MONDAY, 23 APRIL 2001

PROGRESS REPORT

 

Mr GÜRKAN (rapporteur) (Turkey).- Mr President, dear colleagues, I should like first to

     thank you and my colleagues on the Bureau for giving me the opportunity to present the

     Progress Report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee.  As today is the 81st

     anniversary of the founding of the Turkish Parliament Grand National Assembly, I feel

     very privileged to be addressing the Assembly on behalf of my country.

 

                 The Assembly members have been very active in the period covered by the

     report.  Although I do not want to deal specifically with all the matters dealt with in the

     report, which you have before you, I should like to focus on a few specific points.  First,

     however, I should like to welcome very warmly the Special Guest delegation from the

     Parliament of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, whose credentials were ratified by the

     Standing Committee at its meeting last March.  This morning, the Bureau decided to

     charge two eminent lawyers with drawing up a report on whether the legal order issued

     by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia conforms with Council of Europe standards.

 

                 As I said, since the first part-session Assembly members have been very active,

     especially in relation to Chechnya.  As our report states, the Bureau appointed members

     to the joint working group, which, from 20 to 22 March 2001, met in Moscow with nine

     representatives appointed by the Duma.  Lord Judd will report on that meeting after my

     speech.  I should like, however, to take this opportunity to thank him, and the joint

     working group co-chairman Mr Rogozin, for all their efforts in ensuring a successful

     meeting.

 

                 The Bureau appointed an ad hoc committee to observe Moldova’s elections,

     which were held on 25 February 2001.  Mr Gross, the Rappporteur of the ad hoc

     committee, will report on that after my speech. 

 

                 The Bureau also had an exchange of views on Belarus.  At its meeting on 13

     March, Mr Behrendt reported on the visit, from 5 to 7 March 2001, of the Parliamentary

     troika composed of the Parliamentary Assembly, the European Parliament and the

     Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

     During that visit, particular attention was paid to the criteria that should be taken into

     account in future elections so that they can be considered to be free and fair.  It was also

     decided that it would be useful to have informal contacts, and the Bureau proposed

     promoting contacts with the delegation of the National Assembly of Belarus.  That

     delegation was in Strasbourg for the previous part-session, in January 2001.

 

                 As colleagues will see in the document, the Bureau approved a memorandum on

     the registration and admissibility of petitions addressed to the President of the Assembly.

     The memorandum is a consequence of the fact that many petitions addressed to the

     President of the Assembly and to the Bureau stated that it would be good to review the

     rules and to establish criteria that the Bureau could use when examining the admissibility of    petitions.  As members will see in the document appended to the Progress Report, we

     suggest that the criteria should deal first with registration and secondly with the

     admissibility of petitions.  I am sure that the document will be very useful.

 

                 This morning, the Bureau also decided to distribute to members the report on the

     elections of judges.  The Bureau also very carefully considered the Council of Europe’s

     precarious budgetary situation.  Some governments seem to overlook the fact that this

     Organisation will be in jeopardy if they do not provide additional human and financial

     resources.  For the fourth consecutive year, the Committee of Ministers intends to impose

     the financial straitjacket that is known as “zero real budgetary growth”.  Given this

     Organisation’s enlarged political mission, it is entirely unjustifiable to continue that unfair

     policy.  Moreover, the Committee of Ministers does not seem to be paying sufficient

     attention to staffing problems.  This Organisation needs motivated, independent and highly

     skilled staff to ensure good-quality work.

 

                 Finally, I should like to say how very happy I am that the Standing Committee’s

     next meeting will be held in Istanbul.  I am sure that all our meetings there will be very

     interesting.

 

                 Mr SA?LAM (Turkey).- The Turkish Foreign Minister did indeed visit Cyprus,

     but I think that my colleague misunderstood what he said.  He simply said that the Cyprus

     problem between Turkey and Greece would create a problem for both sides in Cyprus if

     Cyprus as a whole were accepted as a member of the European Union.  There have been

     two sides in Cyprus for more than twenty-eight years.  In 1974, there was a coup d’état

     in the state of Cyprus and killings took place over three or four days.  The Turkish army

     put a stop to that and the problem has existed ever since.

 

                 Therefore, it is right that everybody, including the Turkish Foreign Minister,

     should say that this problem must be solved before Cyprus takes on obligations as a

     member of the European Union; otherwise there might be problems in the future.  That is

     all that the Turkish Foreign Minister was saying.  There was no threat in his way of

     thinking.  The international community knows that the present Foreign Minister has been

     in office for more than three years and that he has always been in favour of good relations

     with Greece.  He has an especially good relationship with the Foreign Minister of

     Greece.

 

                 We must understand the situation and the fact that no threat has been made at all.

 

           Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- Our discussion of the report has been fruitful, and we

     have had a chance to become better informed about tomorrow’s elections. I thank my

     colleagues for their contributions.  I agree with the comments of Mr Hoeffel, Mr Surján,

     Mrs Squarcialupi and Mr Bársony on the Assembly’s work.  However, I should also like

     to underline the fact that, for that work to be really useful, we should remember the

     mechanisms that we have established.  The Monitoring Committee, for example, will play

     its role when called upon to do so.

 

                 As for distribution of the report, we have tried to do our best.  The report was

     ready at 10 a.m. this morning, just after the Bureau’s meeting, and we do not know why it

     has been distributed so late.

 

                 All I can say about Cyprus is that for the past twenty-seven years people have

     not been killing each other there.  As I am here not as the head of the Turkish delegation

     but as the Bureau’s rapporteur, I would be exploiting my position if I were to reply to

     Mr Hadjidemitriou’s comments.

 

                 Again, I thank my colleagues for their contributions to the debate.

 

 

TUESDAY, 24 APRIL 2001

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION IN THE MEDIA IN EUROPE

 

  Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- I am a former but permanent journalist.  I should

     explain the word “permanent”.  I have been in politics since 1991, but before then I

     worked as a journalist for twenty-six years.  In Turkey, those who serve as a journalist

     for more than twenty years are given a special card - it is somewhat of an honour - by the

     journalists’ association.  It is called a permanent journalist’s card.

 

                 As a journalist, I have been a victim in the field of freedom of expression and

     information - not only in Turkey but worldwide.  In 1990, I published the minutes of the

     meeting between the then United States President, George Bush Snr, and the then Turkish

     President, Mr Odal.  I was trying to publicise national security secrets, but no journalists’

     association in Europe or the United States would support me.  When I asked for their

     support, they said that what I was trying to do was a crime.  However, I have been

     acquitted of that crime in Turkey.  The Turkish courts decided that my actions were within

     the parameters of freedom of information.  I would not be so sure about the ruling if were

     tried in some other country in Europe or in the United States.

 

                 To end my story, I must add that my son is a journalist, too.  He is in Macedonia

     at the moment.

 

                 Besides being one of the fundamentals of democracy, freedom of expression and

     information in the media is of lifelong importance.  However, my experience shows that

     such freedom is not absolute.  It carries duties and responsibilities.  Inciting crime or

     encouraging violence in order to achieve political objectives can never be accepted as

     freedom of expression and information.

 

                 Such a culture of hate is today highly sophisticated in exploiting the principles of

     freedom.  Therefore, to defend freedom is not a black-and-white issue.  The human mind

     has the capacity to envisage the shades of grey between the two.  Let us consider my

     country of Turkey as an example.  The situation there is not as black as the report

     describes.  There is clear misinformation and exaggeration, but, to be frank, I could not

     paint a picture that is completely white.  There are currently thirty-nine relevant cases on

     the agenda.  I must admit that one concerns purely journalism.  In two cases, there is the

     question of a fair trial, and in five of them, more information and expression are needed.

     The remaining thirty-one cases cannot be considered relevant to journalism.

 

                 Legislative provision, not only in Turkey but throughout the world, enabling

     harassment of those expressing undesirable criticism is not the only threat to freedom of

     expression and information.  The policies of the new ownership in the media represent

     another threat, which is growing.  Given such policies, we realise that media ownership is

     concentrated in the hands of a few rich people.  Therefore, as stated in the report, there is

     a growing trend to consider the media as a purely commercial product.  That makes it

     easy prey to mighty political, economic and other private interests.

 

                 That ownership policy must change.  To that end, and in order to be

     thought-provoking, I want to make a proposal.  No single person or entity should own

     more than 50% of a media enterprise.  Media owners, whatever their share, should not

     be in the field of finance and should not have business with the state.  It may be argued

     that my proposal is against free market principles.  I am not a fan of the market, but I am

     not a blind enemy of it.  I do not take a black or white view of media ownership.  In my

     experience, it is a grey area, and I believe that uncontrolled free-market principles are

     themselves a threat to a free media.  Thank you.

 

 

EUROPE’S FIGHT AGAINST ECONOMIC AND TRANSNATIONAL CRIME

 

                 Ms AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- We thank the rapporteur for her excellent and very

     timely report.

 

                 The globalisation process is proving to be a double-edged sword.  On the one

     hand, it has brought economic benefits to many parts of the world; on the other, it seems

     to have opened the way to organised crime and assisted in its nefarious penetration of

     legitimate businesses.  The question that we all must attempt to answer is: how can we

     prevent organised crime from taking over and destroying legitimate businesses?

     However, how can we act to achieve those goals without violating human rights and legal

     constraints?

 

                 Many types of crime destroy the moral fabric of society, and criminals reap undue

     material gain while destroying our value systems.  Society loses twice in that process, both

     materially and ethically.  It behoves us to take immediate and effective action to protect

     our democratic institutions and family values and to strengthen our legal systems.  It is

     clear that, in addition to its other destructive activities, organised crime tries to weaken the

     justice system.

 

                 Organised crime also attempts to infiltrate democratic institutions - an environment

     that it finds conducive to its anti-democratic and criminal aims.  There is an increasing

     connection between crime and politics.  We must be vigilant in monitoring the increasing

     interaction between organised crime and our political and legal systems.  Such interaction

     creates a climate that is conducive to lawlessness and insecurity for the ordinary citizen.

 

                 Organised criminals are increasingly using electronic technology to commit their

     crimes, which are increasingly “invisible” to the general public and seem to be “white”

     because there is little bloodshed as there is in gangland-style crime.  Such so-called “white

     and invisible” crime destroys not only individuals but institutions that have been designed

     to develop and protect society.  We must declare a full-scale legal and moral war against

     organised crime to secure the future of our societies.

 

 

                 Mr MUTMAN (Turkey).- I thank Mrs Squarcialupi for her excellent report,

     which successfully draws attention to the worsening economic crime over the past ten

     years.  It urges us to take urgent and concrete action to combat such crimes.  As it says,

     the infiltration of organised crime in democratic institutions is exceptionally alarming.

     Economic crime in its multiple forms is now capable of infiltrating democratic institutions.

     The list of such crimes includes trafficking in human beings, illicit drug and other

     contraband smuggling, counterfeiting, environmental crime, cyber crime, tax fraud, money

     laundering, corruption and influence trading.  When all that translates into political

     influence, Europe’s will to fight it may wane and the battle may be lost.

 

                 The Assembly has often condemned the criminal acts committed by organised

     groups that traffic in human beings.  Concrete proposals to combat such acts were

     recommended to the Council of Europe and to governments.  Those are important steps

     forward.  To protect democratic institutions, human rights and human dignity, it is

     essential  to fight organised crime with determination.  The connection between crime and

     politics  has become closer and, as the report concludes, growing lawlessness strains the

     state’s ability to provide security for citizens.  When the state is incapable of enforcing the

     law, organised crime can undermine and replace it.

 

                 As an institution committed to the protection of human rights, the Council of

     Europe actively participates in the effort to combat economic organised crime through its

     legal instruments and intergovernmental programme of activities.  I strongly support those

     efforts.  In addition, it is necessary to establish effective co-operation among the countries

     concerned so as to prevent acts of organised crime, and to impose sanctions against the

     perpetrators of such crimes.  Governments must be encouraged to take appropriate

     measures further to co-operate and exchange information and good administrative and

     judiciary practices.

 

                 I support the ideas contained in the draft recommendation, and especially the

     adoption of draft guidelines in the fight against organised crime, which would provide a

     common framework for action and for updating the relevant Council of Europe

     conventions.

 

 

DRAFT CONVENTION AGAINST CYBER CRIME

 

Mr TELEK (Turkey).- I thank Mr Tallo for his excellent report, which makes an

     important contribution to the debate on the draft Convention on cyber crime.

 

                 The draft convention is an extremely important achievement of the Council of

     Europe.  It not only is the first legally binding international instrument, but deals with a

     highly technical issue which has complex ethical and legal ramifications.

 

                 The draft convention has been elaborated by states that  possess the necessary

     technology to combat cyber crime.  That fact will ensure the successful implementation of

     the draft convention in the future and encourage other states to become a party to it.

     States that do not belong to the Council of Europe showed an interest in the draft

     convention during its elaboration, and some of them actively participated in the process.

     That is another reason for its future success.

 

                 I share the opinion of the rapporteur that the text of the draft convention must be

     flexible enough to allow for the changeable nature of the different forms of cyber crime

     and the speed with which new technologies are developing.

 

                 In our opinion, there are shortcomings in the draft convention, but they could be

     remedied by means of an additional protocol.  The list of crimes covered by the draft

     convention must include the dissemination of racist and xenophobic propaganda.  On

     many occasions our Organisation has pointed out the threat posed to our democratic

     societies by racist and xenophobic propaganda.

 

                 The European Convention on Human Rights clearly defines in its case-law the

     scope and limits of freedom of expression.  To conform with that case-law, taking

     adequate measures to combat such propaganda, including in cyber space, is of the utmost

     importance.  For that reason, I fully support the rapporteur’s proposal immediately to

     draw up an additional protocol to include the dissemination of racist and xenophobic

     propaganda in the list of crimes covered.  I can subscribe to the opinion expressed in the

     report with regard to various aspects of the draft convention.

 

WEDNESDAY, 25 APRIL 2001

SITUATION IN KOSOVO AND NEIGHBOURING REGIONS

 

Mr AKÇALI (Turkey) said that political and legal authority in Kosovo rested

     with Unmik, the United Nations mission in Kosovo, which had established new judicial

     institutions.  Unmik appointed judges on one-year contracts to the municipal, district and

     supreme courts.  Most of the judges appointed by Unmik co-operated with each other

     and worked in harmony, but there had been some problems with the new judicial system.

     The relatively short contracts meant that there were frequent vacancies for judicial

     positions.  Judges also used legal procedures from different jurisdictions.  A further

     problem was that the courts dealt only with criminal matters.  There were also frequent

     protests against judgments by Serbs and by Albanians.  Those problems demonstrated

     that there was a clear need to revise and reform the judicial system and to adopt

     European standards.

 

                 A central problem was that the courts lacked manpower and support.  A training

     centre had been established, but it was not enough.  The Council of Europe could be of

     assistance in that respect.  Unmik had established a judicial advisory committee to look

     into the legislative framework in Kosovo.  Capital punishment had been abolished in

     Kosovo.  A new criminal code had not yet been introduced.  Unmik had, however,

     established a civilian police force and a training school.  There was one Kosovan and one

     American director of the training school, which had been successful and delivered

     high-quality training.  The number of police was still limited, and there was a need to

     establish training schools in other areas of Kosovo.

 

                 The police were able to detain people for up to seventy-two hours, after which

     the detainees had to be referred to a court.  A detention camp had been established by

     the Americans and, despite claims to the contrary, there was no evidence of ill treatment.

     A working group on election law had been established and, although it had not yet

     completed its work, it expected to do so in time for elections to be held in October 2001.

 

                 He reminded the Assembly of the words of the Deputy Secretary General of

     Nato that what was needed was “ballots, not bullets”.

 

                 Ms AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- I thank all the rapporteurs for their excellent

     reports.  I believe that by having this joint debate on the various aspects of the  Kosovo

     issue, the Assembly will have a clearer picture of the situation in the region.  I shall briefly

     touch on the comprehensive report by Ms Kautto.  I share her view that extremist

     violence in and around Kosovo should be condemned and prevented.  All the political

     forces in the Balkans should seek a political settlement of their disputed areas rather than

     resort to violence.

 

                 As this juncture, the Çoviç plan of the Serbian Government is all the more

     important as it signifies a dramatic change in the attitude of the Serbian state in responding

     to crises.  For the first time in recent history, it is trying to solve a crisis by peaceful means

     only.  Ms Kautto is quite right to commend that effort.  However, its implementation is as

     important as the initiative itself.

 

                 The connection with events in the Republic of Macedonia and Kosovo that was

     established by the rapporteur is an important issue, and underlines the pressing need of

     economic and social development in the Balkans.  If the youth unemployment rate

     continues to be more than 50%, without their having any imminent hope of finding a job,

     extremists will gain ground, thus posing a potential threat to the stability of the whole

     region.  Yesterday we discussed crime in Europe.  Problems such as unemployment have

     been shown over and again to be the major cause of an increase in crime.

 

                We all stand for a multi-ethnic, multicultural and multiconfessional Kosovo.

     Needless to say, that goal cannot be achieved without a return of the refugees who fled

     their homes during the armed conflict.  In his report, Mr Connor warns us that the

     receiving states should not always insist on their policy of forced return, as that may be

     counter-productive and cause problems, which may in turn create more refugees from the

     region.  A well co?ordinated approach is needed.

 

                 The issue of minorities in Kosovo is vital to the Turkish delegation, and the

     Assembly is well aware of it.  The situation of the Turkish national minority in the region

     is  of concern among Turkish public opinion.  In a Europe where minority populations are

     daily granted more and more rights, the Kosovo Turks are faced with the danger of losing

     their long-acquired rights.  That is not acceptable.  Moreover, given the tension in the

     region, it is all the more important that the Turks, with the respect they enjoy from all

     Kosovo communities, should continue their role as a stabilising element in interethnic

     relations in Kosovo.

 

                 In this atmosphere we are faced with a litmus test for the stability of the whole

     Balkan region, especially in the Republic of Macedonia, which was a Yugoslav republic

     before it gained its independence.  We should remember its generous attitude in opening

     its borders to refugees in their thousands.

 

                 I believe that Albanian political forces in Macedonia should act with maximum

     restraint and seek political settlement of their problems.  I think that Macedonia has had

     the legitimate right to take security measures within the rule of law to put an end to illegal

     activities.  By keeping its restraint during the crisis and giving  priority to diplomatic

     efforts, the Macedonian authorities have won the appreciation of the international

     community.

 

 

  Mr SAĞLAM (Turkey).-  First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteurs for

     their informative reports.

 

                 The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been quite active in the

     Kosovo problem from the very beginning.  Today’s debate is just another indication of

     the importance attached to the problem by the Council of Europe and as a Balkan

     parliamentarian I really appreciate that.

 

                 The situation in the region is rather complicated and obviously difficult, with the

     on-going tension among the Albanian and Serb communities, extremist violence,

     unemployment, lack of sufficient infrastructure and education facilities, destruction of

     cultural and religious heritage and no imminent possibility of a lasting reconciliation

     among  the Kosovo communities in sight.  I think that even this bleak picture should not

     prevent  us from being optimistic about the future of Kosovo.

 

                 Colleagues, we hear from the press that Unmik has initiated a study to shape the

     future legal status of Kosovo.  I welcome and support this positive development, with the

     following reservations.

 

                 First of all, the target of this exercise is not very clear.  What is envisaged to be

     the final status?  In other words, what is the perspective of this work?  General elections

     should not be organised before clearly defining the status of the legislative and executive

     organs in Kosovo.

 

                 Secondly, have all political forces and ethnic and national communities been

     engaged in the working group, which is preparing the legal framework?  The Kosovo

     Turks, for instance, are not represented in the group and apparently a person represents

     all non-Albanian and non-Serb communities.

 

                 Given the recent developments in the Balkans, delegation of the right to

     representation to a member of another ethnic group in a body dealing with such sensitive

     issues involving ethnic problems and future legal status does not sound like a very good

     idea.  I am sure that a better format for the working group could be found.

 

                 At this point, I would like to draw your attention to the seventh paragraph of the

     draft resolution prepared by Mrs Kautto, which deals with the need to take measures to

     guarantee the full participation of all communities in Kosovo in the future elections.  I

     wholeheartedly support this paragraph, since it touches the core of the problem: do we

     want to create a multi-ethnic Kosovo or not?

 

                 Colleagues, at this juncture, let me say a few words about the appointment of the

     president of the Turkish Democratic Union Party, which represents the Turkish minority in

     Kosovo, to the Kosova Interim Council by Mr Haekkerup.

 

                 This is a very good development, proving the ability of the international

     community to correct its mistakes in ethnic issues.  I believe that with that appointment the

     Kosovo Turks feel more confident and would be willing to participate more actively in the

     decision-making processes in Kosovo.

 

                 Mrs Poptodorova’s interesting report covers an important issue that is culture and

     education.  If we do not give the future generation of Kosovo adequate means of

     education and culture, we have no right to expect much from them.

 

                 As for the destruction of the cultural heritage in the region, we know that in armed

     conflicts culture usually pays a heavy price. In Kosovo, where many pieces of culture

     heritage fell victim to Serbian forces during the war, even the peace could not stop the

     unfortunate destruction of cultural and religious monuments by the extremists.  I can give

     the example of the Hamam Mosque in Ipek (Peç), which has been completely

     “renovated” so that now it is a brand new building, whereas the Hasan Bey Mosque of

     Pristina has been totally demolished in the name of restoration.

 

                 Kfor and Unmik must not permit the cultural heritage of Kosovo, which had

     already fallen victim to neglect, urbanisation and attrition before the recent armed

     conflicts, to be destroyed like this by extremist factors for their own political and sectarian

     ends.

 

PROTECTION OF HUMAN GENOME BY COUNCIL OF EUROPE

 

Ms GÜLEK (Turkey).- First, I congratulate Mr Martelli on producing a

     comprehensive report.  As members of the Council of Europe, we should concentrate all

     our efforts on the protection of the human genome, for this matter involves research that is

     going on as we speak and will have unimaginable consequences for all human kind.

 

                 This subject is of great importance not only because of the exciting possibilities

     that humanity has before it to detect and therefore to treat diseases at an early stage, but

     because of the possibilities to detect and correct even hereditary predispositions to certain

     conditions, thereby allowing individuals to arrange lifestyles that would minimise the

     chances of developing such conditions.

 

                 Equally important, however, and much more daunting are the potential ethical

     dilemmas arising from the incredible implications of the genome project that will confront

     humanity.  Those ethical dilemmas are listed in Mr Martelli’s report and the opinion by

     Mr Asciak on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

 

                 Our Assembly has been quite active on the subject, and many recommendations

     have been made.  Work has been done by the Steering Committee on Bioethics and the

     Council of Europe has its convention on the protection of human rights and biomedicine.

     Now we have the report before us.  I hope that we can continue periodically to review

     the latest developments and continue our good work on the subject.

 

                 I particularly support the suggestion in paragraph 9 of the draft recommendation

     for the establishment of a Euroforum on Human Genetics, which will serve as a forum for

     wider discussion of the issue.  We must not only establish such institutions but ensure that

     they meet regularly and that the results of their meetings are disseminated as widely as

     possible.  Even more important is the establishment of national authorities in charge of

     monitoring with a specific view to ensuring compliance with universally recognised

     principles and treaties, including an overriding respect for human dignity in all cases.

 

                 I hope that we can achieve the establishment of such authorities in all member

     states, as well as effective co-ordination and information sharing between them.  It would

     be interesting to hear what the rapporteur thinks would be an ideal composition of such

     organisations, what professions in what numbers should be involved, how big an

     organisation is envisaged and how it would be financed.

 

                 Those developments, as we all know, will influence all sections of life, ranging

     from health and insurance to education and even reproduction.  I shall give an example.

     This morning, The Herald Tribune ran an article about a genetically engineered corn

     product that, initially, was perhaps a well-intentioned endeavour.  It was genetically

     engineered to repel a certain pest that was causing problems with corn.  However, that

     genetically engineered product caused so many difficulties that an incredible number of

     products that involved the corn had to be recalled.  Many countries returned goods, even

     some that were only distantly related to the product.

 

                 We must think about those matters, because, initially, that product was intended

     for animal feed.  We can see what kind of wide-ranging consequences genetic

     engineering, even of food, can lead to.  We must be thorough in respect of the proposals

     in the report and we must also monitor their implementation closely, because secret,

     underground experimentation with human cloning is taking place as we speak.

 

                 Colleagues may recall that, as Ms Belohorská said, the announcement about the

     first genetically cloned sheep was made seven months after its birth.  Many sources have

     claimed that the first genetically engineered human being might have been born already.  A  lot of experimentation is going on, but we may not know of it.  There are many dangerous

     and sometimes selfish reasons for wanting to resort to cloning.  For example, many

     people would like to save the DNA of a loved one as it may be possible in future to clone

     someone who has passed away.  That has led to many organisations - rather underground

     organisations - storing DNA samples at great cost.  We must try to find them and we

     must also monitor such underground activity.

 

                 I want to draw attention to another development whose importance should not be

     underestimated.  Many computer companies are involved in genetic research.  It is

     reported that many biotechnology companies are investing heavily in bio-engineering and

     genetic research.

 

                 Again, I congratulate the rapporteurs.  I also agree with our colleague Mr Mattéi

     that we must all work on disseminating the work that we do on the subject in our national

     parliaments.

 

DRAFT ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND BIOMEDICINE

 

Mr TELEK (Turkey).- I thank our rapporteur, Mr Mattéi, for his important

     contribution to the debate on the additional protocol to the Convention on Human Rights

     and Biomedicine.  I can subscribe to the remarks and amendment proposals contained in

     the opinion.

 

                 The legal and administrative organisation of the transplantation of human organs

     and tissue is vital.  It has extremely complex ethical, medical and social aspects.  As you

     all know, the Council of Europe is one of the most active and efficient international

     organisations to deal with biomedicine for many years.

 

                 With the political impetus of our Assembly, the Council of Europe has elaborated

     two major legal instruments that establish principles and clear rules that must be respected

     by states.  The elaboration of a new, additional protocol is another important step

     forward in respecting human dignity and rights in the field of biomedicine. I welcome the

     inclusion of the provision that systematic medical follow-up should be offered to all

     donors after organ removal.

 

                 On the text of the additional protocol, I fully support the strengthening of

     protection for living donors.  That aspect becomes all the more important in view of the

     organ trafficking that is taking place in Europe and everywhere else in the world.

     However, while elaborating on that issue we must bear it in mind that this is clearly a

     problem of supply and demand.  Unfortunately, in organ trafficking, the supply comes

     from the poorer, under-developed countries while demand comes from richer, developed

     ountries.

 

                 Also, it is important that we call on states to adopt appropriate legal rules and

     procedures to prohibit trafficking in human organs and tissue.  I support the inclusion of a

     specific provision that would do so in the additional protocol.

 

THURSDAY, 26 APRIL 2001

HONOURING OF OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS BY UKRAINE

 

 

      Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- The debate on Ukraine is sensitive, and we face a

     stark choice: either we continue to have the means to influence and press Ukraine quickly

     to substitute working democracy for totalitarian rules of political and economic life or we

     exclude it from membership of the Council of Europe.  The former, I believe, is in the

     interest of both the Assembly and Ukraine.  The latter would risk international isolation.

 

                 Let us ask this question of ourselves: if we exclude Ukraine from the Council of

     Europe, will we continue to have the means to influence that country’s political

     establishment?  We are not in a position to give a positive answer to that question.

 

                 Colleagues, the West is partly responsible for the crisis in Ukraine.  The United

     States and the European Union were so grateful to Kiev for helping to break up the

     Soviet Union that they poured money into Ukraine during the 1990s without setting

     sufficient tough conditions.  That strategy helped a small ex-communist élite headed by Mr

     Kuchma to retain power.  Over the past three years, donors have tightened the screw.

 

                 President Kuchma has done everything in his power to destroy the freedom of the

     Ukrainian press, including the mysterious death of the “Internet journalist”.  He has

     achieved absolute control over the court system and all law enforcement agencies.  Mr

     Kuchma is consciously building a totalitarian system.  That has driven the cash-strapped

     Ukraine closer to Russia politically and economically, which is what happened with

     Belarus. All three countries would be better served if their leaders concentrated on

     democratic reform and economic development.  Their impoverished people deserve as

     much.

 

                 For the Council of Europe, the threat is not a resurgent military power, but a

     ramshackle coalition, with tens of millions of disaffected citizens.  The Council of Europe

     should maintain the means to put pressure on President Kuchma.  Anything else would be

     a betrayal of the Ukrainian people who have taken to the streets against him.

 

                 I must bring to the Assembly’s attention the fact that, as the report says, the

     Crimean Tartars continue to encounter problems in Ukraine.  I remind the Ukrainian

     authorities of their obligations under Recommendation 1455 in respect of repatriation of

     Crimean Tartars.  Those people have suffered enough.  They endured a massive exodus

     following Crimea’s annexation to Tsarist Russia and they were deported in massive

     numbers in 1944 by Stalin’s Russia.  It is time for them to receive positive attention.

 

                 I am aware of the existence of grave problems in Ukraine, but I am against the

     suspension of its membership of the Council of Europe.

 

                 Mr SAĞLAM (Turkey).- I thank the rapporteurs for their informative report.

     They did a good job in reflecting present realities in Ukraine.  It is obvious that the abuse

     of executive power and the president’s degradation of the Ukrainian Parliament has been

     going on for some time.  In addition, of course, there have been the most unfortunate

     murder of some journalists.

 

                 In spite of all the violations of human rights and the great need for change in

     government apparatus - especially its practices - in order to establish a democratic state,

     it is still not right to punish our colleagues in the Ukrainian Parliament by breaking off

     dialogue with them.  That is why we should continue the monitoring process and postpone

     any definitive decision.

 

                 At least Ukraine is moving towards introducing new laws and establishing a

     democratic state. That should encourage us to give it a little more time.  The monitoring

     procedure cannot be stopped.  This Assembly should decide that it must continue.  Our

     job is to help, not complicate the situation, especially during a period of transition, but that

     does not mean that close monitoring should cease.  Ukraine should be given additional

     time to help itself establish a democratic state - in government practices, relations between

     the president and the parliament, and especially in honouring human rights.

 

                 Again, I congratulate our rapporteurs on doing a good job.  We should reach a

     compromise and give the country a chance to help itself.

 

Mr TELEK (Turkey).- First and foremost, I would like to thank Mrs Severinsen

     and Mrs Wohlwend for this comprehensive report on the honouring of obligations and

     commitments by Ukraine.  I read it with interest.

 

                 The report very concisely and clearly explains the developments that have taken

     place vis-à-vis Ukraine’s obligations and commitments in the recent part.  Going through

     it, I could clearly see that there were a number of positive steps taken by the Ukrainian

     authorities in compliance with the commitments and obligations emanating from Council of  Europe membership.  I welcome these positive steps sincerely and hope that more will

     follow.

 

                 As the report tells us, however, there were also other developments in Ukraine

     during this period which were unsatisfactory or discouraging.  It is true that we are all

     concerned about these negative developments.  We cannot and should not stay silent

     when there are breaches of our esteemed principles of respect for human rights, pluralistic

     democracy and the rule of law within a member country.  We did not let this happen in

     the past and we should not let it happen in the future.

 

                 Having said that, I would now like to turn to the report again and look at the draft

     resolution.  The draft resolution resolves to start the procedure to exclude Ukraine from

     membership of the Council of Europe and recommends that the Committee of Ministers

     take statutory steps to exclude Ukraine from membership of this Organisation.

 

                 Before we make a decision on such an important issue as exclusion of one

     member state from this Organisation, I believe that we have to think and to evaluate very

     carefully the serious implications of this decision.  We have to think in detail of what we

     want and how to achieve this.  We also have to think about whether the means to achieve

     our goal is the right one.

 

                 I am sure we all agree on one issue: our aim is to see a democratic Ukraine,

     respectful of human rights and of the principles of pluralistic democracy and the rule of

     law.  However, I cannot agree with Mrs Severinsen and Mrs Wohlwend that the way to

     achieve this aim is to exclude Ukraine from Europe.  We cannot achieve this by driving

     Ukraine away from the pan-European organisation.

 

                 We have to preserve our co-operative attitude and try to help Ukraine in solving

     her problems by maintaining dialogue and co-operation.  I do not believe that exclusion is

     an effective way of dealing with challenges.  We have to be inclusive, we have to assist

     but we have to be assertive at the same time.  Isolating Ukraine will not help this country

     to overcome her problems.  On the contrary, it may bear very counter-productive results.

 

                 I would also like to touch upon the situation of the Crimean Tatars, which is also

     taken up in the report.  We feel that the Ukraine Government can and should do more to

     fulfil its obligations listed in Recommendation 1455.  The return and reintegration of

     Crimean Tatars to their lands are of great importance.  The right of education in the

     Crimean Tatar language and the use of their language in all private and public affairs are

     necessary parts of the reintegration process.  Their concerns regarding the acquisition of

     land should also be regarded as a priority.  After all, they were the original owners of

     these lands, before being subjected to a massive and ruthless deportation from their

     historic land in 1944.

 

                 It is our duty to play our part in creating a Europe without dividing lines, and we

     can do something very concrete for this purpose now by assisting Ukraine by keeping her

     among us.