to use its statutory powers so that it may participate in ending the conflict.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is for the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands.
Amendment No. 15 is adopted.
THE PRESIDENT.- We come to Amendment No. 9, which is, in the draft
recommendation, after paragraph 15.iv, after the word "provides", insert:
"after the cessation of hostilities".
I call Mr Bindig, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said the impression should not be created
that support would be given at an early stage.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Lord Judd to speak against the amendment.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom).- My very good friend Mr Bindig just
turned to me to thank me for accepting all his amendments, but I am not merely
establishing my independence by saying that I have some difficulty with this one. Work is
being done as a result of our strong feelings about all that is happening, and we do not
feel that it would help our humanitarian commitment to add the words in the amendment.
That might punish people who are doing good work and who need our support at present.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is against the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands.
Amendment No. 9 is rejected.
THE PRESIDENT.- We come to Amendment No. 13, which is, in the draft
recommendation, paragraph 15.iv, after the words "implementation of" insert:
"peaceful".
I call Mr Manchulenko.
Mr MANCHULENKO (Ukraine) said that the Bureau had recently
recalled Russia’s undertaking in 1996 to settle conflicts by peaceful means, and the
amendment took that into account.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Mr Zhirinovsky to speak against the amendment.
Mr ZHIRINOVSKY (Russian Federation) said that the Ukrainan
representative again wanted to do the impossible, and achieve success through negotiation.
A government acting within its own territory was under no obligation to negotiate, and the
Geneva Conventions had no place in the internal affairs of a country. Peaceful negotiation
could happen only when the bandits put down their arms. He questioned the involvement of
Ukraine in conflict. Snipers from Lithuania were shooting at Russian soldiers. A number of
Lithuanian women had been captured in Grozny. The amendment was illogical.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- Our alliance was short-lived,
because the committee is in favour of the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands.
Amendment No. 13 is adopted.
THE PRESIDENT.- We come to Amendment No. 10, which is, in the draft
recommendation, paragraph 15.iv, after the word "policies", insert:
"in conformity with the norms and principles of the Council of
Europe".
I call Mr Bindig to support the amendment on behalf of the Committee on
Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the purpose of the amendment was
to allow support for policies which were in accordance with the principles of the
Organisation.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is in favour of the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands.
Amendment No. 10 is adopted.
THE PRESIDENT.- We come to Amendment No. 28, which is, in the draft
recommendation, leave out paragraph 15.v, and insert the following text:
"plays an active role in preparing, in co-operation with the
Russian authorities, a regional conference with the participation of Chechnya, Dagestan,
Ingushetia and North Ossetia as well as competent international organisations, including
the Council of Europe, to co-ordinate supportive actions for a permanent solution for the
situation in Chechnya."
I call Mr Glotov to support the amendment.
Mr GLOTOV (Russian Federation) said that this was a technical
and legal amendment, but it was also substantive. It provided for the Russian authorities
to take an active role in a regional conference. He believed that the committee was in
favour of it.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?...
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is in favour of the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- I shall now put the amendment to the vote by a show of
hands.
Amendment No. 28 is adopted.
THE PRESIDENT.- We come to Amendment No. 1, which is, in the draft
recommendation, after paragraph 15, insert the following new paragraph:
"Having considered the situation in Chechnya, the Council of
Europe calls upon the UN Security Council to address the governments of the states from
whose territory the gunmen are recruited and sent to Chechnya, and from which weapons are
supplied in order to promote terrorist activity in Chechnya, asking them to take immediate
measures to terminate the aforementioned actions, which contradict the charter of the
United Nations and other generally accepted norms of international law and which threaten
peace and stability not only in the Caucasus region but in the whole world. The Council of
Europe calls on the UN Security Council to adopt a corresponding resolution condemning
international terrorism as well as actions intended directly or indirectly to promote
it."
I call Mr Oliynyk to support Amendment No. 1.
Mr OLIYNYK (Ukraine) said that the amendment continued the logic of the
Judd report, by seeking to ensure that the Council of Europe called upon the United
Nations Security Council to address the governments of those states where gunmen had been
recruited.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Lord Judd to speak against the amendment.
Lord JUDD (United Kingdom).- Many members of the Assembly will
know how strongly I support the United Nations and how anxious I am about recent events.
There may have been attempts to sideline the UN, with potentially disastrous consequences
for humanity. However, I do not believe, in the context of my paper, which is about our
responsibility and that of the Russians, that the amendment is appropriate. I feel that
those who wish to pursue the important line taken in the amendment should seek to persuade
individual governments to argue a case at the United Nations.
THE PRESIDENT.- What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The committee is against the
amendment.
Amendment No. 1 is rejected.
THE PRESIDENT.- The French version of Amendment No. 29 has been
re-issued due to an error in the list of signatories.
Delegates will recall the effect of Rule 8.6 which is that members of
the Russian delegation may not vote in any proceeding relating to the examination of
credentials which concern them. That includes Amendment No. 29.
We come to Amendment No. 29 which is, in the draft recommendation, at
the end of paragraph 16, add the following text:
"In the meantime, and until there is substantial progress in
respect of the situation in Chechnya as outlined in paragraph 14, the voting rights of the
Russian parliamentary delegation in the Assembly and its bodies shall be suspended in
accordance with Rule 8.5.c of the Rules of Procedure."
I call Mr Bindig to support Amendment No. 29 on behalf of the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr BINDIG (Germany) said that the debate had circled around that
point. He endorsed Mr Frunda’s comments.
THE PRESIDENT.- Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Lord Judd to speak against the amendment.
LORD JUDD (United Kingdom).- I must not repeat arguments that I
have already deployed in the debate. If our Russian colleagues go home with the message
suggested by the amendment, it will undermine their credibility and distort and destruct
the debate to which we hope they will contribute on their return.
I repeat: we have put forward a tough paper with tough recommendations
demanding progress and stating unequivocally that, if there is no progress, the issue of
Russian membership will have to be reviewed in April. That is the time to decide that
question. We believe in the development of parliamentary democracy, which will be
essential to the stability of Russia and the world as a whole. It does not make sense to
choose, as the Assembly’s first signal, to wound democratic practitioners. I cannot
accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you.
What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?
Mr DAVIS (United Kingdom).- The Political Affairs Committee is
against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- It may be necessary, depending on how the vote goes, to
ask members to stand up, but I shall take a show of hands first. I shall now put the
amendment to the vote by a show of hands…
Please stand to vote.
It is not normal to give voting figures, but this is an abnormal
occasion.
Amendment No. 29 is rejected by 83 votes to 71, with 9 abstentions.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation
contained in Document 8630, as amended. A two-thirds majority is required for the draft
recommendation.
The draft recommendation, as amended, is adopted.
We now come to vote on the conclusions of the Political Affairs
Committee, Document 8633 revised, to which two amendments have been tabled which we
will consider in reverse order: Amendment No. 2 and then Amendment No. 1.
If Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, Amendment No. 1 falls.
Delegates will recall the effect of Rule 8.6, which is that members of
the Russian delegation may not vote in any proceeding relating to the examination of
credentials which concern them.
We come to Amendment No. 2 which is, in the conclusion, at the end of
paragraph 11.a, insert the following:
"but deprive the members of the Russian delegation of their voting
rights in the Assembly and its bodies until the basic principles of the Council of Europe
mentioned in Article 3 of the Statute are no longer violated by the Russian authorities in
Chechnya;"
I call Mr Frunda to support Amendment No. 2 on behalf of the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Mr FRUNDA (Romania).- We just voted for Amendment No. 29 to the
draft recommendation. Knowing the result of the vote, I think that it is logical to
withdraw this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. That is the right and proper thing to do.
We now come to Amendment No. 1, which is, in the conclusion, replace
paragraph 11.c by:
"In the meantime, and until there is substantial progress in
respect of the situation in Chechnya as outlined in paragraph 14 of Recommendation
No. … (2000), suspend the voting rights of the Russian parliamentary
delegation in the Assembly and its bodies in accordance with Rule 8.5.c of the Rules of
Procedure."
I call Mr Van der Linden to support Amendment No. 1.
Mr Van der LINDEN (Netherlands).- We now have the same text and
we are satisfied. I withdraw Amendment No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT.- We now proceed to vote on the conclusions of the
Political Affairs Committee in Document 8633, revised.
The conclusions are adopted.
I take this opportunity to thank delegates for the way in which they
have conducted this debate.
(Mr Surján, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place
of
Lord Russell-Johnston.)
3. Health
security and antibiotics in food production
THE PRESIDENT.- I am sure that, for many people, these topics are not
as important as the previous one, but I ask for your attention for this debate.
The list of speakers closed at noon today. Twenty names are on the list
and no amendments have been tabled to the draft recommendations contained in the two
reports. I remind you that this morning we agreed to limit the time available for
individual speeches from the floor to four minutes each.
I call Mr Mattéi to present his report on health security for
Europe’s populations. You have eight minutes, Mr Mattéi.
Mr MATTÉI (France) said that recent health scares including
contaminated blood, bovine spongiform encephelopathy, pollution in animal feed and
poisoning linked to the consumption of some drinks had increased concern about public
health in the minds of the public. The increased freedom of movement of goods should not
be associated with freedom of rights to contaminate across national boundaries. Health
security was a legitimate matter for the Council of Europe’s concern. There was a
need for it to act coherently and to do so collaboratively with the EU. The role of the
Council of Europe needed to be defined in terms of whole populations rather than
sub-groups.
A number of principles, which were detailed in the report, should form
the foundation of a health security charter, including transparency, comprehensiveness,
rationality, efficient use of resources and expertise, and international harmonisation.
Public health improvements had already led to increased life expectancy and healthier
lives. There was a need for continued innovation and recognition of best practice.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mrs Mikaelsson, the Rapporteur of the
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
Mrs MIKAELSSON (Sweden).- It is a great pleasure for me to have
the opportunity to conclude the work on use of antibiotics in food production, which Mrs
Johanson, the former Chair of the committee, started together with many others some years
ago.
Undoubtedly, antibiotics are one of the most important and efficient
ways of curing infections - in human as well as in animals. During the past seventy years,
the discovery of antibiotics and the ongoing improvement in their use has brought about
new possibilities of curing many infectious diseases, which - among other things - has
lead to an increased life expectancy for humans.
Correspondingly, antibiotics have enabled great improvements in animal
husbandry and food production. As in humans, great progress has been made in curing
diseases, as well as preventing diseases and promoting growth. If those achievements had
been the only outcome of the use of antibiotics, we would not need to have this debate
today, but - unfortunately - antibiotics have a down side.
Because of the way antibiotics work and the way they have been used in
the past few decades, the growing resistance of different disease-creating bacteria to
antibiotics is an increasing threat. Many scientific reports show that, and the problem is
threatening human health because the resistance to antibiotics in bacteria causing animal
diseases might spread to bacteria causing human diseases.
My report makes use of some relevant scientific reports and it also
shows that one of the main problems is that the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry
differs from their use in humans. The problem in human use is a prescription problem,
which means that antibiotics are seen as quick-fix solutions and are thus used
unnecessarily, and there is also a trend towards using stronger, newer and broader
spectrum antibiotics. However, the problems in animal use create problems in other areas.
First, the sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics involves the routine and
prolonged dosing of animals for growth promotion and improved feed conversion. In many
cases, poultry, cattle and pigs are routinely given low doses of antibiotics to increase
their growth rates and reduce the amount of feed required to raise an animal to slaughter
size. Secondly, in many countries the use of antibiotics in animals is not subject to the
same restrictions as their use in humans. Many of the antibiotics commonly used in human
medicine, for which a physician’s prescription is needed, are available to anyone,
over the counter or via the internet. As a result, there may be no veterinary supervision
involved in the treatment of animal disease. Such uncontrolled use of antibiotics
obviously contributes to the increasing threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
I shall say a few words about the Swedish experience. Sweden banned the
use of antibiotics as a growth agent as early as 1986, mainly for ethical reasons. It was
thought that animals should be kept healthy through improved management and hygiene, and
health control programmes. The ban has been very successful. In spite of transition
problems while changing to a healthier form of animal husbandry, Swedish farmers have
reduced the use of antibiotics. Today, antibiotic sales are only 30% of what they
were before the ban, but production has not decreased.
In Sweden, antibiotics may be used only for medical purposes and must
be prescribed by a veterinarian after a diagnosis has been made. Furthermore, the
veterinarian must choose an antibiotic that has a low risk of increasing resistance in
bacteria. For consumers and farmers in Sweden, and to some degree those in other Nordic
countries, it is unacceptable to give antibiotics to healthy animals to promote growth.
Criticisms of uncontrolled use of antibiotics are also voiced by many
consumer organisations. In my report, I mention the Euro Co-op - the European Community of
Consumer Co-operatives - but there are more. The Euro Co-op stresses consumers’
increasing demands for more openness, transparency and accountability in foodstuff
production. It believes that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters, together with
intensive and industrialised production systems, does not address consumer expectations
for food safety.
A restrictive and prudent use of antibiotics in animal husbandry is
also a matter of animal welfare. If regular use of antibiotics as growth promoters is
prohibited, it is necessary to improve the living conditions of the animals. This also
limits the risk of large-scale outbreaks of disease. If a disease appears, it is also
possible to limit the number of animals which need to be treated. Therefore, antibiotics
should never be allowed to be used as a substitute for adequate hygiene. To prohibit the
use of antibiotics as growth promoters is a step towards a healthier environment for the
animals, and thus also a step towards safe food for the consumers.
The discussion on the use of antibiotics in food production has also
been going on in other forums such as the World Health Organisation, which in a
recommendation from Berlin in 1997 noted that resistant strains of bacteria that caused
disease in humans had been transmitted from animals. In 1998, the European Parliament
passed a resolution on antibiotics in animal feed which, among other things, stressed that
healthy breeding practices must aim to limit the use of antibiotics for purely therapeutic
purposes.
The European Commission and the Council of Ministers in December 1998
decided to ban four antibiotics for use in animal feedstuff, and a European scientific
conference in Paris, less than a year ago, stressed the precautionary principle when using
antibiotics in animals. My report shows the concern about the substantial problem of
resistance bacteria, and the recommendations proposed in the document are in line with
main principles on human health, animal health and food safety.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you.
I have just received some information that will be welcome to speakers.
We can allow five minutes per speech and still finish by about 7 p.m., because there have
been several withdrawals from the speakers’ list. I call Mr Korkeaoja to speak on
behalf of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group. He is not here, so I call
Baroness Knight, who will speak of behalf of the European Democratic Group.
Baroness KNIGHT (United Kingdom).- I know that Document 8551
means well, but I cannot support it. It calls for a European health quango to produce
documents, advise, train, monitor, research and check all member countries with a team of
experts. Is that really necessary? The health problems mentioned in the report - Aids, GM
foods, pollution and the rest - are all known of and acted upon. None has been ignored
because no supra-Euro body has existed. The report states that the protection of health is
not one of the responsibilities of the European Union. No, it is not. It is the
responsibility of each nation individually. Why set up a quango to do it all over again?
Governments and the media willingly pass on health information - there are no secrets -
but we are asked to do much more than that.
I do not know what worries me most, the bureaucracy or the cost. The
cost would certainly worry the British Government. Our health service is in real trouble.
We need more of everything, from doctors to intensive care units and hospital beds.
Frankly, we need every penny that we have to pay for those. Financing quangos is not an
option. There is no evidence that such quangos will prevent people from getting sick.
I deplore the use in the report of words that simply do not exist.
There are no such words as "indissociable", "laxism",
"unfeasible" and "deterministic". They are not in the dictionary. If
we want our reports to be taken seriously, in Europe and in the world, we really must
write them properly, and not as illiterates.
I have one firm rule, which I commend to everyone. Before I vote for
anything, I want to know why I should. Not only does the report fail to convince me, but
it makes claims that I simply cannot accept. Is it really true, as the report says, that
the people of Europe are so angry about health security that it is "jeopardising
democracy" and leading to "totalitarian logic"? It is no good, Mr
President; I do not believe a word of it.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you for that linguistic contribution. I am sorry
that we non-British people continually misuse your beautiful language. I apologise on
behalf of myself and all the other guilty parties.
I call Mr Hegyi.
Mr HEGYI (Hungary).- As far as I understand it, the English
language is not the private property of the British people. There are different ways of
using words.
I am in an unfortunate position, because I was appointed by the
Socialist Group to speak only on the second report, so I hope that Mr Mattéi will
understand. I welcome the report and the rapporteur. I remember when, in Larissa in
Greece, Mrs Mikaelsson drafted the headlines of what would become her report. I am
glad that she achieved her aims in the document.
I am sure that most speakers today, including my colleagues from
Hungary, Mr Szinyei and Mrs Herczog, will touch on the important professional issues,
as they are experts on agriculture. I want to raise some general considerations. We
politicians have a great responsibility to provide healthy and safe food products for our
people. Many well-organised groups represent the interests of producer groups, and their
voice is widely heard in the media, in parliaments and often also on the streets and
highways, in the form of demonstrations and blockades; but it is very hard to organise the
defence of consumer interests, because those are not so obvious.
There are some consumer groups, but they are voluntary organisations,
their finances are modest and they sometimes lack professional knowledge of the hidden
facts behind the gates of farms, factories and laboratories. That is why we should
represent the interests of all consumers in our countries. The excessive use of
antibiotics could be a threat to public health, but the average consumer does not know
that and does not know how to defend himself or herself.
Resistance to antibiotics is not as obvious a danger as air or water
pollution, but it could endanger the public health achievements of the previous century.
Those achievements were made possible by brave scientists such as Alexander Fleming and by
brave governments which followed those scientists’ advice, despite the huge financial
needs of public health investment.
I have not tabled any amendments to the excellent report, but I would
like to add something, at least in oral form: about the importance of a public information
campaign in the media. Everyone has a right to information on the potential risks to her
or his health. Owing to the different interests of the corporations, that must happen
mainly through the public media, using public money. Perhaps providing correct information
on food safety could be the topic of a new report in the coming years.
It is important that every food product should be labelled to show
clearly whether antibiotics were used in its production. The necessary ban on the
excessive use of antibiotics in food production should not endanger the role of veterinary
medicine, which is an important science and cannot generally be blamed for the
profit-oriented misuse of drugs.
The ban should not be used as a cover for unfair economic sanctions
against certain countries, using fake accusations as an excuse for handicapping
non-European Union members in agricultural imports. Collective farming and food production
in central and eastern Europe had many disadvantages, but it also had certain advantages.
Veterinary medicine in Hungary was and still is excellent, and not worse than elsewhere in
Europe; its decisions fulfil the most sophisticated professional requirements. There needs
to be a veterinary service to show the responsibility of the state, governments and public
institutions for public health in the food industry.
Unlike the previous speaker, I think that the Council of Europe has a
very important role in safeguarding public health for every citizen in Europe.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Hegyi. I call Mr Michels.
Mr MICHELS (Germany), speaking on behalf of the Group of the
European People’s Party, congratulated the Rapporteur of the Committee on Agriculture
and Rural Development. He agreed that there were good reasons for implementing a ban on
the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry. It had been proven scientifically that a
number of strains were now resistant to antibiotics, so there were some illnesses against
which no effective weapon was available.
An interesting piece of research had been carried out in his home town.
The research had involved a survey on literature about the effects of antibiotics and
growth promoters, which had been published between 1974 and 1999. The survey showed that
many improvements had been made in animal husbandry during the time covered by the report,
because of advances in the state of knowledge about antibiotics. For example, resistance
and dependence on antibiotics could last varying amounts of time according to the dosage.
Resistance increased the more the antibiotics were used. Antibiotics were used
simultaneously for medical and growth promotion purposes. A Europe-wide ban on the use of
growth promotion drugs was needed.
The draft report had referred to the use of antibiotics in human
medicines and their use in the eradication of disease. It was most important to look at
the consequences of the use of antibiotics, and to ensure that imports from third
countries, which did not comply with the appropriate standards were not allowed into the
European Union. Foodstuffs were vital to human health. It was necessary to know whether
there would be a ban on foodstuffs containing antibiotics. Consumers were entitled to that
information.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Bergqvist.
Mr BERGQVIST (Sweden).- We are probably at the beginning of
fantastic developments in medicine. We can see a virtual revolution on its way in medical
research. It is quite possible that, in five or ten years, medicine will be even more
innovative and dynamic than information technology. We can look forward to a large number
of new, efficient medicines that can radically improve the health and well-being of many
people.
Such medicines should be considered a wonderful blessing for humankind,
but unfortunately we cannot be completely sure of that. There are also many risks
involved. Time and again, we see how the mismanagement of medicines causes serious health
problems. We may like to think that there is satisfactory supervision and thorough control
of the use of medicines, and to some extent that is true.
The Council of Europe has made a valuable contribution to the
harmonisation of national standards. We are all familiar with the Pharmacopoeia and the
European Department for the Quality of Medicines. Unfortunately, the department operates
under an agreement covering only some of our member states.
Strict rules and international harmonisation are not enough. We must
provide sufficient information to the people who will use different kinds of medicine. We
need comprehensive and high-quality counselling because, if strong medicines are used
inappropriately, the cure is often worse than the disease. One must take the right
medicine in the right dose at the right time, and it is crucial that the full course of
treatment is completed.
The over-consumption of medicines is common in Europe and detrimental
to public health. Regrettably, there are also many examples of under-consumption. In this
context, I voice my concern about the scourge of tuberculosis. That evil disease is on the
move again and is spreading swiftly in Europe and other parts of the world.
Thousands upon thousands of our fellow Europeans are suffering from
tuberculosis. Its main breeding grounds are huge, unhealthy prisons and other poverty
stricken environments. Worldwide, we can see looming over us the double threat of epidemic
tuberculosis and antibiotic resistance, to a large extent due to the mismanagement of
medicines.
We are dealing with two urgent reports. I thank the two rapporteurs and
give my strong support to their reports. I note that, in spite of her witty criticism,
Baroness Knight did not table any amendments whatever. I believe that we desperately
need more international co-operation on public health in Europe and throughout the world.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I now call Mr Robol.
Mr ROBOL (Italy) said that both reports had been discussed at
length in the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee that morning. Some countries had
not had a full public debate on those issues. There were very close links between health
and food for humans and for animals, and the relevant principles, which the rapporteur had
well described, should be respected.
The Assembly had recently had debates on dioxins and on biotechnology,
and debates on genetically-modified organisms and the use of growth hormones were
scheduled for the next day. The realities should not be avoided: the important issues of
the century were the relations between producers and consumers, the regulation of
commercial interests, the development of globalisation, and the need to secure human
rights and the quality of life. There was now much more awareness of the issues in
national parliaments.
The principles of the subject should be obvious to all. Co-operation
between agencies, co-operation with business and with the food industry, and strict
controls and sanctions should ensure that health and not profit was the sole criterion.
The problems would be around for a long time, and had to be faced. As the consumption
issues affected only one-third of the planet, why were they being considered in the
Assembly? Man’s first concern was to feed himself, but that task had been left to the
food industry.
THE PRESIDENT.- Sorry, Mr Robol, your speaking time is up, and we shall
be unable to hear all the speakers if we do not keep to time. I call Mr Gibula.
Mr GIBULA (Poland).- Mr Mattéi’s excellent report touches
on a sphere of life that is important to all Europe. The Assembly has chosen to focus on
this urgent matter at an appropriate moment. Many organisations are becoming involved in
health protection policy. Our difficult task is to identify the means of fighting
successfully for public health in almost all European societies. There are substantial
differences between western and eastern Europe. Central and eastern European countries are
in transition.
The Parliamentary Assembly’s role in the protection of human
rights is essential. The problems detailed in the report are important, and solutions are
necessary. The draft recommendation will make the implementation process more practical,
but I believe that we should consider several other points, once we have adopted it.
The report refers to health hazards, a broad phrase with different
meanings. It might make sense to draw up a detailed list of the most dangerous hazards. In
addition, a visual sign showing the quality of products would be useful. Could we
establish such a sign for products that are particularly relevant in relation to
protection against health hazards? The role of local authorities in health protection is
growing significantly, and the draft recommendation might therefore be addressed to
municipal authorities and the people of Europe as well as to governments.
The need for protection against health risks at work is widely
recognised, but measures tend to relate to physical protection. The sociological and
psychological aspects of work are neglected. Stress, depression and mental problems are
growing and should be considered.
There are several other areas for discussion. First, rules on health
safety should be unified across Europe. Our burden - and our privilege - is to seek to
create conditions under which the right of the people of Europe to a healthier life can be
guaranteed. The establishment of a European health safety agency, in consultation with the
European Union, would be a very good idea.
The Parliamentary Assembly has analysed the complex question of public
health. The right to a healthy life is crucial, and, like all fundamental rights, it must
be respected. It is difficult to encourage the governments of all member states to respect
human rights, including the right to a healthy life, but human rights and the equal
treatment of all citizens must be guaranteed by national laws in member states. I
appreciate that the introduction of equal health treatment in both eastern and western
Europe is difficult because of different experiences in public health and health and
safety in the two parts of the continent.
Such vital problems must not be disregarded. The protection of human
rights, including the right to human health, is essential to democratic society. I
congratulate the Assembly on bringing such an important subject to our attention -
THE PRESIDENT.- Your time is up, Mr Gibula. I must protect the rights
of subsequent speakers. I strongly suggest that members keep within the time allowed, or
we shall have to limit speeches to four minutes. I call Mr Szinyei.
Mr SZINYEI (Hungary).- The age of the scientific technical
revolution began in the 16th and 17th centuries, bringing enormous developments in
biology. In the mid-1960s, it became obvious to scientists and to the world that that
gigantic development posed a serious risk to humanity. For that reason, it is important
that the Council of Europe is considering a report about the risk of over-consumption of
antibiotics.
There are three separate aspects to the problem. The first is the part
played by antibiotics in medicative work. In 1929, Fleming discovered penicillin, and
consumption began during the second world war. Since then, antibiotics have achieved a
great deal. They are used today as a necessary medicine for many diseases. Achieving a
correct and limited use of antibiotics is a thought-provoking problem. On many occasions,
we immediately use the newest and most expensive preparation for simple diseases.
The second aspect is the role of antibiotics in prevention. When
antibiotics are added to animal feed or drinking water to prevent the outbreak and spread
of various diseases, all the livestock involved are treated. Science could prove that
antibiotics can be placed at the service of development. On a farm that handles numerous
animals and works with modest profit margins, an outbreak of disease could cancel all
profit and ruin the owner. For that reason, complete prohibition will not be successful,
and it would be sensible to examine that point further.
The third aspect of antibiotics is their use as growth promoters. It
has been discovered in the course of their use that antibiotics increase the raising time
of animals and improve fattening and output. Complete prohibition would be acceptable in
the same way that prohibiting sportsmen from dosing animals is acceptable, because it is
wrong to interfere in nature to seek certain results without bothering about other
prospective outcomes.
On the intended decision of the Council of Europe, I believe that,
instead of unilaterally prohibiting the use of antibiotics for disease prevention, we
could use antibiotics for medical purposes with veterinary prescription and control. In
Hungary, antibiotics have always been used under veterinary control. Since 1989, we have
permitted the use of output increase antibiotics - which the EU classes as feed additives
- as a veterinary product; commerce is allowed with the authorisation of the ministry and
in collaboration with veterinarians and pharmacists.
Some countries allow the use antibiotics without veterinary
prescription, so I feel that, instead of prohibiting their use for disease prevention, we
should allow them to be used under strict veterinary control. In the light of that, I
support the Council of Europe’s draft recommendation.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call Mr Goulet.
Mr GOULET (France) asked whether we should be afraid of what we
eat. Parliamentarians had to contend with scientific debates which went over their heads,
but they had a parliamentary responsibility and it was important to look at the ways in
which science had transformed the world. Because scientific development was proceeding, a
European food safety agency was required.
There was much concern because the media were very keen on stories
about food safety. Most experts were funded by agri-chemical industries and one of the
members of the committee had direct links with the industry. Rather than attempting to
regulate, awareness should be raised. It was important to ensure that adequate follow-up
measures were taken and to involve people from the food industry. The health awareness
programme should also be stepped up.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Goulet. I call Mr Hadjidemetriou.
Mr HADJIDEMETRIOU (Cyprus).- The use of antibiotics in food
production is another indication that man is not in a position to control and make proper
use of the achievements and discoveries of the human brain. Antibiotics proved to be a
blessing for human beings, but through improper use they could turn into a new curse. It
is well known that under-dosing of antibiotics can feed instead of kill micro-organisms.
The same is true of the constant provision of antibiotics. The result is unpleasant and
dangerous consequences for animals and humans.
The problem is not that antibiotics are losing their strength and
effectiveness but that their improper use has brought about a new generation of viruses
and other micro-organisms that are resistant to those medicines. That has unforeseeable
consequences for the human immune system.
To put it simply, the improper use or constant provision of antibiotics
can kill people instead of saving them. We must consider also that, apart from the danger
of creating antibiotic-resistant genes, an allergic reaction to penicillin and other
antibiotics in meat or vegetables can put people’s lives in danger. That is not just
a theory but a tragic reality.
Everybody knows of those consequences, but few measures have been
taken - by a limited number of countries - to abolish those serious
side-effects. The reason is that the non-ethical use of antibiotics can be very
profitable, and unfortunately profit has become the highest priority in our way of living.
Principles and reasoning are disappearing and are considered unimportant if one has to
choose between them and profit.
We are in a peculiar situation. We can prove scientifically how
antibiotics are working and whether they are useful or dangerous. This is not a political
problem which can be interpreted in different ways; the effects of antibiotics can be
easily proved by scientists and researchers. Although we are aware of that, we continue to
discuss this issue, which is for our health and that of our families and our children.
That is why doubts have grown up about whether our food contains harmful substances. Our
health is in danger. Those countries that have imposed strict regulations on the use of
antibiotics have shown us the way.
For all those reasons, I warmly congratulate the two rapporteurs and
fully support the resolutions of these useful and excellent reports.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Hadjidemetriou. I call Mr Birraux.
Mr BIRRAUX (France) congratulated Mr Mattéi. One important
question which had to be answered was whether diseases, particularly BSE and
Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, could cross barriers between species. The provision of
information to consumers about what was contained in their food was essential. Public
opinion demanded zero risk levels, but of course that did not exist. Risks should be
reduced to as low a level as was practicable. Both direct and indirect risks needed to be
evaluated in a pluralist and objective way, and a European structure needed to be put in
place.
He supported Mr Mattéi’s report and the definition of principles
contained within it, and congratulated the rapporteur of the Committee on Agriculture and
Rural Development on her report on antibiotics.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Birraux. I call Ms Herczog.
Ms HERCZOG (Hungary).- I welcome both reports and congratulate
the rapporteurs, Mr Mattéi and Mrs Mikaelsson. This is an important debate because
antibiotics have a global impact. When we use antibiotics we modify bacteria and the
resistant strains are able to grow anywhere without respect for borders. In that sense,
bacteria are one of the most democratic societies. We need a global response.
The use of antibiotics in livestock farming and food production is a
kind of genetic modification, so any legislation that is passed should be similar to
legislation on genetically modified food. In both cases, the biggest danger comes not from
eating food that contains antibiotics or has been genetically modified, but from the
irreversible modification of nature.
The history of antibiotics is the best proof of the impact on nature of
genetic modification. Seventy years after we first used antibiotics, we know that nature
has been modified. Bacteria have become resistant. When we legislate on these issues, we
have to remember that we have modified nature over the past seventy years of using
antibiotics. Any attempt to revert from the current state of affairs to the starting point
would require huge resources and a global decision. It would not be easy, and the decision
is not just a political one. We would need at least ten or twenty years to get back to the
original state of affairs.
Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the draft recommendation list what action can be
taken. As several other speakers have said, the best way forward, as with GM legislation,
is to inform the consumer. That will speed up the process. People can decide whether to
buy traditional antibiotic-treated food or to pay extra for food that has not been treated
with antibiotics.
Even if we take the positive steps mentioned in the report, changes
cannot be made in a day because nature has to respond. Food legislation must protect human
health and should not be used to profit lobby groups. We must remember our experiences on
such issues. I agree with Baroness Knight that, in the end, the customer pays the price,
either through higher food prices or through health insurance. Regulation and trust will
be the two most important concepts for food producers and farmers.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Wójcik.
Mr WÓJCIK (Poland).- I fully agree with the presentation on
health security by Mr Mattéi, and I congratulate him on the excellent work he has
done. All that I can add are my personal thoughts on the impact of some external factors
on the health of the European population.
The first such factor is unemployment, especially structural and
long-lasting unemployment, which affects people generally and psychologically. The second
is the modern lifestyle, which eliminates physical effort, leading to a deterioration in
people’s physical condition. There are also thermal effects which are the result of
increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the ozone hole and ultraviolet radiation. The
impact of those global factors has not been completely examined by scientists. Moreover,
it is not possible to separate global, local and individual factors from each other.
Sometimes, they complement each other and give rise to synergistic effects. At other
times, one factor may eliminate the effect of another.
I can offer only one very general conclusion – that we should
promote wide scientific research that could help us to understand those phenomena and
improve people’s health.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Polozani.
Mr POLOZANI ("The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia").- I congratulate Mr Mattéi and Mrs Mikaelsson on their
work on the documents, which are very competent and describe clearly the current public
health issues and the misuse of antibiotics.
One does not need to be a medical doctor to know the importance of
antibiotics in curing diseases in both humans and animals. The discovery of antibiotics
was a miracle, but the misuse of antibiotics has resulted in the appearance of strains of
bacteria resistant to many antibiotics. The development of those strains can result from
the excessive use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine for the prevention of disease and
as a growth promoter. That causes a serious potential risk to human health and threatens
the human right to healthy and safe food. The recommendations of various international
organisations, and the Swedish experience, make the negative effects clear. The proposals
for the correct and restricted use of antibiotics make it clear that they should be used
only for therapeutic purposes, not as prophylactics and growth promoters. Therefore, I
support the documents and shall vote in their favour.
THE PRESIDENT.- I thank both the previous two speakers for saving a lot
of time. I call Mr Dees. He is not here. I call Mr Zhirinovsky. He is not here
either. I call Mr Kiely.
Mr KIELY (Ireland).- I congratulate the rapporteurs on their
reports and I wish to make some comments on Mrs Mikaelsson’s report. Antibiotics were
discovered in the 1920s and are some of our most valuable medicines today. The feed
industry began using antibiotics in animal feed in the 1940s to increase productivity.
Many strains of bacteria have now become resistant to many common antibiotics. Medical use
of antibiotics is probably the major contributor to the emergence of antibiotic
resistance, but agricultural uses also pose problems.
At the moment, four antimicrobials are approved as feed additives for
various categories of animals. Because some of those products have been authorised for
more than ten years, a review of their efficacy and safety is required under the most
recent amendment to the Feed Additives Directive. Manufacturers were required to submit
new applications for authorisation, accompanied by monographs and identification notes,
before 1 October 1998. In addition, further studies must be carried out in accordance with
current guidelines, and new dossiers submitted for evaluation before September 2000.
The Council of Agriculture Ministers agreed, in December 1998, to ban
the use of four antibiotics - spiramycin, tylosin, virginiamycin and zincbacitracin - in
animal feedstuffs. The Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition, or SCAN, has examined
the data on resistance in relation to three of those antibiotics - tylosin, spiramycin and
virginiamycin - and concluded that the evidence available did not justify a ban on use.
SCAN recommended that further studies should be undertaken to provide data that should
show whether a risk exists.
Notwithstanding SCAN’s conclusions, the Commission justified its
proposals to ban the antibiotics in question as a precautionary measure in the light of
concern at the increase in resistance to antibiotics used in human medicine. Ireland
supported that proposal.
SCAN is examining the available information on avilamycin, which has a
similar molecular structure to the antibiotic cycminomycin, for which an application may
be made in the near future for use in human medicine. SCAN’s opinion is expected to
be available by March 2000.
The report by the Scientific Steering Committee in May 1999 recommended
an EU-wide approach to the use of antibiotics in general, including their use in human
medicine, veterinary medicine, animal production and plant protection. The Standing
Committee for Feedingstuffs agreed that a surveillance programme should be established to
monitor the occurrence and development of resistance to feed antibacterials in animals.
That study is being carried out by the industry, which contends that the ban on the four
antibiotics mentioned earlier has compromised the study because the conditions in which
the study is being carried out have changed.
The Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs has recently agreed a
monitoring programme of antimicrobial use for growth promotion purposes. That programme
aims to obtain objective and independent figures on the actual amounts of substances used
for various categories of livestock across all member states. The surveillance programme
currently in progress is the first study specifically designed to examine the potential
transfer of resistance due to feed additive use under practical husbandry conditions. The
results of the study should provide a scientific basis for the assessment of the risks
involved. Nevertheless, irrespective of the outcome of the study, there is evidence of
growing opposition to the use of antibiotics at government and consumer level in member
states.
We support a scientific approach to the issue. It is expected that the
surveillance study will yield more definitive evidence on the likelihood of any risk, and
we support the status quo until those results are available. We are also conscious of the
fact that an EU prohibition on the use of antibiotics for political rather than scientific
reasons would undoubtedly lead to difficulties with the World Trade Organisation, as those
additives are also used extensively in other countries for growth promotion purposes.
Furthermore, such a ban could put our export of animal products at a disadvantage relative
to produce from outside the EU, due to losses in production efficiency. Our stance at the
moment is to await the results of the study currently in progress on the possible
development and transmission, and the conclusions of SCAN in relation to the use of
avilamycin. Having said that, I will support the draft recommendation.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Kiely. I call Mr Telek.
Mr TELEK (Turkey).- Health security is a highly sensitive and
topical issue in Europe. Recent public health problems such as mad cow disease, dioxins in
animal feed and the effects of genetically modified food have created anxiety and a
feeling of insecurity among the public. The problems must be resolved through measures and
regulations at national and international level.
The Assembly has often dealt with health security issues. I welcome the
initiative of widening the treatment of those issues to include all aspects of health
security in Europe. I believe that our discussions today will contribute to raising
awareness throughout Europe, and I express my appreciation for all the work done by our
rapporteurs.
Recent technological developments and the globalisation of the economy
make it difficult to control the impact of products and goods on human health. I believe
that we need to establish a comprehensive and coherent framework for the analysis of
health security issues. In that framework, the accent has to be on risk management, and
especially on the principles of prevention and precaution. I welcome the proposals in the
draft recommendation. An overall analysis, including a definition of health security
priorities, the drawing up of guidelines and a methodological framework for assessing the
quality of health security arrangements will contribute to the establishment of an
effective risk management policy in Europe.
Let me underline my appreciation for the achievements of the Council of
Europe in health and health-related fields. Besides the legal instruments that have been
drawn up, the Council of Europe greatly contributes to the setting of standards and the
application of basic norms in member states, through its various activities in the health
field. The priorities and recommendations that we formulated today should be taken into
consideration in any future work on the subject.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Telek. Last, but not least, I call
Mrs Belohorská.
Mrs BELOHORSKÁ (Slovakia).- I thank Jean-François Mattéi for
the excellent report on health security for the population of Europe. The report talks of
the conflict between globalisation and basic human rights. Globalisation is represented by
the food agencies, whose main interest is financial profit, and not a health lifestyle for
our citizens. The people of the countries that we represent have basic human rights which
are sometimes in confrontation with the interests of the food industry, whose institutions
are rich enough not to tell the truth about the mistakes that may occur. One of the basic
human rights is the right to be informed, and that is not being upheld.
Slovakia is a candidate for membership of the European Union. Until
now, our constitution has guaranteed the right to health security. At present, European
Union policy does not guarantee health security for the citizens of Europe, and that may
disturb our citizens and make them question the advisability of integration.
I am most concerned about the increasing incidence of cancer in certain
countries, as mentioned in the report. I want to inform you about the new prevention
programme initiated by the Ministry of Health in the Slovak Republic. Most of the
programme is devoted to promoting a healthy lifestyle, healthy environmental conditions
and preventive examinations. An important part of the programme is harmonisation with the
legislative standards and tools of control of the European Union.
I welcome the aim of the committee and the rapporteur to open up
discussion on this very important issue. Unlike Baroness Knight, I am fully in favour of
health security for the population of the European Union, and I endorse the report. I was
Slovakia's Minister of Health and I can assure you that people are afraid and want health
security to be safeguarded.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mrs. Belohorská.
The list of speakers is now closed.
I remind you that the rapporteurs for each report have up to four
minutes to reply to the debate. First, I call Mr Mattéi.
Mr MATTÉI (France) pointed out that, although Baroness Knight
might be an expert on the language of Shakespeare, he was skilled in the language of
Molière. She was incorrect in saying that public health could be ensured by national
authorities alone. With regard to costs, she should accept that a unified agency could
save money compared with the range of other arrangements that would have to be in place.
She had also not taken any social costs into account. Microbes, radiation and pollution
did not recognise national boundaries, so he could not agree with Baroness Knight when she
said that there was not a legitimate role for the Council of Europe to play.
There was a need for harmonisation and information, and the role for
the Council of Europe had been recognised in the debate by all speakers, with the
exception of Baroness Knight.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Mattéi. I am convinced that you are
several times better at Molière, but you should accept that Baroness Knight is better at
Shakespeare.
I call the Chairman of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee
to speak for two minutes.
Mr COX (United Kingdom).- I pay a warm tribute to the two
rapporteurs. We have had an interesting and important debate and it is regrettable that
the attendance of members was so poor. Ongoing developments regarding health and food
products affect all our countries.
This morning, there was a joint meeting of the Sub-Committees on
Health, on Food and on the Environment, at which we discussed the two papers submitted by
our rapporteurs and the verbal comments made by Sir Sydney Chapman. We propose to seek
ongoing consultation with our committees, and we intend to seek the advice and expertise
of the World Health Organisation. Many of the member states that send delegates to the
Council of Europe are members of the European Union, but others are not. We must ensure
that their views are heard and that legislation that is introduced covers their interests.
In his excellent report, Dr Mattéi discussed not only the issues that
were raised in the debate, but topics such as water quality, air quality and pollution. On
page 4 of his report, he sets out ten principles, which we must further develop.
It is clear from the views that our constituents express to us that
they are concerned about the quality of the food that they eat and how that food is
produced. They want better labelling of food products. They have a right to expect that,
and they have a right to expect us, as parliamentarians, to make known their views, as we
have done in this excellent debate.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I now call Mrs Mikaelsson to reply, as
rapporteur for the second report.
Mrs MIKAELSSON (Sweden).- It is interesting that the two reports
complement each other so well. It is not possible to comment on all the speeches that we
heard in the debate, but most speakers supported the reports.
I entirely agree with all those who spoke about the need for
information and food labelling so that consumers can make a wise choice. The risk of
losing the benefits of existing antibiotics without having an alternative is a serious
threat, as was mentioned in the debate.
Mr Goulet asked whether we should be afraid of what we eat. The answer
is sometimes yes. As long as we do not know the long-term effects of food additives, it
may be necessary at least to be cautious about what we eat. It was said that there was no
risk, but that is not the case. There is always a risk, and we must compare the various
risks. It is important for us, as politicians, to do that.
Mr Kiely spoke about the need for scientific studies. It is important
that those are undertaken, but it is also important that we, as politicians, recognise our
responsibilities in making decisions on behalf of those who elected us. When we in Sweden
banned the use of antibiotics in 1986, for example, that was done mainly for ethical
reasons. For the same reason, Sweden banned the use of carcass meat in food production.
Swedish consumers have never had cause to regret that. Mad cow disease and
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease do not exist in Sweden, thanks to the decision made in 1986.
Our report contains many recommendations directed at both the Council
of Europe and the Committee of Ministers. As time is short, I shall stress only one.
Prudent use of antibiotics in accordance with precautionary principles is not consistent
with the use of antibiotics as a growth promoter. That is one of the most important
principles that should be brought to the attention of the governments of member states.
Finally, I hope that the adoption of the report underlines the urgent
need for adequate action in the field of food safety, animal welfare and human health. I
warmly thank members of the committee for their contributions to the final version of the
report, and the secretariat for valuable help in its preparation.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. I call the Chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture and Rural Development.
Mr BEHRENDT (Germany) said that Mrs Mikaelsson had made it clear
that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development had also had to tackle the
problems of foodstuffs and consumer protection. The committee had had intensive
discussions with farmers and consumer representatives, which had enabled it to produce a
balanced report. It was important that the Council of Europe dealt with this subject to
provide protection for countries not in the European Union. He thanked those who had spoke
in the debate and the rapporteurs.
THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you. Before the vote, I must apologise for my
mistakes. This was my first time in the Chair.
Attendance at this debate was not very great. However, I believe that
the effects of these two reports will be more long-lasting than that of the previous
debate about Chechnya. With that in mind, I thank the rapporteurs and all the speakers,
whether they supported the reports or not.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in
Document 8551.
I call Baroness Knight on a point of order.
Baroness KNIGHT (United Kingdom).- Following your guidance, I am
not clear whether we shall vote separately on the two reports.
THE PRESIDENT.- Yes, we will. That is why I mentioned the number.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in
Document 8551.
The Assembly will vote by a show of hands.
The draft recommendation in Document 8551 is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in
Document 8591.
The Assembly will vote by a show of hands…
The draft recommendation in Document 8591 is adopted.
4. Date,
time and orders of the day of the next sitting
THE PRESIDENT.- I propose that the Assembly hold its last public
sitting of this ordinary part-session tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the orders of the day which
were approved on Monday 24 January.
Is that agreed?…
The sitting is adjourned.
(The sitting was closed at 7 p.m.)
