MONDAY, 24 JANUARY 2000

PROGRESS REPORT

 

Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- I should like to make a few remarks, particularly about the

 Georgian elections, which were an impressive achievement in such a difficult region.

I thank Mr Davis for his comprehensive report. His work reveals the extent to which

Georgia has undergone democratisation. The first and second rounds of the parliamentary

elections, which were held on 3 October and 14 November 1999, constitute the first

parliamentary elections in Georgia following the country’s accession to the Council of

Europe.

 

     

 We understand that in general the vote was a significant improvement on previous

 elections, and despite some negligible irregularities, it reflected the free will of the

 Georgian people. That was acknowledged by many international organisations and

 non-governmental institutions, including the Council of Europe. Mr Davis’s report also

 supports that observation.

 

 I want to emphasise a remark by the rapporteur in the report’s conclusion. Mr Davis

  states that "the delegation was impressed by the way in which the Georgians of all political

  views worked together to ensure that the elections were an exercise in democracy." That

  is a key element in understanding the motivation that secures a healthy democratisation

  process. Clearly, that understanding exists in Georgia.

 

 Turkey gives full support to Georgia in her democratisation process. Privileged relations

 between Turkey and Georgia are being further improved with recent developments, which

 contribute to the stability of the region. From 8 to 14 December 1999, a delegation from

 the Turkish Grand National Assembly human rights commission, headed by its chairman,

 Mrs Piskinsüt, paid a visit to Georgia, during which the members of the delegation were

 able to examine the humanitarian situation of the Chechen refugees. We are deeply

 concerned about the situation of the refugees, especially given the fact that there is little

 prospect of peace. The situation negatively affects the stability in the region, which is

 already fragile.

 

 More recently, on 14 and 15 January, President Demirel visited Tbilisi and held talks with

 President Schevardnadze on bilateral and regional issues. In the past six years, Turkey

 has extended substantial humanitarian and technical aid to Georgia. The sum total of aid

 given since 1992 is almost $17 million. It is essential that the democratisation process in

 Georgia is supported by economic development. With that understanding, Turkey gives a

 high priority to the realisation of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, among other projects,

 which will produce better economic prospects not only for Georgia but for the whole

 region.

 

 

Democracy and Economıc Development

 

      Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- I would like to take this opportunity to share some of my observations and thoughts about the various elections.  We have heard about the elections in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Azerbaijan.  Many have  said that the elections came up to the standards of the Council of Europe or that they had some reservations about things that could be improved.  My point is slightly different.

 

              I shall start with Kosovo.  I was present in Kosovo and thoroughly enjoyed it.  It was a thrilling experience.  I was assigned to a mountainous area 1 500 m up – metres not  feet.  To see people, some aged eighty or eighty-five, coming to the elections and taking it so seriously with such excitement was very moving.  I regret that there were some Serbian regions and small pockets of Turkish groups who did not take part, because participation is important – and they understood that too late.

 

             Bosnia and Herzegovina may have been procedurally perfect, but I have worked there as a volunteer over the past three or four years and I fear that the divisions are still  there and may be deeper.

 

             I am glad that the people who were observers in Serbia were impressed with the  procedure, but I think that it is too early to get excited about the result of those elections or decide whether they were really what we wanted to achieve.  Perhaps I am being too cautious, but I have reason for caution because I have worked on Balkan issues for a long  time.

 

             In Kosovo, about fifteen parties entered the elections.  In Bosnia and Herzegovina there were twenty-two or more.  In Yugoslavia, there were eighteen parties.

            What is so important about that?  We must remember that those countries have  populations of one million to three million, but that they are divided twenty-two ways.

     That tells us that there is much division and that things are unsettled.

 

              I have four points to make to sum up.  First, the elections may have been procedurally good and there was an improvement.  Secondly, in substance, there was perhaps a slightly better understanding but I am not sure how deep it goes.  Thirdly, in  spirit, there is still much division.  Fourthly, looking to the future, I hope that with the help of the Council of Europe and other countries, there will be further improvement.  Yet I still have two concerns.  It seems that some of the larger powers of Europe will be established  in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and other places for a long time to come.  I did not  get the impression that they would serve for a while and leave.  That is something to be concerned about.  Secondly, while they may be small, there are movements of  ultra-nationalism in those tiny countries.  That may be a signal of danger in the future.

 

NON-FORMAL EDUCATION AND TRANSNATIONAL LONG-TERM VOLUNTARY SERVICE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

 

 Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- In an age of increasing communication facilities and

technology, individuals and groups are forced to seek new and innovative ways to

educate themselves and many others. The changing economic and financial activities and

the continual progress of industry require new techniques, on-the-job training and new

skills. All those changes force non-formal education methods to become more popular. In

that respect, I wish to express my appreciation of the work done by our rapporteur, Mr

Dumitrescu.

 

New conditions in a rapidly changing world require new applications. Besides, in the

process of globalisation, societies and nations face two different challenges. The first is an

inevitable barrage of information and the impact of new changes all over the world. The

second is the struggle of the individual or the group to preserve their identities. To achieve

that, they need to know more about their own culture and strengths. Under these

conditions, traditional formal education falls short of demand and targets. In multi-cultural

societies, almost the only way to achieve the desired level of education is with the help of

the non-formal education system. We have seen good examples of attempts at that in

some Council of Europe member states.

 

The issue of non-formal education should be taken into consideration in relation to its

positive effect on social cohesion in societies. I wish to congratulate once again the author

of the report and the Council on a timely and very useful study produced for this forum.

    

                       

TUESDAY, 25 JANUARY 2000

  

Charter of fundamental rights                            

           

     Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).— On behalf of the European Democratic Group I would

     like to start by thanking everyone for the work in these three reports, yet there are certain

     concerns that I would like to share with you. It seems that one trend is to create a united

     Europe but another — just the opposite — is to create a division in the future structure of

     Europe.

 

      We all know that the Council of Europe has long endeavoured to convince the European

     Union to become a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, which

     constitutes one of the fundamental conventions of the Council of Europe. However, the

     European Union has continually been reluctant to respond to calls to that end from the

     Council of Europe. Such calls from the Council of Europe, aim at maintaining its leading

     role in the protection of human rights all over Europe and preventing any possible

     duplication of activities and institutions in this field.

 

      However, we observe that the European Union continues its work on the elaboration of a

     "Charter of Fundamental Rights". The Council of Europe continues resolutely to invite the

     European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights while stressing

     the need that the European Union initiative for the preparation of a "Charter of

     Fundamental Rights" should be concluded with a non-binding, yet firm, political

     declaration. The European Union asserts that the initiative for a "Charter of Fundamental

     Rights" does not aim at creating a rival system against the European Convention on

     Human Rights. However, that assurance seems to be far from relieving the concerns of

     the Council of Europe.

 

      We understand the concerns of the Council of Europe. We believe that the European

     Union initiative, which is likely to give rise to a duplication in the protection of human

     rights, could be considered redundant, since all European Union states are also members

     of the Council of Europe and thus subject to the monitoring machinery of the European

     Convention on Human Rights.

 

      The elaboration of a "European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights" would give rise to

     two rival legal protection systems in Europe. This would inevitably weaken the efficiency

     of the machinery of the European Convention on Human Rights. We believe that such

     initiatives are unacceptable and that the European Union should therefore become a party

     to the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

 

     Mr KALKAN (Turkey).— It is true that the preparation process has just started and not

     much seems to be certain yet. However, it seems that a legally binding charter will be

     preferred, creating a parallel system of human rights protection. I am afraid that a legally

     binding charter will create a Europe with two different sets of human rights standards, two

     parallel protection systems, at a time when we are striving for a Europe without dividing

     lines.

 

     I would have expected Mr Magnusson's report to reflect similar views which are so

     clearly stated in Mr Clerfayt's opinion. I think Mr Clerfayt has clearly defined the essential

     concerns. I shall quote from his opinion: "is the EU developing into a club of well-off

     democracies, considering itself to be the elite, disregarding the rest of Europe, and

     behaving in a way which could lead to a rift in Europe, a new split, a new 'wall'?" That is

     the essence of the issue that we are faced with. This is the real danger. This is what our

     message should be.

 

 

WEDNESDAY, 26 JANUARY 2000

SITUATION IN BELARUS

 

Mr AKÇALI (Turkey).- I warmly welcome the thorough report prepared by

     Mr Behrendt. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the overall political situation in Belarus is

     still a cause of deep concern. As the present report confirms, like Mr Antretter’s report a

     year ago, Belarus continues to fall short of Council of Europe standards as regards

     pluralistic democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

 

    It is a pity that, while the Eurasian world is reaffirming its commitment to these principles

     and, in many cases, taking practical steps to abide by the standards set by the Council of

     Europe, Belarus continues to fall short of adopting democratic principles. We hope that

     Belarus will soon opt for the establishment of a free and democratic system.

 

     The upcoming parliamentary elections in Belarus are of the utmost importance as a step

     towards the establishment of a free and democratic climate. With its vast experience in

     this field, the Council of Europe can extend to Belarus assistance and expertise in holding

     democratic, free and fair elections.

 

    The opening of dialogue and a climate of trust between the government and the opposition

     are also important steps. The efforts of OSCE should be supported to facilitate such a

     dialogue, which would have a positive effect on the election process. The independence

     of the media and equal access thereto are indispensable factors in the holding of fair

     elections. As the report accurately states, the legitimacy of the Belarus Government can

     be restored only through fair elections.

 

    Belarus is a member of the European family. We support every effort to prepare the

     ground to have Belarus in our midst. While continuing to distance itself clearly from the

     current regime in Minsk, the Council of Europe and our Assembly in particular should

     establish and enhance contacts with democratic circles such as the independent media and

     civic society in Belarus. That would be beneficial to both the people of Belarus and the

     Council of Europe. We hope and believe that the Belarus authorities acknowledge that

     fact and choose to become members of the democratic world, with the early endorsement

     and implementation of the principles of the Council of Europe.

 

HONOURING OF OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS BY BULGARIA

 

     Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- I agree with the report’s conclusion that the monitoring

     procedure for Bulgaria should be closed. Bulgaria is of particular importance to Turkey.

     We have common interests which outweigh our differences. Every bit of progress and

     every positive step that is taken in Bulgaria is good news for the Turkish people.

 

     I therefore welcome the positive and impressive progress made in Bulgaria since the

     current government came to power in mid-1997. The report is right to praise

     President Stoyanov and Prime Minister Kostov in person for their efforts and the change

     of mentality that they have introduced in Bulgaria’s foreign relations. Thanks to that

     change, Turkish-Bulgarian relations reached such a high level that even our longstanding

     territorial dispute was eventually solved through negotiation. That is indeed a rare

     commodity in the Balkans, and I hope that all our neighbours can learn a lesson from it. In

     the Balkans and in the Caucasus, prejudice and intolerance towards " the other" provoke

     ethnic tensions and consequently deepen instability.

 

     I take this opportunity to make a few observations about the report itself. It underlines the

     fact that although there have been changes for the better, several obstacles have still to be

     overcome in the field of minority rights. Those obstacles concern the Turkish minority,

     which today constitutes one-eighth of the Bulgarian population and is the largest minority

     in the country. Its status goes back to the 1925 Turkish-Bulgarian friendship treaty.

 

     I was rather surprised to find that the report fails to address that fact. While there are

     references to the status of minorities in general, and in particular to the conditions of the

     Roma minority and even the Russian minority, there is only a single reference in the whole

     report to the Turkish minority. It is not fair to make recommendations regarding minorities

     without even mentioning the Turkish minority.

 

     In that context, I draw the Assembly’s attention to a minor material error in the report.

     Paragraph 74 states that "minority-language news broadcasts on public television are

     grossly inadequate". That is a nice phrase, but it falls short of describing the situation

     because there are as yet no minority-language broadcasts on public television. The only

     minority-language news broadcasts on public channels are the Turkish broadcasts on

     national radio for a total of half an hour a day. Our Bulgarian colleagues have informed us

     that, in about three months, Turkish language TV broadcasts will start. I wholeheartedly

     welcome that.

 

     I point out that the person whom our rapporteurs call "the representative of the Muslim

     religious community" is the ex-representative from the communist era, who personally

     took part in the forced assimilation campaign against the Turkish minority. The legitimate

     and current representative is someone else, but it seems that our rapporteurs failed to

     meet him. That failure could explain the four separate references to a so-called "rift within

     the Muslim religious community". Contrary to paragraph 25 of the report, that rift was

     settled in October 1997 with an all-Muslim conference, during which a representative

     recognised by all segments of society was freely elected.

 

     

 

     Much progress has been made in Bulgaria, in both democratisation and minority rights.

     Instead of exaggerating and exploiting the deficiencies that still exist and provoking

     minority members to act against the society in which they live, our duty is to praise the

     progress that has been made. That understanding will lead to further progress.

 

RESPECTING CHILDRENS’ RIGHTS: INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION

 

 Mr TELEK (Turkey).- I congratulate our rapporteur, Mr About, on a comprehensive

     report on the sensitive issue of respect for children’s rights in international adoption

     procedures.

 

      May I recall the Council of Europe’s valuable achievements in human rights? With four

     specific European conventions, our organisation is the main standard-setting organisation

     in that field. The Parliamentary Assembly greatly contributed to the Council of Europe’s

     major role in improving children’s rights by adopting various recommendations and

     resolutions. Those instruments cover large areas, such as children’s social protection,

     health, legal affairs and education.

 

     The issue that we discuss today is of the utmost importance for children’s well-being. You

     can grant children short-term happiness by giving them toys or material opportunities, but,

     however great your affection, you cannot give them the affection of their parents and the

     warmth of their families. That is why the government of my country assists families who

     cannot afford to look after and bring up their children, thus enabling those children to

     remain in the warmth of their family.

 

      International adoption must conform with well-established legal and ethical rules. We

     support the draft recommendation as regards the strict implementation of the ethics and

     rules in the Hague Convention on Adoption, as well as other relevant international

     instruments.

 

      We believe that it is necessary to foster co-operation between states to combat the

     trafficking of children and to eliminate criminal networks and all types of abuse in

     international adoption. Rapid developments in medicine will soon mean that every organ

     of the human body can be transplanted. Children, with their young and healthy organs,

     would be in even more danger then. That threat to the lives and health of children should

     have been stressed in the report.

 

      We have to make sure that the principle of doing what is in the best interests of children

     prevails in international adoption procedures. As the rapporteur rightly stated, the purpose

     of those procedures must be to provide children with parents in a way that respects their

     rights.

 

OPINION ON DRAFT PROTOCOL NO.12 TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON  HUMAN RIGHTS

      

Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- I am grateful for being granted the time to speak.

      Draft Protocol No. 12 aims to reinforce the non-discrimination clause in Article 14 of the

     European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in respect of equality between

     women and men. Article 14 prohibits any form of discrimination - not just on sexual

     grounds, but on many others. The provision should be interpreted to include fields not

     specifically mentioned. For that reason, I feel that the introduction of a specific regulation

     on equal rights for women and men, in addition to one relating to sexual orientation,

     should be reconsidered. Creating new and specific control machinery could prove to be

     redundant and could create duplications in the protection of human rights. In the United

     Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women we

     already have an international binding instrument with its own monitoring mechanism. The

     existence of that convention should be taken into consideration when we assess the need

     for a new protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. We should note that

     duplications in the protection of human rights may weaken the efficiency of the present

     control mechanism. References to "national or social origin" and "national minority" in

     Article 1 of the draft protocol may result in some obscurity in the consultation process

     because of the absence of agreement on the definition of those terms.

 

Ms GÜLEK (Turkey).- First, I congratulate the rapporteur on his well-prepared report.

     The changes are a necessity and are long overdue. We are all here to fulfil one of our

     main duties in the Council of Europe - to protect fundamental freedoms and human rights.

     I have a list signed by many non-governmental organisations, mainly from France - some

     of you may have received a copy - and I wish to quote a sentence or two from it. The

     organisations state that they "wish to express their full support for the opinion laid down in

     the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights". It continues: "We the

     undersigned agree with you and consider it of the utmost importance that the principle of

     equality between men and women should be enshrined separately in the ECHR and that

     the proposal of the Committee of Ministers to the Assembly to extend the prohibition of

     discrimination is too weak in this respect." That document shows the wide support for

     these proposals among many NGOs.

 

     Equality before the law and non-discrimination are necessary to protect fundamental rights

     and freedoms. Let us remember that draft Protocol No. 12 was drafted to guarantee the

     freedom of men and women, regardless of sexual orientation, and also to combat racism,

     which is one of the most urgent priorities in Europe. The worrying rise of racism,

     xenophobia and nationalism should make it easier for us to combat them. Broadening the

     scope of the non-discrimination clause with a non-exhaustive list is very necessary.

 

     We must stop talking and having good intentions, and turn our intentions and talk into

     actions. Translating equality into actual non-discrimination is indeed a challenge and could

     not be done without extending the list. Article 1 of the draft protocol as it stands leaves

     quite a margin of appreciation to the judges of the Court, who will interpret the scope of

     the words "any right set forth by law". The draft protocol places no concrete obligation on

     contracting parties in the field of gender equality or racism. It affirms only the prohibition

     of discrimination on those grounds. We could do with a more concrete obligation.

 

      The changes are long overdue and I hope that we will accept the proposal unanimously, in

     a fashion that becomes this Assembly.

 

THURSDAY, 27 JANUARY 2000

SITUATION IN CHECHNYA AND CREDENTIALS OF THE RUSSIAN DELEGATION

 

 

Mr SAGLAM (Turkey).- The situation in Chechnya continues to be of very great

     concern to Turkey. A war is being conducted in the territory of one of the member states

     of the Council of Europe, and excessive and indiscriminate force is being used against the

     entire population, including civilians. Large-scale human rights violations and great human

     suffering are being caused in Chechnya by the Russian military campaign. In consequence,

     violations of international humanitarian law are taking place and there is no determined will

     to restore law and order through peaceful means.

 

     The rule of law, human rights and democratic values, which are our guiding principles, are

     being defied in Chechnya. We should convincingly convey our belief that the conflict

     cannot and should not be resolved by military means. We should not allow visits by

     representatives of the Council of Europe to be exploited as an endorsement of Russian

     attitudes. The Itar-Tass reporting of President Russell-Johnston is an example to be

     avoided in future.

 

     Negotiations should begin immediately between the Chechens and the Russians so that a

     peaceful solution to the conflict can be found. International media and humanitarian

     organisations should be granted free access to the region, and refugees should be allowed

     to return home. Most of all, an international presence should be established in the region

     to monitor the situation and to improve humanitarian conditions. All members of this

     august body should try to help build a lasting peace in the Caucasus, a region that has long

     suffered instability and bitter fighting.

 

     We should show the determination and persistence necessary to stop the violence in

     Chechnya and to introduce the principles of the Council of Europe to the territories of a

     member country. The Russian Federation should be reminded that it must honour its

     commitments as a Council of Europe member. I agree with most of those who have

     spoken today that there should be an immediate ceasefire and that negotiations should

     begin between the Russian authorities and the Chechens. It is our responsibility to see that

     those things occur.

 

          

Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).- Chechnya is a burning problem in the northern Caucasus. It

     continues to be an area of ethnic tension and instability for Russia and all of the

     surrounding region. We all have strategic as well as humanitarian reasons to care about

     what happens in Chechnya. The war there might destabilise Georgia and threaten the

     stability of the southern Caucasus. It could also jeopardise western access to the energy

     resources in the Caspian region and is likely to impose progressively heavier burdens on

     the Russian economy.

 

     The issue should be resolved within the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, but

     through peaceful political means and with due respect for human rights. However, recent

     statements by the Russian authorities - perhaps not here in Strasbourg, but in Moscow -

     showed that they are intent on solving the problem by exclusively military means. That is

     contrary to the principles of the international community and is a source of great concern.

 

     Despite his earlier romancing of some colleagues, Mr Putin has described the situation as

     a war that redeems Russia’s honour and global standing. That approach has put Russia on

     the road to nationalist adventurism and caused bloodshed. The option of a political

     solution has been eliminated and the safety of innocent civilians is totally disregarded.

 

     It is clear that any struggle against separatists who use terrorist means cannot be a neat

     gentlemen’s war, but there should be a balance between the use of effective force and

     decent respect for individual rights and international norms. The Turkish example could

     become a model of how to deal with terrorists and separatists without killing thousands of

     civilians.

 

     Regardless of how they conduct their struggle against the Chechens, we have a profound

     disagreement with our Russian friends on the treatment of refugees. The refugee crisis is

     the most outstanding aspect of the multi-faceted negative effects of the situation and it

     seems to be deteriorating ever further. Russia has far more to gain from approaching the

     problems co-operatively than from falling into the trap of nationalist adventurism. I believe

     that the international community, and especially the Council of Europe, has a critical role

     to play in this regard. As the great Turkish poet Nazim Hikmet, whose grave is still in

     Moscow, said, our world deserves "to live like a tree, single and free, and as a forest, in

     brotherhood".

 

Mr TELEK (Turkey).— The present situation in Chechnya is of great concern for us.

     Let me begin by saying a few words on the historical background of the conflict before I

     go into the details of the gross violation of human rights and the crime against humanity

     perpetrated by the Russians in Chechnya.

 

    Following the fragmentation of the Soviet Union, the Republic of Chechnya, or rather

     Ichkeria, as the Chechens call their country, decided to stay away from the Russian

     Federation and eventually opted for independence. After the Chechen victory over the

     Russian army in the mid-1990s, a number of joint documents were signed by the Chechen

     administration and the federal Russian authorities — the Havvut Agreement of 1994, the

     Lebed-Mashadov Agreement of 31 August 1996 and the Yeltsin-Mashadov Agreement

     of 12 May 1997 — which defined the status of Chechnya with a view to recognising its

     right to independence in 2002.

 

     The Russians are now denying the validity of their own signatures on those documents.

     How can we then trust the Russian state again? If a country tears down agreements which

     is signs, is that in conformity with international law? Mr Schwimmer has apparently

     received a letter from the Russian Foreign Minister in reply to his letter urging the Russians

     to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Colleagues, can we believe in

     Mr Ivanov’s words? Since Russia proved to be a quite unreliable state, I do not think that

     we can rely on information which it conveys to us.

 

     My country has suffered a great deal from the scourge of terrorism; therefore, we can

     never support any sort of terrorism. However, I do not believe that the Chechens are

     terrorists trying to establish a fundamentalist state, as the Russians want us to believe. We

     are still waiting to see concrete evidence suggesting that the bombing of apartments in

     Moscow was carried out by Chechen fighters. It seems that the bombings were organised

     by the Russian secret services to justify what they are doing to innocent civilians in

     Chechnya. After all, they needed a popular president.

 

     What is going on in Chechnya is simple massacre of civilians. Just think of the

     anti-terrorist measures in Russia: giving an ultimatum to 30 000 people stuck in Grozny to

     leave or get bombed, stopping practically 90% of male refugees aged between 10 and

     60, and making refugees leaving Chechnya suffer at the border gates. In Chechnya, the

     Russians are violating not only the European Convention on Human Rights but other

     fundamental international documents which they have signed, such as the Paris Charter of

     the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

 

    Three main texts adopted at the Istanbul Summit of the OSCE — the summit declaration,

     the Istanbul Charter for European Security and the treaty on conventional forces in

     Europe — texts aim at creating a more secure world, ensuring more coherent international

     co-operation in every field and securing freer and more peaceful lives for all citizens.

     Taking those recent documents, which Russia signed, into consideration and with a view

     to ensuring strict implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, I believe

     that the Parliamentary Assembly must take firm action today.

 

Mr YÜRÜR (Turkey).— The Chechnya issue which we discuss today should not be

     regarded merely as a problem of the Chechen nation. It would be an historical mistake to

     assess the issue as a problem between Russia and Chechnya.

 

     The subject of this debate constitutes a problem which may be faced any-time by the

     people living on the territory of the former Soviet Union as it is now or as it must stay in

     the depths of history. A similar problem may emerge on the world’s agenda — perhaps in

     Belarus today or Ukraine, Armenia or Georgia tomorrow. In my opinion, the dominant

     political powers in Russia do not respect democracy or human rights and I believe that

     their greed for power would harm the Russian people.

 

     The main goal of Turkey’s foreign policy with regard to the Caucasus is to provide peace

     and stability in the region. In accordance with this policy, our efforts aiming at contributing

     to the settlement of humanitarian problems arising in Chechnya still continue. Our

     government assumes a great moral responsibility and is sensitive to the humanitarian

     dimension of the serious problems faced by the Chechen population as a result of

     worrying developments, and it strives to do its best to help those people. Our government

     has thus assumed a pioneer role. On 25 November 1999, with a view to meeting the

     urgent requirements of civilians, it sent to North Ossetia by military aircraft a 15 tonne

     package of humanitarian aid, consisting of food, clothes, medicine and medical equipment.

     That initiative constitutes the first humanitarian aid to the region in terms of bilateral

     contacts. Furthermore, additional aid, sent by Turkey to help settle the problems of

     Chechen asylum seekers who fled to Georgia, reached the region through the

     co-ordination of the Georgian Government and the United Nations High Commissioner

     for Refugees.

 

     The press release of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, issued prior to the

     deployment of the second humanitarian aid package and dated 24 December 1999,

     stressed the wish for an immediate ceasefire and a dialogue for political settlement by

     abandoning the military solution approach, asserted that the continuation of the conflict

     would have negative impacts on peace, stability and security in the region and emphasised

     the importance which we attach to respect, in such a sensitive environment, for the

     territorial integrity and sovereignty of neighbouring states. In addition, the funds of the

     Islamic Development Bank have been allocated, with a view to meeting the urgent needs

     of the Chechen population suffering from the conflict. We feel happy to have received

     approximately 300 Chechens, including the old, women and children, in spite of the heavy

     burden of the results of the earthquake disasters in our country.

 

    Our government cannot remain indifferent to the sufferings of civilians in Chechnya.

 

     Turkey is seriously concerned about the unstable environment in the north of the

     Caucasus. Turkey actively pursues the coherent and clear foreign policy which she

     displayed in 1994-96 with regard to the Chechnya issue. We are of the opinion that the

     actions violating the right to life as well as other fundamental human rights cannot be

     considered to be an internal affair of the Russian Federation.

 

     Political dialogue and respect for the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and

     human rights as well as the fundamental principles of the UN, the OSCE and the Council

     of Europe comprise the basic components of our policy, aiming at finding a peaceful

     solution of the conflict in Chechnya.

 

Mr GÜL (Turkey).— With the collapse of the eastern bloc, Europe has witnessed

     bloody conflicts — first in Bosnia, then in Kosovo and at present in Chechnya. As the

     authoritarian regimes are dissolved, the countries suffering invasion want to use the right to

     form their own administrations. This is the basis of the conflict.

 

     The war between Russia and Chechnya should be considered from this point of view.

     Chechens are of the same race, religion and culture. Two hundred years ago, they were

     invaded by Russians. Stalin expelled Chechens from their homeland. However, Chechens

     still fight for their rights. The Chechen issue could not be solved without taking this

     historical fact into account.

 

     Today, the second most powerful army of the world is attacking Chechnya with all its

     might. Russian aircraft have bombarded the country for many months, regardless of the

     old or young, women or children. Thousands of people have died. Television stations are

     broadcasting the massacre live, but the world and Europe remain silent. A few hours ago,

     the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr Ivanov, called Chechens "terrorists". He tried to justify

     himself by saying that they were fighting against terrorists. I am very much surprised with

     that. How can the second most powerful army of the world fight the terrorists for months

     but cannot beat them? Can terrorists resist tanks and asircrafts? You cannot divert

     attention by calling Chechens terrorists.

 

     Another point worth mentioning is that, if Chechens are all terrorists, how can a state

     negotiate and sign a peace agreement with terrorists? Had not the President of the

     Russian Federation, Yeltsin, and the President of Chechnya, Mashadov, not signed a

     peace agreement in 1996 in Moscow?

 

     We do not interfere in the languages and religions of people. We are against injustice,

     massacres and human rights violations. In this context, we should not discriminate among

     states. The existence of Russia’s nuclear weapons should not facilitate human rights

     violations. We should bear in mind the fact that the war in North Caucasus reflects the

     Russian intention to threaten the states of South Caucasus — Azerbaijan, Georgia and

     Armenia — and that this war does not aim at protecting Europe from terrorists, as stated

     by Mr Ivanov, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

 

 

  USE OF ANTIBIOTHICS IN FOOD PRODUCTION

 

Mr TELEK (Turkey).- Health security is a highly sensitive and topical issue in Europe.

     Recent public health problems such as mad cow disease, dioxins in animal feed and the

     effects of genetically modified food have created anxiety and a feeling of insecurity among

     the public. The problems must be resolved through measures and regulations at national

     and international level.

 

      The Assembly has often dealt with health security issues. I welcome the initiative of

     widening the treatment of those issues to include all aspects of health security in Europe. I

     believe that our discussions today will contribute to raising awareness throughout Europe,

     and I express my appreciation for all the work done by our rapporteurs.

 

      Recent technological developments and the globalisation of the economy make it difficult

     to control the impact of products and goods on human health. I believe that we need to

     establish a comprehensive and coherent framework for the analysis of health security

     issues. In that framework, the accent has to be on risk management, and especially on the

     principles of prevention and precaution. I welcome the proposals in the draft

     recommendation. An overall analysis, including a definition of health security priorities, the

     drawing up of guidelines and a methodological framework for assessing the quality of

     health security arrangements will contribute to the establishment of an effective risk

     management policy in Europe.

 

      Let me underline my appreciation for the achievements of the Council of Europe in health

     and health-related fields. Besides the legal instruments that have been drawn up, the

     Council of Europe greatly contributes to the setting of standards and the application of

     basic norms in member states, through its various activities in the health field. The

     priorities and recommendations that we formulated today should be taken into

     consideration in any future work on the subject.

 

      FRIDAY, 28 JANUARY 2001

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF RECENT EARTHQUAKES IN TURKEY AND GREECE

 

Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- I apologise for the delay. An unexpected event took place

     this morning.

 

     Turkey has had a more devastating experience than I could possibly explain. The country

     is situated in an area of considerable seismic activity. We have had terrible earthquakes

     before in the east and the south of the country, but the scale of the destruction caused by

     the recent earthquake is unbelievable. When I stood in the middle of that destruction, I

     thought about the disappearance of past civilisations and realised that this is how it must

     have been, because past civilisations did not have the technological know-how and help

     from other countries that we have had. We are very appreciative of the help that

     immediately began to pour in from the rest of the country and the rest of the world.

 

      As well as the physical and economic destruction, there has been enormous emotional

     and social destruction. After three or four months, there has been a serious increase in the

     number of suicides, particularly among young people who see no future for themselves.

     Some of them have left behind notes saying that they have no hope and are so full of

     anxiety and fear that they want to finish the trauma now because they do not know what

     else to expect. It is terrible that people are being driven to that. We have had to

     concentrate on the physical needs of food, shelter and heating, but we are now realising

     the dramatic scale of the emotional and psychological impact of the disaster. We need to

     help on that score, too.

 

      There are many sad human stories. I heard about a couple who were expecting a baby

     when the unbelievable earthquake began. The husband decided that they had two

     choices: either they stayed where they were and went under or they jumped from the

     second storey. His wife was in her final week of pregnancy, but miraculously, she gave

     birth to healthy twins. You hear one story after another like that. The emotional trauma

     affected not just the people of that area, but the whole nation. We are still talking about it

     and we still feel that we have not begun to rebuild.

 

      The report gives figures for the extent of the devastation. The earthquake affected the

     most heavily industrialised part of Turkey. We have had to undertake a large relocation

     programme, but we do not want to leave the area under-populated. We have to find new

     construction methods and materials and help life to start again. We need to fight against

     the inevitability of natural forces and recreate a balance in the country. I appreciate all the

     help that everyone has provided for us.

 

      

Ms GÜLEK (Turkey).- I thank the rapporteurs for their two well-prepared and quickly

     written reports. I followed the second one closely and saw that it was prepared in a very

     brief time. That was much appreciated, given the urgency of the matter and the speed with

     which we have had to act. I also thank all those who have attended this debate, because

     Friday is not always the most popular day for debates here. I wish that there were more

     of us here today. I urge you all to encourage your colleagues to read the reports carefully

     and to pay particular attention to their helpful recommendations.

 

 

     

     There are so many points to make and I can choose only a few. I should like to extend

     our sincere thanks to the Council of Europe and the international community, which gave

     so much help so soon after the tragic earthquakes. I should like to try to describe vividly

     some of the less seen aspects of the earthquake. I was there on 17 August. I went to the

     affected area a few hours after the first tragic earthquake. I do not know whether my

     Greek colleagues had the same experience, but there was some unfair criticism from the

     media. You can always be ready for an earthquake or a natural disaster, but not for such

     an incredibly widespread one. The earthquake hit eight city centres. This might be a

     lesson to all of us. We think that we are always prepared, but one is never prepared for

     something times eight. Maybe we should always be prepared even for natural disasters on

     an unimaginable scale.

 

     

 

     I was in Adapazari and Sakarya, which were some of the worst hit areas. I was moved to

     tears by the extent of the destruction and the number of houses that had been torn down.

     I wondered how we would ever deal with it. I went back with Mr Surján a couple of

     weeks ago and saw that at least the physical reminders of the earthquake had been

     removed. It was a relief to see that the destroyed houses and the rubble were gone.

     Slowly, life was coming back to normal and windows had been repaired. Of course, the

     tent cities and the pre-fabricated houses are a constant reminder of the earthquake, but I

     was touched by the attempts to remove the physical reminders.

 

     

 

     Part of our duty lies in reminding our people of the need to continue providing support,

     because the media stop covering such events after the first few days. It is understandable

     that events are newsworthy to start with when they are a big shock, but the less visible

     suffering continues in both countries. I ask you all to urge your constituents, your

     municipalities and your governments to remember that a lot still needs to be done.

 

     

 

     We had a second earthquake a few days before the OSCE Summit. I was thrilled that we

     were still able to go ahead with the summit with no problems. The second earthquake was

     smaller and there were no problems with reacting to it, but you can imagine the

     psychological effects on the people, particularly the children. I felt it only slightly in

     Ankara, but for months I thought that I was shaking everywhere I went. Imagine the

     effects of the second earthquake on people who had already experienced the first one.

     We should keep things like that constantly in our minds.

 

     

 

     The solidarity of the international community and the aid that we received were touching.

     Everyone in the areas affected who received that aid is aware of it. Little children who

     received gifts and toys or were educated in schools that were built very quickly

     appreciated that help. I hope that you will all relay that news back to your countries. The

     solidarity between the Greek and Turkish people was also touching. We should keep the

     Greek and Turkish newspaper headlines from those days, because they were inspirational

     and remind us that we are neighbours and should learn to live in peace and dialogue. We

     should try to continue the positive dialogue of recent months. That is our duty in the

     Council of Europe. We should also bear in mind Mr Surján’s recommendations about

     tourism and encouraging municipalities to work together to continue the reconstruction

     effort.

 

     

 

Mr TELEK (Turkey).- The people, government and NGOs of Turkey have realised the

     importance of preparedness for natural disasters and the need to improve a wide range of

     standards in legislation and institutions and the implementation of natural disaster

     management and, specifically, earthquake preparedness.

 

     The momentum of such increased awareness has prompted the government, local

     administrations and NGOs in Turkey to work together, first in an effort to strengthen the

     country’s emergency preparedness in the face of future natural disasters - especially future

     earthquakes - and, secondly, to rebuild the earthquake zones and to prepare and

     implement the necessary project for the long-term economic and social rehabilitation of

     the affected regions, to try to ensure that future earthquakes will not cause similar

     destruction.

 

     All the efforts are being made in close co-operation with international organisations, such

     as the World Bank. The International Monetary Fund and the Council of Europe

     development bank have provided large sums of long-term financial assistance, together

     with expertise on a wide range of issues - from the necessary legislative and administrative

     measures to modern urban planning. Other organisations, such as the United Nations

     specialist bodies and many other NGOs, have provided emergency rescue and relief

     ssistance in the aftermath of the earthquake, as well as the scientific know-how needed

     for the planning of short and long-term measures related to housing and earthquake

     preparedness.

 

     Financial assistance provided to Turkey by the international community, including major

     international organisations, has been and will be used on projects prepared jointly by

     international experts and the Turkish Government, as well as local administrations and

     several NGOs. I assure the Assembly that the highest standards are being followed in the

     implementation of such projects. The reverse would not be possible because the Turkish

     Government is well aware of the importance of the issues involved, and the public and the

     media are sensitive to the subjects of relief and the reconstruction efforts. Any suggestion

     of a need for further supervision of such projects would only undermine the extraordinary

     efforts and the efficiency of the government and local authorities - not to mention the

     NGOs - in Turkey.

 

     Experience of the recent earthquakes has caused Turkey to reach several conclusions.

     First, emergency relief, especially rescue and temporary housing, and national and local

     co-ordination of crisis management are of paramount importance and should be

     strengthened and revised.

 

     Secondly, international assistance in the face of natural disasters and in the rehabilitation of

     affected regions is vital. The impact of natural disasters on urban and industrial areas is so

     huge that no country should assume that it can rely on its own resources for relief and

     rehabilitation. International assistance is necessary and should be co-ordinated within a

     global institutional framework.

 

     Thirdly, NGOs have become instrumental in dealing with natural disasters and

     rehabilitation efforts. For that reason, such organisations should be integrated into national

     and international efforts towards short and long-term preparedness to cope with natural

     disasters.

 

     Turkey has suffered much from natural disasters and has found the international

     community on its side whenever the calamity of nature has struck its soil. We, the Turkish

     people, are grateful for that and ready to support any efforts to establish an institutional

     basis for international co-operation on natural disaster relief and longer-term assistance.

 

     I wish to add one last word of appreciation for the rapporteur. A person does not have to

     be a medical doctor to understand the suffering of victims and prepare an excellent report:

     it is obvious that an intellectual personality and a heart full of human love are enough.