MONDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2000

PROGRESS REPORT

 

                 Mr SAĞLAM (Turkey).- I begin by thanking Mrs Ragnarsd?ttir for her well

     prepared report.  Because of the late publication of the report, I did not have time to

     study it in detail, so I will content myself with responding to a few of the points made by

     our rapporteur.

 

                 First, it seems that the Bureau of the Assembly has been rather busy lately.  I

     hope that the changes in the composition of committees and the rules of procedure will

     make the job of the Assembly easier, but there are some doubts about that.

 

                 Secondly, the organisation of meetings in cities other than Strasbourg and Paris

     will give members a greater knowledge of the different parts of Europe, and may serve to

     increase their understanding.

 

                 Thirdly, it is of the utmost importance that the Assembly’s relations with the

     Committee of Ministers, other Council bodies and organisations such as Organisation for

     Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations should be improved.

     The involvement of members in the national committees of OECD and their participation

     in UN sessions will enhance the functioning of the parliamentary aspects of those

     organisations.

 

                 Finally, I believe that sending representatives or committee members to Russia in

     connection with matters relating to Chechnya has changed nothing.  Three members of the

     EPP group went there.  As we discussed this morning, despite the so-called free

     discussions in the Duma, nothing has changed in practical terms.  The policy implemented

     in Chechnya originates with the President, the Government and the military apparatus.  It

     is time that the Assembly offered Chechnya humanitarian help.  One of the members who

     visited Chechnya told us that the health of the people there has deteriorated, and they are

     living in miserable conditions, without food or clothing.  It is time for humanitarian action .....in that part of the world, instead of further discussion in the Assembly.

 

 

     MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

 

                 Mr YÜRÜR (Turkey) thanked the rapporteurs.  Water was becoming

     increasingly insufficient.  There was not much danger in Europe at present, where there

     were high rainfall ratios compared to southern European and Mediterranean countries.

     However, global warming and climate change meant that water problems would

     eventually spread across the world.  Water should therefore be used in a rational way.

     Farmers should harness the progress which had been made in technology to use high tech

     drop water irrigation methods, and they should be supported by their governments in

     doing so.  Otherwise rain irrigation would remain in place.  High evaporation rates would

     result in high salination in this case. Salination had been seen to be a problem in California

     and in the Nile Delta.

 

                 In the Middle East the water problem was grave.  Oil was not the major issue -

     future wars would be fought over water.  It was necessary to make the best use of

     Turkey’s water resources.  Turkey was not water-rich - the per capita quantity of water

     was one quarter of that in water-rich countries.  Turkey had to be very careful, but it had

     still experienced serious drought in the current year.  Water levels in reservoirs were

     gravely low.

 

                 There were projects to improve the use of water, including the Peace Project

     begun in the 1980s, to convey river water through pipelines to Cyprus, Israel and the

     Gulf.  On the Tigris and Euphrates, the dams would allow water to be regulated.  It was

     unfortunate that they had been criticised.

 

                 Mr TANIK (Turkey), thanked the rapporteurs, and also Mr Matas, who had

     taken the trouble to address the Assembly on an important issue.  He hoped all

     Mediterranean countries would send their Environment Ministers - the water issue was

     more important than oil.

 

                 He said that the oil crisis was an example that people could not be pushed too

     much.  It was possible to decrease but not limit the consumption of water.

 

                 The Council of Europe discussed very important topics like minorities, gays and

     lesbians and he thanked his colleagues for putting this subject on the agenda.  The Turkish

     delegation was ready to contribute to the institute.

 

                 Mr KALKAN (Turkey).- Because of  limited resources and the rapid increase in

     consumption due to population growth, there is a need to develop methods for the

     rational and efficient  use of water throughout the world.  The importance of international

     co-operation on water and environment is now better understood.  Water and the related

     environmental issues are global problems which can be tackled only through active

     international co-operation and mutual understanding, not through rivalry and competition.

     However, water is given an economic value and is thus considered an economic

     commodity.

 

                 Projects for the development of water resources should be planned taking into

     account the socio-economic and sustainable development priorities for water use in

     various sectors.

 

                 However, in different sectors such as industry, agriculture and service, the

     management of water resources has become a complex issue.  Therefore, the

     establishment of a mechanism to assure efficiency in management of water, and gathering

     sectoral institutions under an integrated management are essential.

 

                 In that regard, one of the key instruments in efficient water demand management

     is the pricing of water with the purpose of safeguarding the balance between supply and

     demand in respect of sustainable water management.

 

                 Hydro-electric energy production and irrigation by means of utilising the latest

     technology can be effective in the economic growth of developing countries and for the

     welfare of their people.  In that aspect, the Southeastern Anatolia project is a concrete

     example.

 

                 For optimal use of the irrigation and energy potential of the Euphrates and Tigris

     rivers, projects related to those rivers were merged and adopted as a single development

     project under the title, “The Southeastern Anatolia Project” in 1977.  That project is

     based on a widescale regional planning approach involving all related social and economic

     sectors.  The financial resources of the country have been mobilised for the utilisation of

     the most advanced technologies.

 

                 Turkey is always ready to contribute to the development in her region of that

     positive approach, which foresees an equitable, reasonable and optimal utilisation of

     water resources and pays utmost attention to her neighbours’ needs.  In that context, the

     Manavgat and So?uksu water supply projects should be mentioned.

 

                 The Manavgat water supply project has been devised to alleviate water shortages

     in some parts of Turkey and in interested countries.  Presently, all the land and offshore

     works have been completed.  Thus, water transfer can immediately be started.  In that

     respect, the decisions of interested parties will determine the timing of transfer.

 

                 So?uksu stream waters are carried by special balloons.  Water transfer to the

     Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for humanitarian purposes is the first achievement of

     that project.

 

     TUESDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2000

      HONOURING OF OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMANTS BY CROATIA

 

      Mr SAĞLAM (Turkey).- I congratulate our Croatian colleagues and the Croatian

     Parliament on the significant progress they have demonstrated in honouring their

     commitments as a member state of the Council of Europe.  The monitoring report

     prepared by the rapporteurs is detailed and shows the reforms that Croatia has

     undertaken.  It also speaks loudly about the political will of the Croatian authorities to

     complete the task ahead of them.

 

                 I welcome the report’s conclusion, which recommends the closure of the

     monitoring procedure.  The new procedure, which is defined as a post-monitoring

     dialogue, is the constructive way to monitor future developments in Croatia.

 

                 Croatia is one of the key countries in southeastern Europe, and its commitment to

     the full implementation of the Dayton peace accord will contribute to regional peace and

     stability.  Its efforts to facilitate the return of refugees is appreciated and should be

     supported by the international community.  However, Croatia should co-operate better

     with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

 

                 The Croatian Government’s fulfilment of its commitments will help Croatia to

     move closer to Euro-Atlantic structures.  Its recent accession to Nato’s Partnership for

     Peace programme is one clear outcome of that.  A smooth transition to a market

     economy needs substantial economic assistance from the international donor community,

     in particular the developed countries.  The international community should encourage joint

     investment in Croatia.  Croatia is a major partner in the Stability Pact and deserves

     attention.

 

                 I end by congratulating not only the Croatian authorities on their efforts, which

     have brought the monitoring procedure to an end, but the rapporteurs of the Monitoring

     Committee on their constructive approach.  I hope that democratic development in

     Croatia will continue.

 

     ELECTIONS IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

 

       Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- The series of crises in Yugoslavia since the

     beginning of its disintegration primarily have been caused by one man only - Mr Slobodan

     Miloševi?.  There seems to be no end to his policies, which contradict all the accepted

     norms of international behaviour. The latest is the so-called national elections, which took

     place on 24 September.

 

                 Mr Miloševi? and his government did not allow the participation of observers

     from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe; instead, he invited

     observers from the former Soviet Union - observers who would be more agreeable to his

     methods and manoeuvres.

 

       It is a pity that a state that has asked to become a member of this Council should

     defy all our rules and regulations as well as all acceptable political behaviour.  During the

     election the freedom of the press was suppressed, as was the opposition. One of the two

     federal states of Yugoslavia - Montenegro - boycotted the elections.  There is now a

     deep concern that the federal troops on the borders of Montenegro are preparing to take

     military action against that state.

 

       Apart from Montenegro, Kosovo and other regions within Serbia have shown

     their resistance to the farce of an election that was conducted by the regime. Obviously,

     Mr Miloševi? has lost the trust of the people, with the exception of a handful of ultra

     nationalists who dream of keeping the population under the strict control of the

     government.  Mr Miloševi? is playing a game of pretence with international rules, as he is

     actually bending each one to achieve his own goals.  Sooner or later he is bound to be

     defeated at his own game.

 

       Today in the Assembly we are registering our serious concern about the future of

     Yugoslav politics and our strong disapproval of the Belgrade regime.  We are also

     underlining our deep concerns about the direction in which Balkan policies will go in the

     coming months and years.

 

         I conclude by saying that I can hear the silent footsteps of serious events and

     drastic changes in Yugoslavia.  Sooner or later, democracy will prevail in Yugoslavia.

 

                 Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- Unfortunately we do not know yet whose claim will

     turn into reality - the opposition’s strong hope of a first-round victory or Mr Miloševi?’s

     lead in the count.  We can dance around that question all the way.  I am not sure how

     much sense that will make.

 

                 Whatever the answer, I think that the elections in Yugoslavia have opened a

     Pandora’s box, but as Britain’s Ernest Bevin once warned, there might be a Trojan horse

     in it.

 

                 Ballot manipulation or not, imagine the election results favouring Mr Miloševi?.

     He might easily and would surely provoke the situation and announce that he intends to

     extend the elections to Kosovo.  He is at least theoretically entitled to do that because the

     United States and Europe recognise formal Yugoslav sovereignty over the province.

 

                 Any attempt by Mr Miloševi? to implement that idea, presumably only among

     Kosovo’s dwindling Serbian population, could rekindle ethnic violence in Kosovo.  Such

     a move will strike the west’s policy in the Balkans at its most self-contradictory, and

     hence vulnerable, point.  Thousands of United States and European troops protect the

     people of Kosovo but without permitting them independence.

 

                 The Kosovars can never be secure within a Miloševi?-led Yugoslavia.  Unless we

     find an effective strategy for democratising Serbia, Mr Miloševi? will continue to have

     opportunities aplenty for “consuming and reproducing chaos”.

 

                 That is a gloomy scenario, although there are others.  However, it is not a wholly

     impossible scenario and it will be hard to deal with.

 

                 There will be no democracy, and hence no stability in that part of the Balkans,

     unless credible opposition parties can emerge, unite and as peacefully as possible take

     power.  To that end, even if Mr Miloševi?’s defeat is accepted and officially announced,

     that may not mark the end of his bloody rule.  He will not leave power.  He will retain the

     political initiative until July 2001.  Therefore, he will have every means to fight hard to stay  in power.  He could create a crisis in the system and to that end he could decide to do

     something in just a few days.  This is the Balkans and as long as ethnic hatreds are

     provoked, everything is possible.

 

                 Mr Miloševi? could create an even bigger diversion by acting militarily against

     Montenegro, which could oblige Nato to go back to war in the Balkans.

 

                 In that part of the Balkans, our first and foremost priority must be to contain

     ethnic hatreds.  In modern societies, restoration of man’s dignity on the ethnic and

     religious levels is surely a priority, but that priority should not mean exploitation of ethnic

     differences for political reasons.  If ethnic differences are exploited for political reasons,

     new divisions and conflicts and intolerant nationalism or racism will be promoted.

 

                 As a consequence, it should be underlined that even in federal states multinational

     states are exceptional.  One exception was the former Yugoslavia.  The tragedy that is

     being experienced in Yugoslavia is the subject of our discussion.  One Yugoslavia is

     enough for the world.

 

      ARRIVAL OF ASYLUM SEEKERS AT EUROPEAN AIRPORTS

 

      Mr MUTMAN (Turkey).- I congratulate Mr Gross on his well-prepared report,

     which addresses the problems arising daily from the reception process at airports.  It is an

     important contribution to the general debate on asylum policies in Europe.

 

                 On many occasions our Assembly has held debates on asylum policies in member

     states and the protection of the rights of asylum seekers.  We have also had an

     opportunity to adopt recommendations on different aspects of the subject.  As measures

     to curb illegal immigration become more restrictive, there are stricter controls at airports

     and other reception points.  Those measures take their toll on asylum seekers.

 

                 The recommendations on the improvement of reception conditions at airports and

     the effective application of legal guarantees are essential to a respect for fundamental

     human rights.  The training of officials who receive asylum seekers at airports is of the

     utmost importance.  That point has been emphasised by our Assembly previously.  I

     support measures aimed at defining a maximum duration for any stay at an airport or

     detention centre, at improving airport reception facilities, at improving the detention

     conditions of asylum seekers, and at the re-examination of procedures used for forced

     deportations.  Expulsion procedures should fully comply with human rights standards.

     The expulsion of would-be immigrants whose applications are rejected must be done in a

     way that respects their dignity and which conforms with the principles of the European

     Convention on Human Rights.  A strict judicial and administrative control must be

     established to prevent any human rights violations for those who are expelled.

 

                 There are conditions sine qua non for the treatment of asylum seekers in

     accordance with international refugee law.  The subject that we are discussing today is

     closely related to the harmonisation of national asylum policies in Council of Europe

     member states.  Throughout Europe, restrictions on asylum require clear guidelines and a

     common approach, and that is also true for international organisations.  A clear distinction

     must be made between people in search of more favourable economic conditions and

     those fleeing persecution.

 

                 In granting asylum, close co-operation must be established between member

     states in the evaluation of applications for asylum seekers.  This co-operation must include

     an effective exchange of information.  It is important to harmonise national legislation as

     well as the practical procedures for granting asylum.  Common norms must be applied to

     the conditions governing access to asylum procedures, interpretation of basic concepts

     and principles and the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.

 

     WEDNESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2000

     THE UNITED NATIONS AT THE DAWN OF THE NEW CENTURY

   

                 Mr GÜL (Turkey).- I thank Mrs Severinsen for an excellent report, which draws

     attention to an extremely important issue.  Although some might argue the opposite, the

     United Nations has been a success story from the time that it was established and it

     serves as an inspiration to us for our work in the coming years.

 

                 At the end of the twentieth century, the United Nations remains a worldwide

     organisation which has tried to achieve a great deal in various fields, including human

     rights and fundamental freedoms, and in various places around the world.  The most

     important of these efforts is the maintenance of peace.

 

                 I am in full agreement with Mrs Severinsen that it is high time for the United

     Nations to give priority to adapting itself to changing world conditions.  The UN cannot

     go on enjoying its legitimacy if it fails to do that.  The most important component of such a

     transformation process, if we may call it transformation, is adapting the Security Council

     to the modern world.

 

                 There is currently an unacceptable under-representation of member states in the

     Security Council.  As the driving force of the UN, the Security Council was designed to

     meet the demands of a smaller organisation of the 1950s, and has remained unchanged

     over the half a century that has elapsed.  The ratio of representation at the Security

     Council was originally 1:5, whereas today it has dropped to 1:12.  The system needs to

     be revised promptly.  If we want a mechanism capable of dealing with problems

     effectively and resolutely, the level of representation on the Security Council must be

     ncreased.  That will contribute to achieving a more transparent organisation, and a

     modern and flexible one.

 

                 It is evident that the challenges facing the UN in the twenty-first century will not

     decrease and will only increase in complexity if not in number.  Mrs Severinsen has rightly

     reflected on the Council of Europe’s role and our possible contribution to meeting those

     challenges.  I subscribe to the points that she raised in her report and believe that

     emphasis should be placed on supporting the proposals of the Secretary General of the

     United Nations for renewing the role of the UN, as set out in his millennium report.

 

     OECD AND THE WORLD ECONOMY 

 

                 Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- Although international organisations have become

     fashionable platforms for attempts to find solutions to international conflicts, the system

     began to fail in its aims and methods at the end of the century.  This well-prepared report

     draws attention to a number of weaknesses in the existing system of the UN.  I have

     grouped them in five categories: administrative, operational, executive, financial and

     military.

 

                 The UN seems to be becoming more complicated in bureaucratic terms, and - to

     say the least - a little clumsier each year.  It is in itself a defeating factor in the context of

     its operational purposes.  Something must be done, but I am not sure what.  Limiting the

     number of participants will reduce the organisation’s effectiveness, but if we allow endless

     enlargement, I do not know where it will lead or how the procedure can be streamlined to

     make it more effective.

 

                 The operational aspect is concentrated in the New York office.  Although the UN

     has various branches which do different things, I am not sure how effective the control

     system is, apart from in the Geneva branch.  If such a large organisation is run from one or

     two bases, can it produce the results that it aims to produce?  Should there be a number

     of centres?  A second possibility is sharing operations with other organisations.

 

                 Another problem is inefficiency, and yet another is waste, which is in the financial

     category.  I am very disappointed that, in some cases, money has been spent that could

     have been used for better purposes.  There is also inefficiency in military interventions.

     For instance, in certain areas the peace forces in Bosnia, dealing with the most recent

     crisis that we have experienced apart from that in Kosovo, are completely ineffective. 

     Some of them have simply abandoned their task of protecting the people.  In Kashmir,

     the UN military force is sitting there - doing what?  Fighting is in progress, and lives are

     being lost.  Why are the members of that force sitting there doing nothing?  If they are not

     able to do something, they should not be there.  The UN forces should be reviewed

     carefully to establish how effectively they can be revitalised.

 

                 I fully support co-operation between the UN and the European Union, but it is

     necessary to learn from others’ experiences and shortcomings.  I believe that we need

     both bodies, but that some reorganisation may be necessary to justify the goals and

     operations of such huge entities.

 

                 Finally, at a time of globalisation, there should be a new definition of how we can

     all work together effectively to achieve the lofty goals for which we all aim.

 

                 Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- I do not want to devalue the work of Mr Lotz and the

     co-operation between OECD and the Council of Europe.  However, as a social

     democrat who is committed to solidarity and social justice, and as one who believes in the

     equal worth of all who have mutual responsibility, I believe that their optimism about the

     world economy can be only partially shared.

 

                 The core values of opportunity for all, responsibility from all and the community of

     all are the key to building a global order based on equal worth and social fairness.  That

     cannot be achieved by counting on economic growth alone.  Those who have any interest

     in future generations must do more.  I am aware that globalisation has provided enormous

     opportunities for economic growth, investment and the transfer of know-how and

     technology.

 

                 I embrace the potential presented by globalisation, but without denying the

     dangers that it involves.  The benefits of globalisation are not being realised for all our

     people, especially in the developing world, where income distribution has become more

     unequal.  In today’s world inequalities are extreme, and are threatening to become a

     major source of political instability.

 

                 Recent economic analyses show that the fruits of high economic growth have

     gone to relatively few people.  It is unacceptable that about half the world’s population

     must get by on less than $2 a day.  Globalisation must work for the benefit of all.  It must

     lead to higher living standards for all, and must not be a destructive race to the bottom at

     the expense of environmental and worker protections.

 

                 We need to widen the winners’ circle in our world.  That is socially right, but also

     economically important.  There will not be a good future for the rich if there is no prospect

     of a better future for the poor.

 

                 Globalisation should be recognised as an economic, social and cultural reality, but

     it should not just be allowed to happen; it must be collectively controlled.  The twenty-first

     century’s globalised market needs a guiding hand, and there is no need for that guiding

     hand to be invisible.  What we need, openly, is an active government that will, with an

     understanding of progressive governance, combine market economies with social

     responsibility to create long-term growth, stability and full employment, promote social

     justice and protect the environment.

 

                 People want to live in a community, not merely to work in a market.  They

     therefore expect their governments to fight unemployment effectively - in co-operation,

     surely, with management and labour unions.  People want education and lifelong learning,

     because they know that that is the key to more efficiency and, at the same time, more

     social cohesion.  People want government to promote opportunity and security.  They

     want to protect the environment, and to improve the quality of life locally.  They seek

     co-operation across national borders, in order to recognise the links between members of

     the international community in pursuit of those goals.

 

                 I believe that those issues lie at the heart of the civic society.  With such a society,

     democracy in the twenty-first century will advance the ideals and instruments of hope for

     all.

                 Mr GÜL (Turkey).- As is the custom in an enlarged Parliamentary Assembly

     composed of OECD and Council of Europe delegations, we are discussing a report on

     OECD’s recent activities.  It is a long and detailed report, depicting the state of economic

     affairs throughout the globe.  It presents a rather bright outlook for the world economy,

     using many numbers and statistics to support its argument.  An increase in economic

     growth, a fall in unemployment and many other factors are cited as reasons for the bright

     picture that it paints.  It also discusses the problems currently faced by the world

     economy.

 

                 I thank Mr Johnston for the explanations with which he has furnished us.  I am

     impressed by the fact that OECD is one of the most suitable intergovernmental institutions

     to examine the possibility of a more global understanding of the world economy, and I

     fully support the draft resolution, which contains down-to-earth ideas and

     recommendations.

 

                 It was sad to observe the failure of the World Trade Organisation’s Seattle

     summit in December 1999.  However, OECD contributes to the WTO process by

     promoting economic performance and market openness, and by forging a consensus

     among member states on the areas covered by the organisation.

 

                 Experts claim that one of the factors behind the sustained and remarkable growth

     that has been witnessed in many countries is the creation of information and

     communications industries.  I agree that OECD countries should do whatever is possible

     to facilitate the development of the new economy, nationally and through international

     co-operation.

 

                 OECD’s Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials is a major

     step in the right direction, and we should urge our governments to become parties to the

     convention if they have not yet done so.

 

                 OECD should increase the attention paid to unjust income distribution and to

     improving education and health services.  Unfair income distribution is a real threat to

     peace.

 

                 One of the most worrying developments in the world is the upward surge in the oil

     price.  It has reached $30 a barrel, whereas it was $10 a barrel at the end of 1998.  That

     puts the crisis in its proper context.  We would be wise to give urgent consideration to

     alternative sources of energy.

 

     THURSDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2000

     EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE ECHR

  

                 Mr AKÇALI (Turkey) congratulated the rapporteur.  One important question

     raised in the report was that of the execution of the judgments of the European Court of

     Human Rights by member states.  As Mr Wildhaber had pointed out, there were some

     problems, but, overall, the execution of judgments was satisfactory.  There were only

     three judgments out of thousands which had not been executed, and in each of these

     cases the reasons for non-execution were very specific.  The will of the state was

     important, and their reasons for failing to execute judgments must be taken into account.

 

                 In discussing the Court, it was important to review the whole system, as well as

     discussing the execution issue.  For example, only one member state implemented the

     case-law of the Court in its own courts, and this represented a major obstacle to the

     effectiveness of the Court.  It was important to have mechanisms for appeal such as in

     domestic law.  Without such systems, requesting total execution by member states might

     harm the credibility of the Court.  Finally, it was important to ensure that the judgments

     were fair and balanced, before insisting on their execution.

 

                 Ms GÜLEK (Turkey).- I wish that more colleagues were present for such an

     important debate, but I thank those who are here today.  As usual, our ever-eloquent

     colleague Mr Jurgens has produced a detailed and well-prepared report on a highly

     important subject.  It attempts to highlight the weak points of the protection system and

     makes an effort to provide solutions to some of the problems that weaken the

     mechanism.  The report itself provides evidence that there are problems with the

     mechanism of the Court, but I shall not try to make up excuses for all the member states

     who have not been able to execute its judgments.

 

                 As Mr Jurgens rightly points out, much of the responsibility falls on us as members

     of our national parliaments, but it is essential to realise that many of the problems of

     implementation emerge from the Court, whose judgments are sometimes not sufficiently

     clear.  I do not think that any country lacks the political will to comply either with the

     Convention or with the judgments of the Court.  If a country intended not to comply, it

     could refuse to comply with many or all other judgments against it.  My country, Turkey

     has executed extremely difficult judgments in the past and continues to do so.  It has never

     encountered a problem with any of the previous judgments.  We have even changed our

     constitution so as to comply with a previous judgment, the Incal case.  Because of our

     respect for the Convention, Turkey is waiting for the outcome of Mr Öcalan’s application

     to the Court.  However, the Loizidou judgment, which is amply covered in the report, is

     exceptional, a fact which is also accepted by the Court.

 

                 The judgment is clearly political.  Turkey is unable to implement it because the

     area in question is outside Turkish territory and there is a separate state in existence

     there.  That should have been recognised from the outset.  An appropriate assessment of

     the Loizidou case is needed.  The Committee of Ministers should deal with the issue from

     a wider perspective, taking into account the political realities of Cyprus.  That would

     contribute to the general aim of executing the judgments of the Court.

 

                 In the explanatory memorandum, there is an amazing discrepancy in the way in

     which the implementation of difficult judgments is dealt with.  I refer to the Loizidou case,

     compared with the Matthews case.  Many judgments can have far-reaching political

     consequences, as I am sure our Spanish and British colleagues will agree with respect to

     the Matthews case.  The Court should not allow political problems to be brought before it

     before other avenues of resolution have been exhausted.  That is an extremely important

     point.

 

                 Some of the report’s recommendations for the execution of judgments could be

     carried out only in a supranational system, which clearly does not exist under our

     Convention.  Whenever individual measures must be adopted in a domestic legal system

     to end and redress a violation found by the Court, it falls to the state to decide which

     measures to adopt.  For example, in the Scozzari and Giunto v. Italy case, the Court

     explicitly states that “the respondent state remains free to choose the means by which it

     will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention”.

 

                 Only two years have elapsed since Protocol No. 11 made drastic changes to the

     Court.  Even if we muster enough support to proceed with another change, it is

     inconceivable that enough member states will agree to change the principle of

     subsidiarity.  They may, however, opt for a stronger executive mechanism.

 

                 As examples show, the judgments of the Europe Court of Human Rights can be

     executed only with the co-operation of the member state in question.  That is why I

     oppose Amendment No. 2.  Mr Jurgens’s original version was better because it

     recommended that the Court should look for possibilities of finding solutions, whereas the

     amendment proposes that the Court should “oblige itself” to find solutions.  I consider that

     dangerous because it trespasses on the authority of the Court.  As Mr Jurgens said in his

     opening statement, we should help the Court, not trespass upon it.

 

                 That view is supported by Mr Wildhaber’s emphasis on the independence of the

     Court.  Any attempt to use the protection mechanism of the European Court of Human

     Rights as a means of putting pressure on certain member states runs counter to the letter

     and the spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights and the statute of the Council

     of Europe.

 

                 I thank the rapporteur once again for the report and warn against the dangers of

     over-politicisation.

 

                 Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- We are discussing the question of how the judgments

     of the European Court of Human Rights should be dealt with.  Mr Jurgens’s answer to the

     question is interesting and thought-provoking.  I shall try to ask questions which I hope

     will force us all to think further.

 

                 The first question is whether the views contained in the report are in line with the

     principles that make up the present system of protection provided by the European

     Convention on Human Rights.  Mr Jurgens seems to overlook the fact that the Committee

     of Ministers is the main executive organ of this mechanism.

 

                 That raises a second question.  Should we try to create new powers to the

     advantage of the Assembly that are clearly not envisaged in the Convention itself?  Is that

     timely?  The measures envisaged in the report are clearly supranational in nature.

     However, we must remember that the Convention and the Court are clearly based on the

     principle of subsidiarity.

 

                 I move on to the third question.  Does not the attempt to give instructions to a

     judicial institution go against the independent nature of justice?  Will that not cast a

     shadow over the independence of the Court?  It is clear that the proper execution of the

     judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is of great importance for the

     credibility of the Court, but it is equally important to respect the principles contained in the

     Convention.

 

                 The mechanism for executing the Court’s judgments is functioning properly.  It

     has created its own standards.  For example, although no provision was made for just

     satisfaction in the old version of the Convention, as a result of the initiative of the

     Committee of Ministers, a procedure to award just satisfaction was created.  A system

     for awarding fines for delays in providing just satisfaction already exists under the present

     system.  The imposition of daily fines for a delay in the execution of legal obligations

     would be impossible to implement.  We should refrain from further complicating the

     present system, as that would run counter to what the report seeks to achieve.

 

                 The Committee of Ministers has made the executive mechanism more transparent

     through the adoption of a system of interim resolutions.  That brings me to the fourth

     question.  Is it acceptable to use threats and coercion to ensure the execution of

     judgments and thus the credibility of the existing protection mechanism?  The Council of

     Europe aims to maintain co-operation among member states at all times.  The Committee

     of Ministers, which forms the political pillar of this Organisation, should supervise the

     execution of judgments constructively, taking into consideration the difficulties that the

     member states in question may encounter.  A constructive approach to supervision will

     create a feeling of confidence for the state in question and contribute to the effectiveness

     of the mechanism.

 

                 My fifth question is whether the need for a flexible executive mechanism is

     explained by the fact that we have yet to achieve unity among the various judicial systems

     that currently exist in member states.  It should be acceptable for the forty-one member

     states of the Council of Europe to have different judicial systems, when even the

     European Union, which has attained a fairly well consolidated supranational system, still

     contains diverse judicial systems.

 

                 Finally, given the diversity among the member states of the Council of Europe,

     should every member state be expected to react in the same way and within the same

     time limits to the judgments of the Court?  Are all states subject to similar political

     conditions?  Is not that exactly why the Committee of Ministers, the political organ of the

     Council, was given the job of supervising the execution of the Court’s judgments?

 

                 THE PRESIDENT.- Thank you, Mr Gürkan.  The last speaker on the list is

     Mr Zeynalov, from Azerbaijan.  This is one of the last occasions when a representative of

     Azerbaijan will speak as a special invited guest, as we hope to welcome Azerbaijan as a

     full member in the next session.

 

      CONFLICT IN THE CHECHEN REPUBLIC

 

      Mrs GÜLEK (Turkey).- It appears that when colleagues talk about the Chechen

     Republic, they are divided into two groups.  First, there is the group that says there is a

     human rights tragedy in Chechnya, but…; and the other group says that there have been

     some improvements, but… I fall into the second group, as, I believe, do most of my

     colleagues who have been to that area.

 

                 It has been a whole year since the start of the hostilities, but the conflict in the

     Chechen Republic continues to be a source of concern.  The large-scale fighting has

     ceased and the Russian military authorities have declared the military operation to be

     over, but sporadic fighting and attacks by Chechen fighters continue, and unfortunately the

     situation is still far from stable.

 

                 Humanitarian problems are of special concern and should be addressed as

     urgently as possible, by us.  There are reports from those who have been to the area that

     the tents in which the refugees are living are already leaking, so the prospect of a difficult

     winter is very worrying.  I hope that the Russian Government will intensify its relief efforts

     and continue to work in co-operation with international humanitarian organisations.

 

                 It appears that the Committee of Ministers is not doing what is necessary to deal

     with the Chechen conflict, so it rests upon us to apply the proper pressure in order to

     protect the human rights of the Chechen people.  I am pleased to hear that three experts

     from the Council of Europe have started working with the Kalamanov office, although it

     appears that the Russian authorities are not fully co-operating with them.  I hope that there

     will not be any problem with the extension of those experts’ term.  We would have liked

     to have listened to them in more detail.  The Russian Government should, of course,

     provide more resources to the Kalamanov office and properly assist in the investigations

     into human rights violations.  The ad hoc committee’s visits are welcome and we wish that

     there were more of them.

 

                 The human rights situation in and around the Chechen Republic is worrying.  The

     Russian authorities should fully honour their commitments as a member state of the

     Council of Europe.  The present state of affairs in Russia cannot be accepted as being in

     line with the principles of the Council of Europe.  We received a reassuring letter from the

     chairman of the Russian state Duma, but it contains some wrong information.  This

     Assembly never banned Russian parliamentarians from participating in the work of the

     Assembly - on the contrary, we always encouraged our Russian colleagues to participate

     and to contribute to finding a solution.  This Assembly only suspended the voting rights of

     the Russian delegation.

 

                 We applaud the presence of our colleagues who are here.  I want to remind the

     Assembly that the decision was not meant as a punishment for our colleagues - however,

     they were the only people to whom we had access and to whom we could put our point.

 

                 We are glad that the Russian Duma is taking a principled approach and has

     condemned all human rights violations in the Chechen Republic.  The OSCE Istanbul

     declaration stated that Russia should take immediate steps towards adopting a peaceful

     attitude in resolving the Chechen issue, and in particular opening a political dialogue with

     all segments of Chechen society.  President Putin’s decision to establish direct control

     over the Chechen Republic and the appointment of Mufti Kadyrob as the Republic’s

     administrative chief are controversial news both legally and constitutionally.  It is an

     arrangement that we hope will be only transitional.  Measures taken with the aim of

     restoring law and order in the Chechen Republic should not undermine the rule of law.

 

                 Today should be an opportunity for us to discuss the situation on the ground in

     detail, preferably from first-hand accounts.  I wish that there was time to do that - even in

     committees we often cannot do it.  We feel strongly that there should be as much dialogue

     as possible with our colleagues as we appreciate their views.  It is very difficult because

     we do not want any increase in anti-Western feeling.  We favour a peaceful resolution of

     the conflict.

 

                 At the same time, I do not see how we can remain silent on the huge discrepancy

     in the figures for missing people.  The conservative estimate of 18 000 people given by

     our Secretary General stands in high contrast to the official figure of 379.  We have a right

     to ask that those numbers are accounted for.  I feel very strongly that we should continue

     to adhere to the principles laid out by this very principled Assembly.

 

                 It is important that we see results.  We know that the Russian Federation values

     its membership of the Council of Europe and we attach great importance to its

     membership.  However, the principles and values on which this organisation is based must

     be respected.  Therefore, I strongly call on Russia to do her utmost to comply with the

     measures contained in Recommendations 1444 and 1456.

 

    

                 Mr GÜL (Turkey).–  Once again we have the conflict in the Chechen Republic

     on our agenda.  To state it correctly we are discussing once again the ongoing human

     rights violations resulting from the military campaign that Russia has conducted in the

     Chechen Republic.

 

                 I would like to thank Lord Judd for his factual report.  The facts about what

     happened and what is still happening in the Chechen Republic are incontestable.  No one

     can deny the human rights violations in Chechnya.

 

                 No one can deny the 18 000 missing persons in Chechnya and no one can deny

     the massacre causing tens of thousands of deaths.  There is no question about the misery

     of the displaced persons and the refugees.  Illegal and arbitrary detentions, harassment

     and extortion are facts of daily life in Chechnya.  The Chechen population have been

     turned into refugees and displaced persons – homeless people – and whole cities and

     towns in which these people lived are now no more than piles of rubble.

 

                 Yet, we still stand here discussing if the Russian delegation should get their voting

     rights in January or not.  I think we are missing the whole point.  There is not one single

     soul in Chechnya who cares if the Russian delegation to this Assembly has voting rights or

     not.  It is crystal clear that the governments who make up the Committee of Ministers of

     this Organisation do not intend to do anything more.  Actually they do not care about the

     recommendations of this Assembly.

 

                 I expected to see some of these governments who claim to be the champions of

     human rights, who lash out in the strictest terms when even a fraction of what happened in

     Chechnya happens elsewhere, to take substantial action against the Russian Federation.

     But there has been nothing – not even a state application against Russia.  There has been

     only disappointment.

 

                 The only good thing that came out of the year-long discussions, negotiations,

     votings and amendments is the three experts that currently work at Mr Kalamanov’s

     office in Znamenskoye.  It should be this Assembly’s duty to do its utmost to support

     these courageous experts who risk their lives to strive to serve the very fundamental

     principle of this organisation.

 

                 The report states that Mr Kalamanov’s office has already received 8 000

     complaints.  This is a good sign.  I would like to see these complaints reach the European

     Court of Human Rights.  I would like the simple and innocent people of the Chechen

     Republic to find a remedy to their complaints in the European Court of Human Rights.  I

     would like to see 18 000 missing persons accounted for.

 

                 I fully support the findings and the measures contained in the draft resolution.

     There must be something that we can do to help the Chechen population to have their

     voices heard at the European Court of Human Rights.  This must be the role for the

     Assembly.  The discussion regarding the voting rights of the Russian delegation is futile,

     compared with what the Court can do for the Chechens.

 

                 Mr TELEK (Turkey).–  First of all let me express my satisfaction that this

     Assembly continues to be energetically interested in Chechnya.  No doubt, as the

     custodian of common European values, the Council of Europe has a legitimate right to

     investigate the situation in Chechnya.

 

                 The situation in Chechnya remains abysmal.  Refugees and internally displaced

     persons continue to suffer a great deal, the unwinnable war goes on, as do the atrocities

     committed by the Russian forces.  There is no solution in sight and the winter is

     approaching fast.  According to the information provided by the international press, the

     Russian armed forces continue with their flagrant violations of human rights in Chechnya.

     With every humiliating defeat they suffer, they turn to the civilian population to take

     revenge.

 

                 At this juncture I recommend you, colleagues, to the Amnesty International report

     on Chechnya, entitled “For the Motherland”.  May I remind you that this is the report

     banned by the Russian authorities at the Vladikavkaz seminar.

 

                 I would like to raise my concerns regarding the activities of the Council of Europe

     in Chechnya.  We know that finally our people are in Chechnya, working at the famous

     Kalamanov office, but their term of duty will expire soon.  What will happen then?  Are

     the Russians prepared to prolong their mandate?  If the Russians ask for concessions to

     extend the term of our experts, their demands must be rejected flatly.  I have confidence

     in Secretary General Schwimmer for this, but I will closely follow the situation.  I think

     that this Assembly must be informed of the findings of the Council of Europe experts in

     Chechnya.  They are not there to keep silent.  If so, colleagues, our countries pay for the

     expenses of people, whose presence in Chechnya could be seen as meaning to justify the

     Russian atrocities there.  This would be a shame for all of us.

 

           The Russian Duma decided not to send our Russian colleagues to participate in

     the debate today.  I think that their presence would have been beneficial.  Nevertheless,

     we have the brave Yabloko people among us.  I salute them, especially Mr Kovalev.  Mr

     Kovalev, you represent the democratic conscience of Russia here.

 

                 I think that the attitude of the Duma is rather timid.  If our Russian colleagues think

     that the majority of this Assembly was wrong in suspending their voting rights, then they

     have to explain why.  Why we were wrong in protesting against indiscriminate bombing of

     cities, in not accepting the establishment of concentration camps at the end of the

     twentieth century, in denouncing rapes, arbitrary killings, summary executions and torture.

     Obviously, people who think that what Russian forces have been doing in Chechnya is

     right do not have the courage to defend their point before the international community and

     independent media.

 

                 I believe that the organisation of elections in Chechnya for a seat in the Russian

     Duma is an open contradiction of democratic principles and Russia’s previous

     commitments towards the Chechen people.  We should not accept such elections, which

     are trying to create new Chechen authorities whose authority is questionable.  The

     Russians should start a dialogue with the legitimate Chechen authorities, chosen in OSCE

     monitored elections.

 

           Before concluding my speech, I would like to thank Lord Judd for having

     prepared such a comprehensive report under such difficult conditions.

 

                 Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).–  The situation in Chechnya has fallen off the

     headlines lately and the attention of the international media and public has been diverted to

     issues elsewhere.  However, this does not change the fact that there is an ongoing

     problem in this part of the world.  There have been grave violations of human rights in

     Chechnya as a result of the large-scale military operation conducted by the Russian

     federal forces.

 

                 The Council of Europe principles which we uphold with vigour have been

     violated.  Russia has breached her commitments deriving from her membership of the

     Council.  And in consequence, this Assembly has reacted to these developments with

     determination.

 

                 However, the organs of the Council did not act in harmony to bring about the

     desired result and force the Russian authorities to abide by their commitments.  In this

     sense, I am particularly disappointed to see no concrete action and no willpower at all,

     from the Committee of Ministers.  The Committee of Ministers preferred to witness what

     had happened in Chechnya in spite of the grave consequences it might have borne and still

     avoid to take a firm stance against gross human rights violations inflicted by Russia.

 

                 Double standards are very dangerous to employ.  First and foremost, the Council

     of Europe will lose its credibility and, what is more important, if a precedent is set, it is

     almost impossible to revert to the right course of action.  Having said that, I want to stress

     my firm belief that our rightful stance should be preserved unless there is satisfactory

     information that the Russian authorities are taking genuine steps for the normalisation of

     the situation in Chechnya.  Our Russian colleagues should fulfil their commitments as a

     responsible member of this august body and in due course abide by the points raised by

     related resolutions.  I believe it is time to ask the Russian authorities about the concrete

     action they have taken for the normalisation of the situation in Chechnya and the results of

     the measures introduced to bring to justice those who are responsible for human rights

     violations.

 

                 Before we receive the concrete results of the action by the Russian authorities in

     these fields, before the situation in the region returns to normal, before huge numbers of

     disappeared persons are accounted for and before the refugees come back to their

     homes, we cannot and should not change our stance.  It is my sincere wish to see our

     Russian colleagues among us under this roof.  But it should not be before Russia acts as a

     responsible member of the international community.  Only after that should they regain

     their right to vote, here, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

 

     FRIDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2000

     DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT

 

       Mr KALKAN (Turkey) said that in a very short time there had been several

     environmental accidents in Europe.  As Mr Chapman had stated, co-operation was

     necessary in order to limit the damage caused by future accidents.  For example, French

     officials in the aftermath of the Erika disaster had taken effective measures to clean up the

     area.  They should now share their experience and expertise through the expert

     committees of the Council of Europe.

 

                 Pollution in the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea was increasing.

     Approximately 80% of pollution in the Black Sea came from the Danube and 70% of

     pollution into the Sea of Marmara came from the Black Sea.  Extensive co-operation was

     needed, and the Council of Europe had a major role to play.  He regretted that there had

     been significant reductions in its environmental budgets and that the Committee of

     Ministers had shown a negative attitude towards the establishment of a convention on

     protecting the Danube river and basin.