AVRUPA KONSEYİ PARLAMENTER MECLİSİ 2005 HAZİRAN GENEL KURUL TOPLANTISI ESNASINDA TÜRK DELEGASYONU ÜYELERİNİN YAPTIKLARI KONUŞMALAR

Media and Terrorism

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – Thank you, Mr President and dear colleagues. The relationship between the mass media and the fight against terrorism, particularly in the context of effects on freedom of expression and information, is a contentious issue.

Since the attacks of 11 September, we have witnessed the profound impact of social communication and the role of the media on the fundamental values of the Council of Europe. Terrorism has changed in shape and in substance. It is not restricted to one region or country any more. It is a constant threat waiting on our doorsteps.

Therefore, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I want to thank the distinguished rapporteur, Mr Jařab, for his valuable work, which touches on the conflicting issue of the relationship between the media and the fight against terrorism. I congratulate him on his work. On behalf of the group, I can say that we agree with him on all the matters expressed in his report.

Day by day, the media are becoming a battlefield for terrorism. Terrorist organisations are exploiting every opportunity provided by the media. To enumerate just one of those, anybody can easily access terrorist propaganda from al Qaeda, through the Internet, television or other audio-visual tools.

The intention of the free and democratic media is to reflect underlying values of democratic society and obviously not to serve any purpose of terrorism or terrorist groups. However, because of business considerations and market pressure to be first with the news and to convey more exciting details, there is always a risk that the media might become vulnerable and be exploited by terrorist groups. The media might therefore become a means to communicate terrorist propaganda just because that propaganda is sensational or dramatic. The media, by their nature, are among the most appropriate psychological weapons, if not the only one, that terrorism can use to disseminate its threat to wider society.

On the other hand, we all agree that the principle of freedom of expression and information is a basic element of democratic and pluralist society and a prerequisite for the development of society and human beings. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech, belief and religion are the underpinning elements in European construction and the Council of Europe, which is based on the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The promotion of mutual understanding and tolerance derives only from the dissemination of such ideas and information.

The European Convention on Human Rights sets out clearly the extent to which those freedoms can be exposed to limitations. Limitations should only be on the basis of rules and principles to which there is common adherence. Therefore, the delicate and conflicting nature of the relationship between the media and terrorism needs to be treated with care. A delicate balance should always be observed in relation to the fight against terrorism and protection of the fundamental values of this Organisation, particularly freedom of expression.

Consequently, it would be wrong for national governments to follow a pattern that might be misused to suppress dissenting opinion among the public. It is equally necessary for the media to carry out their activities in a responsible manner if they are to avoid being exploited by terrorist groups. Otherwise, so long as public and political institutions and media professionals stay divided, terrorists will continue to exploit weaknesses where they arise.

Last, but not least, the Council of Europe, as the most prominent organisation based on co-operation, with all its expertise and mechanisms, can also serve as a good framework within which co-operation can be intensified. It is important to keep to the fundamental principles of the Council of Europe.

Before I conclude, I reiterate the support of the Group of the European People’s Party for the draft recommendation, and say what a pleasure it will be to hear this debate today.

Millenium Development Goals

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The future of our children and grandchildren is in danger. The millennium development goals of the United Nations are a lurid revelation of that danger. If the 191 member states of the UN cannot achieve those goals in a short time, generations will continue to be sacrificed. In that context, we welcome this debate and take the opportunity to emphasise the value of our role as a parliamentary assembly in addressing the issue of the environmental challenges before us and the realisation of the millennium development goals by 2015.

On behalf of the EDG, I congratulate the distinguished rapporteurs and commend the effort, devotion and expertise that they have invested in their comprehensive and timely reports. The reports enable the Assembly to continue to oversee and assess the diverse effects of globalisation. Ensuring environmental sustainability is of paramount importance. Better water, sanitation and drainage in poor countries can reduce child death rates and the risk of flooding. Maintaining the world’s environmental resources is essential for safeguarding the health and well-being of future generations.

At the moment, some 2.5 billion people do not have adequate sanitation, leading to 3.3 million deaths a year from diseases. Many of those who die are children. Globally, more and more people now live in towns and cities. Decent quality housing is very limited and consequently far too expensive for poor people, many of whom have no choice but to live in informal settlements or slums. Worldwide, just under 1 billion people currently live in slums, but that is forecast to rise to almost 2 billion by 2020. Needless to say, co-ordinated and immediate action should be taken in that respect.

The millennium development goals are an ambitious agenda. They require systematic co-operation and solidarity. The goals focus the efforts of the world community on achieving significant, measurable improvements in people’s lives.  They establish yardsticks for measuring results, not only for developing countries but for rich countries that help to fund development programmes and for the multilateral institutions that help countries to implement them.

For the poorest countries, many of the goals seem far out of reach. They will need additional assistance and must look to the rich countries to provide it. Countries that are poor and heavily indebted will need further help to reduce their debt burdens. According to a study carried out by the World Bank, between $40 billion and $70 billion additional assistance a year will be needed to achieve the millennium development goals.

We should recognise that without the political and financial support of member countries, it will be impossible for the programmes of the multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and others to make a particular difference. Therefore, we fully support the call made in the draft resolution.

Mr COŞKUNOĞLU (Turkey). – I join everyone who has said that these are timely reports on an extremely important topic. Both reports state that progress over the five years since the millennium development goals were set has been highly unsatisfactory, to say the least. Therefore, I sincerely thank the rapporteurs for undertaking their projects. We should not allow the goals to be forgotten or to slip from the limelight.

I want to focus on two aspects that would achieve the desired effect of the reports. The first is enforcement. There are good and interesting policies but how can they be enforced? There is a clue in paragraph 2 of the draft resolution, the last sentence of which states: “Against this background, scrutiny of the functioning of the World Bank, the IMF and other international institutions” is important. I would include the World Trade Organisation in that. How do we scrutinise those organisations? How do we monitor them and how do we monitor and scrutinise the countries in which those organisations have developed policies? We scrutinise any violation of human rights, and world trade organisations scrutinise the violation of some trade laws, but we fail to scrutinise the economic and social success of IMF, World Trade Organisation and World Bank policies. That should be remedied.

The second issue is the mechanisms and policies mentioned in the reports. Too much emphasis has been placed on free and fair trade. Lord Judd made the good point that some countries do not even know how to play, let alone on any level playing field that we might want to create. As we have seen from recent discussions on farm subsidies, not every country agrees with the concept of free and fair trade.

Another mechanism that is frequently mentioned in the report is good governance. I often doubt the causal relationship between good governance and poverty. Is it lack of good governance that causes poverty or is it poverty that causes lack of good governance? I frequently read, and hear people saying, that if only good governance were established, poverty would be eradicated. I do not believe that there is such a causal relationship.

Another causal relationship that I would question is that between corruption and poverty. Preventing corruption is extremely important, but I believe in most cases that it is poverty or inequality in income distribution that causes corruption. So, those causal relationships should be reconsidered. I again thank the rapporteurs.

Mr AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey).- Our debate on the millennium development goals today is very timely. It is the principal international framework for addressing the issues of better health and education, gender equality, protection of the environment, the quality of human life, global partnerships for the finance of development, and the eradication of poverty. This is an important issue that concerns many people. The fact that the world is still far from reaching the expected targets in those areas, which have a direct effect on the lives of human beings, brings the humanitarian aspect of the issue to the forefront and reveals the necessity of taking urgent action. I therefore thank both rapporteurs for having successfully raised that important issue.

I very much appreciate the major impact that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have had on world economic and social development. The millennium development goals have become a yardstick for the world community’s efforts to reduce world poverty significantly by 2015. I therefore value the role assumed by the World Bank and the IMF towards the realisation of the MDGs. It is important that individual states and international institutions do their best to achieve the targets set out in the MDGs by 2015.

Economic and social threats, particularly poverty, diseases and environmental degradation, should be addressed by the international community as an integral part of global collective security, but without losing sight of the benefits of development as a pillar on its own. I also support the principles of good governance and accountability at national level as essential components of development activities, and appreciate the World Bank’s and the IMF’s increasing emphasis on good governance in their policies.

The idea of greater market access for developing countries and enhanced co-operation to increase their capacity and competitiveness, in order to scale up their ability to trade, is also an important component of the efforts to give adjustment assistance to those countries, and of the pursuit of consistent and mutually supportive policies.

The external debt issue should be considered with all aspects, so that the promotion of policies for the creation of funds to alleviate the debt burden can be properly addressed. I welcome the debt relief programmes for the poorest and most heavily indebted countries that have been implemented by the World Bank and the IMF. The efforts of the Bretton Woods institutions to maximise transparency and public involvement in their activities are also to be commended.

Poverty rests on a range of deficiencies in areas such as health, education, human services, social opportunities and gender equality. I appreciate the endeavours of the World Bank and the IMF to strengthen those services and institutions in developing countries and the least developed countries by introducing programmes and strategies.

         Contribution of the European Bank for Reconstruction and development (EBRD) to economic development in central and eastern Europe

Mr AÇIGÖZ (Turkey). – Since its establishment in 1991, the EBRD has been making valuable contributions to the promotion of human rights and democratic principles through its country strategies and political dialogue with the authorities of its countries of operations. Thus, the EBRD’s work in Europe has a direct relevance to our overall aims of promoting long-term security and stability and preventing conflicts by addressing the causes of instability. I therefore highly value the debate we are holding today and thank the rapporteur for the report she prepared.

The increasing investment in the “early” and “intermediate” transition countries in central Asia, eastern Europe, the Caucuses and South-Eastern Europe is crucial for economic growth and reform. I therefore welcome the 2004 report which draws attention to the EBRD’s shifting focus from the advanced transition countries to the early stage transition countries. I also note that this year’s report pays particular attention to the EBRD’s involvement in several specific areas, such as the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation and the countries covered by the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. In that context, I support the EBRD’s strong emphasis on good governance and on infrastructure investment capable of benefiting general economic development. The EBRD’s efforts to involve non-European Union countries in closer regional co-operation are also welcome activities.

The Council of Europe and the EBRD complement each other in many ways; the two organisations work in many of the same geographical areas. There is thus the opportunity for more co-operation and convergence between the two. On that note, if we are to achieve better results, the Bank and the countries in which it operates should be encouraged to engage in closer co-operation with the World Bank, the European Investment Bank, the Council of Europe Development Bank and the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank. I support the call in the report for the Bank to pay special attention through its new policy on energy projects to enhancing energy efficiency and savings.

The EBRD’s policy of zero tolerance of any fraud, corruption and misconduct deserves appreciation. The issue is of particular significance to the activities in the countries in which it operates that are in their early or intermediate stages of transition.

I reiterate my appreciation of the EBRD’s activities across the 27 transition countries, although there is still some way to go to further the aims of the EBRD, and we must keep faith in the Bank to overcome the challenges ahead.

situation in the republics of central Asia

Mr ATEŞ ( Turkey). – We requested and approved this debate on central Asia and Uzbekistan as we believe that it is very important that the Council of Europe joins the discussion to shed light on the past month’s events in Andijan, in the Ferghana Valley region of Uzbekistan. A significant number of human lives have been lost there after the government forces moved in to stop the protests.

The international community still does not have a clear picture of these events, as the Uzbek Government rejected repeated calls by the European Union, the United States, the United Nations and NATO for an independent international investigation. The Karimov Government also denied access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which wanted to check the condition of injured and arrested people. All those developments are deeply disturbing.

The anti-government protests in Uzbekistan took place on 13 May in Andijan, when between 20 000 and 30 000 people gathered, mostly on the main square of the city. It is also certain that Uzbek Government troops and armed rebels – these were among the crowd, according to the government – exchanged fire, and a significant number of people were killed, among them women and children. Some members of the security forces were also killed.

There are different interpretations of how many people were injured and killed. While the Uzbek Government claimed that 176 people were killed – 79 “terrorists”, 20 law enforcement officers, 11 servicemen and 45 civilians, including 14 hostages killed by the rebels, and 21 bodies are being identified – international non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch believe that the numbers are much higher and that several hundred unarmed protestors perished. The opposition party sets the toll at 745, while some spoke about thousands. The Economist called this “the worst atrocity conducted by a government against protestors since Tiananmen Square in 1989”. On 9 June, the European Parliament described the violence in Uzbekistan as a massacre and called on the government to try those responsible for civilian deaths. It also urged the Uzbek Government to stop persecuting opposition politicians, human rights activists and independent journalists.

We understand the need of the Uzbek Government to deal with internal problems of terrorism. However, it cannot justify the killing of civilians. In general, the Karimov regime has to allow a greater level of political expression of dissatisfaction and has to make a clear distinction between dangerous terrorist groups and citizens peacefully protesting against the government. We know that Ferghana Valley residents have deep reservations about the government, as the region has the highest unemployment and poverty rates in the country. The region has suffered disproportionately because of Karimov’s economic policies.

Some of the key values that the Council of Europe embraces, such as the right of political expression, democratic government and religious freedom, are at stake in Uzbekistan. The way in which the international community deals with this problem will certainly set a precedent and an example for other countries in the volatile region of central Asia. This especially holds true for Kyrgyzstan, where a fragile democracy is just starting to be developed after the ousting of Askar Akayev. We are very concerned about the level of democracy that exists in Uzbekistan today. There have been many claims against the Karimov Government using the perceived threat of Islamic extremism to justify his authoritarian style of leadership and suppression of opposition. Unlike Georgia or Kyrgyzstan there is almost no organised opposition in the country. Some opposition parties were unable to register for the December 2004 parliamentary elections and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe criticised the election as falling “significantly short of … international standards for democratic elections”. There is very little freedom for the media, which is tightly controlled by the government.

In addition, the legacy of Karimov’s repressive regime created fertile ground for the growth of Islamic extremism. Human rights groups estimate that more than 6 000 people are imprisoned in Uzbekistan as political dissidents. Karimov claims that these numbers are excessive and that all the arrests are part of a battle against terrorism and an effort to preserve the country’s secular society. However, human rights organisations accused the Karimov regime of making little distinction between Islamic extremists and moderates, and the secret police are notorious for using torture in their investigative proceedings.

Another burning issue in the aftermath of the Andijan affair is the treatment of refugees in Kyrgyzstan, where many of the protestors fled from the government troops. More than 500 refugees were registered by the Kyrgyz authorities on 14 May and put in a camp where they received adequate treatment. The refugees have received temporary identification cards, but are under heavy guard and not allowed to leave the camp. The Kyrgyz authorities, according to their law, have six months to determine the status of asylum seekers, but are already coming under heavy pressure from the Uzbek Government for the return of the refugees.

As we all know, some of the former Soviet republics have begun their transformation into democratic regimes. If the orange revolution in Ukraine, the rose resolution in Georgia and the upheaval in March in Kyrgyzstan lead to stable and truly democratic regimes, they could represent a great model for central Asian countries.

Immediately after the uprising and fearing that his country was losing an important friend, Karimov visited China where he received assurances that he did the right thing is suppressing “the separatism, terrorism and extremism” represented by the Andijan uprising. At the same time, the two countries agreed on a joint venture for potential oil extraction in Uzbekistan. Both Russia and China defended the Uzbek decision not to allow an independent investigation of the Andijan incident. However, it would be in the interest of the whole international community to discover the truth behind Andijan because that is important for the future of the whole region.

The Karimov Government formed its own investigatory commission to look into the Andijan protests, naming 16 members of parliament to investigate the deaths. However, the objectivity of that body has to be called into question.

One of the most important questions about the future of Uzbekistan, which is closely connected to the way in which the international community and major regional players deal with the Andijan uprising, is what comes after Karimov. Many world leaders see the international community as facing a dilemma between suffering significant reputation damage and setting a harmful precedent by turning a blind eye to the Karimov Government’s human rights record, or risking the emergence of a fundamentalist regime in central Asia, which would be a significant setback for the war on terrorism. The more repressive the Karimov regime becomes, the larger the threat that he will be replaced by an Islamic fundamentalist regime. In addition, considering the widespread unpopularity of the regime, especially among young people, it is not certain that the Karimov regime will be able to retrench as the Chinese Government did after Tiananmen in 1989.

Even though Uzbekistan is not a party to any convention or partial agreement signed within the Council of Europe’s framework, we cannot ignore the events in Andijan. The situation in central Asia affects some of our members deeply and we have to defend and encourage democratic forms of government everywhere. Hard strategic interests cannot always overpower human rights considerations. In the case of central Asia, not standing up for human rights and democracy could even lead to instability and the installation of undemocratic governments in the region. That would be a serious setback in our war against terrorism.

The Council of Europe has started to take the first steps towards a comprehensive neighbourhood policy and the region of central Asia is very important to such efforts. The development of democratic regimes in that area, which affects many of our members and the international system in general, should definitely be part of that strategy.

I hope that my colleagues share my concern about these developments and that our debate will give rise to ideas as to how the Council of Europe can contribute to the fight for democracy and stability in central Asia by supporting the key principles and values it stands for

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Distinguished colleagues, the Middle East used to be a trouble spot. Today, the cease-fire has been declared and the steps taken by the parties are a good start for the revitalisation of the peace process. Therefore, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Margelov, for the report, which brings this important issue to the attention of the Assembly at this important juncture.

A new sense of hope for a lasting solution to the Middle East conflict is a welcome sign for us all. To help to sustain the current climate, it is necessary to consolidate the authority of Abu Mazen and his government and to support the co-ordinated withdrawal of Israel from Gaza and several West Bank settlements.

I hope that the implementation of the disengagement plan in co-ordination with the Palestinian side will lead to a peace dynamic to start negotiations on the basis of the road map. I therefore share the view presented in the draft resolution that the implementation of the disengagement plan by Israel should be followed by withdrawal from the West Bank in accordance with the road map, which is, I believe, a way forward to peace negotiations. Both parties should proceed on the understanding that all the steps and actions that they take now will eventually lead them to a negotiated settlement based on the vision of two states living securely and in peace, side by side.

I also believe that individual member states should utilise all possible means to support the implementation of the road map, which, I hope, will lead the region to stability, peace and prosperity. If we are to make peace irreversible, we must ensure that terror and violence do not derail this tentative process this time.

It is also my conviction that the Council of Europe – based on its valuable experience in protecting and promoting democracy and human rights, and as a platform for dialogue – can contribute to the eradication of prejudices caused by intolerance. I can only echo what the rapporteur said in that regard – that the Council of Europe should increase its role in the promotion of democratic values, with particular emphasis on inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue in the whole region.

Colleagues, at this important juncture, we should seize any opportunity to offer any possible assistance or to offer any contribution to the process. Therefore, I believe that the Political Affairs Committee should continue to follow up the matter. The international community, and the Parliamentary Assembly in particular, should actively support the peace efforts.

To conclude, I thank the rapporteur once again for his excellent work and lend my support to the report and the draft resolution therein.

Mr MERCAN ( Turkey). – I sometimes have difficulty in following tragic incidents from a great distance. I have listened to a representative of the Palestinian Authority and to a parliamentarian from the Israeli Knesset. In both cases, hearing about all the tragic events on both sides has been very touching and heartbreaking. Unfortunately, however, despite all the political efforts and whatever we say in this Chamber, we have never alleviated the problems of the civilians living in the area. From our perspective, the issue that comes first and foremost is the need to protect and defend the civilians, their human rights and their right to existence.

As has been said several times in this Chamber and in other international forums, political solutions require leadership, and they require somebody to take the initiative. In listening to those on the Palestinian side or the Israeli side, I have sometimes been discouraged and felt that none of the parties will take the initiative to solve the problems without expecting anything from the other side. I might be too naïve to make this call in the light of the situation in the region, but one would sometimes have hoped that one leadership would take courage in acting on the premises of democracy, human rights and the rights of other people, and show leadership, implement the laws and policies, and then expect a response from the other side. Otherwise, despite the road map and other initiatives, including the Camp David process, I do not think that any solution will be achieved.

My words will not be addressed to the Israelis or the Palestinians; they will have to be addressed to the leaderships, which must take the necessary steps to stop the bloodshed. Whoever takes the first step without expecting any response from the other side will, I am sure, be remembered by the whole world and the whole international community, and they will never be forgotten. Otherwise, this process will continue, and, as has been suggested by the Palestinian Authority representative here, we will keep just talking about the victims and terrorism, and all the other things that are ahead

Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by the Russian Federation

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey).- First, I wish to thank the rapporteurs for the comprehensive report they prepared which gives a comprehensive overview of what has been achieved by Russia and where the problems still lie in areas monitored and assisted by the Council of Europe.

As we all agree, Russia is an important actor in the regional and international context.

Russia’s endeavours in adopting principles of democracy and human rights as well as the establishment of a free market economy are indeed commendable.  It is also clear from the report that it is a long-term process, which should be supported and encouraged through continued engagement and dialogue with the Russian authorities.

With regard to the report itself, first I wish to say that I generally agree with the observations and assessments, as well as the results and the recommendations in the committee report.

Russia is still undergoing a serious transformation from a centralised structure to a pluralistic, democratic, liberal and market-oriented country.

In this transformation process, the Russian Federation experiences difficulties left over from the Soviet legacy.  I therefore welcome the efforts by the Russian authorities towards overcoming these difficulties and problems.  I do not want to go into them as they are well described in the resolution.

In this context, I think the positive steps taken by the Russian Administration towards structural reform in recent years deserves a certain appreciation.

I firmly believe that monitoring is a process, which should proceed hand in hand with proper assistance and encouragement.  I therefore very much welcome the existing co-operation between Russia and the Council of Europe and support its further development.

Consequently, I deem it important to assist and encourage Russia in the achievement of a pluralist democratic structure in compliance with the norms and standards of the Council of Europe.  In the period ahead, assistance and co-operation programmes of the Council of Europe will, I believe, yield further positive results for Russia.

I take good note that the resolution also refers to the situation of the Meskhetian Turks.  In this context, I think that it would be more appropriate to replace the phrase “improve in particular the situation of those Meskhetian Turks” with the term “the granting of the fundamental rights of the Meskhetian Turks”.

Meskhetian Turks constitute an unfortunate group, subjected twice in the past to forced relocation and to all the suffering that brought about. They are presently deprived of their right to regular registration at their current place of residence as well as residence permits and the right to obtain citizenship. This leads to a denial of basic human and civil rights. Although in the long term the Meskhetian Turks’ final aim is to return to their homeland in Georgia in accordance with Georgia’s commitment at the time of her accession to the Council of Europe, I believe that until that is realised, the basic rights that they are entitled to in Russia should be granted by the Russian authorities.

The government of the United States of America has taken an initiative to grant refugee status to some of the Meskhetian Turks, and a number of Meskhetian Turks are known to have taken an interest and applied to this programme.  Although it is helpful, we are of the view that this initiative will not bring an overall solution to the problems encountered by the Meskhetian Turks in the Krasnodar region.

I briefly touch upon the Chechen issue, (which was raised by some colleagues). First I must say that this issue is directly affiliated with the peace, stability and welfare of the whole Caucasus region.

My country supports a viable political situation in Chechenya respecting the human rights of the Chechen people and the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

The plight of the refugees and the difficult humanitarian situation in the region is still a cause for concern for all of us.

My country will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Chechen people.  The Turkish Red Crescent has not spared any effort in assisting them.  Turkey has also provided humanitarian relief to Chechen refugees in Azerbaijan and Georgia and contributed to aid and relief works of international organisations like the OSCE and UN.

Before concluding, I reiterate my thanks to the rapporteurs and the Monitoring Committee for the comprehensive report and underline my firm belief that Russia’s integration into the western institutions will contribute to the improvement of the democratisation process and the implementation of a free market economy in that country.

A stable and democratic Russia will be an asset to regional peace and stability as well as to the European security architecture.

 Constitutional reform process in Armenia (debate under urgent procedure)

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – I also congratulate the rapporteurs on a very timely report on the constitutional reform process in Armenia. I would not disagree with the rapporteurs and the general discussion, but I draw your attention to one important issue on which I need your assistance.

Article 9 of the Armenian Constitution, with which I fully agree, says: “The foreign policy of the Republic of Armenia shall be conducted in accordance with the norms of international law, with the aim of establishing good neighbourly and mutually beneficial relations with all states.” I do not think that anybody would disagree with that. It is absolutely right that every country must have good neighbourly relations. However, the current preamble to the Armenian Constitution says, “Recognising as a basis the fundamental principles of Armenian Statehood and national aspirations engraved in the Declaration on Independence of Armenia”.

If one then considers the Declaration on Independence of Armenia, one encounters a problem, because there is a contradiction. Let me read the relevant statement from the declaration: “The Republic of Armenia shall support the effort to gain international recognition of the 1915 genocide perpetrated in Ottoman Turkey and western Armenia.” The problem is the reference to western Armenia. I ask my colleagues from Armenia who are due to speak what is meant by western Armenia in the declaration, which is directly linked to the constitution.

On our understanding – Armenian colleagues might say otherwise – western Armenia is part of Turkey. If a country wants neighbourly relations with another, how come that it claims part of other’s land that is internationally recognised? The border between Turkey and Armenia has been recognised by many international treaties. If I am wrong, I am more than happy to take back all my words. We shall have the opportunity to hear from our Armenian colleagues.

Amendment No. 1 reaffirms the recognition of the borders of Armenia. I am sure that if Armenia recognises the Turkish border, it will not be Turkey that will benefit but the Armenian people. We would be helping the people of Armenia, who are suffering a great deal as a result of economic deprivation and many other things. That is the most constructive approach that we can take and I commend it to the Chamber. Let us support Amendment No. 1 and therefore help the Armenian people to begin good neighbourly relations with countries such as Turkey. Turkey is ready to conduct such relations.

Abolition of restriction on the right to vote

 Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) thanked the rapporteur for the comprehensive and well-balanced report.

The rights to vote and stand in elections were fundamental. Restrictions because of age or membership of a group of vulnerable people were unacceptable. People who resided abroad could contribute to society by voting; restrictions on immigrants in that respect should be examined. Immigrants must be seen as enhancing the host country, so the benefits of democracy should be available to them. Most Turkish citizens who lived in western Europe had limited rights, depending on the host country, and that problem was compounded in non-EU countries.

Impediments to standing for election and voting needed to be removed and the Council of Europe should ensure that there were equal opportunities in that respect. He hoped that the Assembly would approve the draft resolution.