MONDAY, 22 JANUARY 2001

       PROGRESS REPORT  

 

    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.

 

   Mr SAĞLAM (Turkey).- We all know that we are discussing elections in Kosovo

     and some other countries.  Mr Demetriou, in every respect and at every sitting of our

     Assembly, speaks about the Loizidou case, and we always try to tell the other side of the

     story.  Northern Cyprus also has something to say.

 

     The situation is the same with the Tsiakourmas case, which Mr Demetriou has raised

     today.  A northern Cypriot citizen is in custody in the northern part of Cyprus – not in

     Turkish custody, but in the custody of the northern Cyprus administration.  So the authorities  of northern Cyprus are claiming that two of their citizens are in custody in northern Cyprus and have health problems.

 

 That case should not be raised here because we are discussing another matter.  We should

 not always have to hear about cases and matters that have nothing to do with the order of

 business before the Assembly.

 

 

       TRANSIT MIGRATION IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

 

       Mr TELEK (Turkey).- We have discussed the issue of migration and its many

     facets on many occasions, and it seems that we will continue to take up the issue for a

     long time to come.

 

                 We can envisage two sorts of solution to the problem that we are facing .  The

     ideal solution would be to get rid of the problems that force millions of persons to migrate

     from underdeveloped countries to developed countries.  That would require sustainable

     development of poor countries, including the creation of jobs, improvement of living

     conditions and protection of human rights and freedoms.  It is clear that we will not be

     able to realise this solution today or in the near future.  It will take considerable time for

     Asian and African countries to reach such standards.  Therefore, we can assume that

     illegal migration will continue for years to come.  We can hope only that the trend will

     decrease.

 

                 The other solution would require the international community to come up with

     practical measures.  The United Nations, and the European Union, along with the Council

     of Europe are actively involved in that context.

 

                 There has been tolerance generally shown towards political asylum seekers in

     conformity with the standards accepted by international organisations.  The difficulty lies

     with the verification of reasons produced by applicants seeking political asylum.  On the

     other hand, developed countries generally keep their doors tightly shut against economic

     migrants who seek a better life and greater opportunities.  In some exceptional cases,

     certain quotas are applied under certain conditions.  However, countries not in need of

     cheap labour do not show any tolerance to illegal migrants.

 

                 I shall underline another dimension.  Many people who wish to migrate for

     economic reasons fall into the hands of illegal gangs, including terrorist organisations.  I

     support the rapporteur’s idea that there should be a review of national migration policies

     with a view to creating opportunities for short-term legal migration.  Thus we can prevent

     abuse of the right to asylum by those who migrate for purely economic reasons but

     pretend to be political asylum seekers.

 

                 Transit migration is not a problem that is restricted to central and eastern

     European countries.  Turkey, which serves as a bridge between Asia and Europe, has

     become one of the transit routes. That fact is becoming even clearer when people with

     nothing in their possession but hopes for their future become illegal cargo in the hands of

     criminal organisations.  In the first days of the year, at the very start of the twenty-first

     century, a shipload of migrants from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan

     perished in the Mediterranean when their ship broke in two.

 

                 As the EU takes measures to fortify its walls against such migrants, the transit

     migration countries become alternative targets of illegal migration and trafficking in human

     beings.  Measures to curb illegal migration are important, but they can be effective only up

     to a certain level.  Strengthening these measures is necessary to fight the tactics of human

     trafficking and illegal migration, which become more elaborate as time passes.

 

                 The EU should provide assistance to transit migration countries in an effort to

     alleviate the pressure created by tougher migration policies introduced by the EU.  It

     should support the efforts to combat illegal migration and human trafficking.  Burden

     sharing is a must in this context.  It will also provide relief to EU countries.  Our aim

     should be to convince unfortunate people to resort to legal ways rather than trusting

     criminal and, in some instances, terrorist organisations.

 

                 Facilitating short-term legal migration may answer part of the question.  In that

     respect, we should support the solution offered by the rapporteur.  Most of the migrants

     whom we are discussing seek only seasonal jobs, and issuing short-term visas to them will

     certainly encourage them to stay on the legal side of the requirements.

 

     TUESDAY, 23 JANUARY 2001

     HONOURING OF OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS BY LATVIA

 

     Mr SAĞLAM (Turkey).- I begin by congratulating the rapporteurs, Mr Davis and

     Mr Jansson, on their excellent work.  They have reported that the time has come to end

     the monitoring procedure.  Latvia has made significant progress in strengthening its

     democratic institutions and honouring its obligations as a member state of the Council of

     Europe.  Great progress has been made in strengthening its democratic institutions.  That

     being so, I welcome the ending of the monitoring process.  However, as set out in

     paragraph 5, the naturalisation of the Latvian non-citizen population is very much needed

     to help stabilise the country.

 

                 In addition, Latvian language training efforts will be one of the key elements of the

     harmonisation process.  A national programme for that language training is a well-defined

     tool.  It would be much better if the programme was supported by another programme to

     enable non-citizens to feel at ease in applying for Latvian citizenship.  The Latvian

     Government should do their best to convince these people that they have a better future

     as citizens rather than non-citizens.  Latvia should have a policy of inclusion rather than

     exclusion.

 

                 It is only fair to ask the Latvian authorities to continue with their reform

     programmes.  The post-monitoring mechanism and the work of the Monitoring

     Committee should provide necessary support.  However, it would be even fairer to ask

     the Russian Government to provide genuine support for Latvia’s efforts to achieve social

     integration.  It is natural that Russia should encourage the Russian minority to apply for

     Latvian citizenship.

 

                 I welcome the end of the monitoring procedure for Latvia but I also support the

     points that were put forward in paragraph 5 of the draft resolution.  In the monitoring

     process, we should consider the citizenship aspects, national language training and social

     integration programmes.  We must support integration rather than disintegration,

     especially the integration of non-citizens or minority groups in those countries.

     Citizenship, learning the national language and social integration should always be

     stressed.  Thank you.

 

    FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

 

    Mrs AKGÖNENÇ (Turkey).- Mr. President, dear colleagues, I would like to

     concentrate my criticisms, or thoughts, into six points. First, I congratulate the

     rapporteurs, whose analysis was excellent, and who pointed out some crucial factors for

     us, about which I share their feelings.  It takes courage to tell some of those things the

     way they are.

 

                 I was listening carefully, and sometimes the tone seemed to say: “Let’s be

     understanding and more patient towards the new system or the new government.”  I

     remind you that at the beginning of the 1990s, for quite a long time, the same kind of

     request kept nations waiting, hoping that something better would work out - but things

     turned out worse with each passing day, and we ended up with the tragedies in Bosnia

     and Herzegovina, Kosovo and other places.

 

                 So I say, “No.  Let’s not be patient.”  Some of the problems are here to stay, and

     they are very open and clear.  I think that we should act, and act on time.  First, we

     welcome all the changes in Yugoslavia; there is no question about that.  Certainly Mr

     Miloševi? was identified with a lot of bad images, war crimes and all the other

     unpleasantness that Europeans and the world had gone through for about a decade.

 

                 None the less, I ask: do we really have a totally different person in power now?

     Or do we have a person with a different disposition and methodology, but the same ideas

     and targets?  I question that because some of the signs that I see during my visits and

     many reports are troublesome.  We must be extremely cautious, especially when there are

     so many claims about war crimes involving the present President of Yugoslavia.

 

                 Secondly, the coalition is not strong.  Temporary political glue is holding things

     together, and it is only a matter of time before we see how long the coalition will last.

     Thirdly, Yugoslavia has an able Finance Minister and great efforts are being made to

     achieve economic recovery, which are worthy of congratulation.  However, it is too early

     to jump to conclusions and say that that recovery has been achieved.  Much work is

     required as well as support from us.

 

                 Fourthly, some concepts must be mixed together, whether it is the Government of

     Yugoslavia or of Serbia.  For example, what will happen with Montenegro?  During the

     previous session, we heard the President of Montenegro expressing his ideals and

     ambitions.  When we put that together with what we see in Serbia, how can a solution be

     reached?  How will we achieve co-operation?

 

                 Fifthly, there is Kosovo.  The municipal elections took place and it was a beautiful

     experience in democracy, but will the mechanism work?  I am not sure whether it will do

     so when it comes to general elections.  What about Vojvodina and Sandjak?

 

                 Finally, will we see and share the fate of Yugoslavia once again, perhaps in the

     form of a smaller model?  The reputation of the region has been with us since the first

     world war.  Will we say yes each time and hope for the best, or will we take some

     positive measures and intervene in time?

 

     Mr GÜL (Turkey).– I welcome our colleagues from the Federal Republic of

     Yugoslavia, who are here as our guests. I sincerely hope that their presence will boost

     relations between this Assembly and the Yugoslav Parliament.

 

                 I should also stress that the Turkish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of

     the Council of Europe is unanimous in supporting fully the Federal Republic of

     Yugoslavia’s proposed membership of the Council of Europe as soon as our Yugoslav

     neighbours meet the necessary criteria.

 

                 It goes without saying that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is an important

     actor in the Balkans. Therefore, democratisation of the country is a key element for a

     peaceful future and lasting stability in the region. The international community has

     welcomed the post- Miloševi? Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to its midst almost

     unconditionally. I hope that, in return for this warm welcome, the new democratic

     Yugoslav regime will contribute to the peace and stability of the region and Europe.

 

                 The international community should support the new Yugoslav Government in its

     efforts to reform the political and economic system of the country. If the people cannot

     enjoy the benefits of democracy soon, Mr Kostunica and his allies will find themselves in

     an uphill battle against the vestiges of the former Miloševi? regime. One cannot expect

     much if the unemployment rate continues to be 30% and the average wage remains at

     about $50 a month.

 

                 The issue of co-operation with the international war crimes tribunal for Former

     Yugoslavia continues to be a source of concern. We cannot accept that Yugoslavia

     receives preferential treatment in this respect. SFOR has been arresting persons on the

     indictment list for some time now. Croatia has been willing to co-operate with the ICTY,

     even surrendering indicted persons to the tribunal. It is only fair to ask Yugoslavia to do

     the same. Miloševi?, as one of the key organisers of all the horrors in Bosnia, Croatia and

     Kosovo, should answer to the same tribunal in The Hague.

 

                 Two eminent actors in the democratic change, Mr Kostunica and Mr Djindji?,

     have a common responsibility to lead the reforms in the new era not only to their people

     but to all peoples of the Balkans.

 

                 An independent Montenegro would create many problems for Europe. The

     creation of a new state in the Balkans would stir up separatist tendencies elsewhere in the

     region and leave behind an awkwardly complicated legal question difficult to solve.

     Therefore, a mechanism of direct and constructive dialogue should be established

     between Belgrade and Podgorica as soon as possible. The Federal Republic of

     Yugoslavia has already lost far more time that it can afford. It is time now to settle

     constitutional issues and take up economic development.

 

                 Recent developments in the Presevo valley are a source of concern for us. A

     peaceful solution should be found there and any form of violence must not be tolerated.

 

                 Yugoslavia should solve the issues of succession and division of state assets of the

     Former Yugoslavia with the other former republics of Socialist Yugoslavia. A just solution

     will have to be based on the principle of equality of all successor states.

 

                 I conclude by expressing my hope that the status of the Bosnian Muslims living in

     the Sandak region of Yugoslavia should be given official status in line with the standards

     of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe should pay due attention to the plight of

     these people. They should be provided with the appropriate means of protection.

 

 

   RIGHTS OF NATIONAL MINORITIES

 

    Mr GÜRKAN (Turkey).– In modern societies, the restoration of man’s dignity

     on the ethnic level of human life is a priority, and the key to this priority is surely minority

     rights.

 

                 Minority rights, as Mr Bindig states in his report, might reduce ethnic tensions and

     democratic cohesion and pluralism. However, that priority should not prize exploitation of

     ethnic differences for political reasons, or new divisions and new conflicts will be

     promoted and intolerant nationalism will be provoked.

 

                 Minority rights should not review the old and mostly forgotten ethnic and regional

     identities in the political arena and should not aim to satisfy that primitive type of tribal-like

     approach, which expresses itself in murderous hatred of other ethnic groups. The world,

     especially Europe, has suffered too much from that approach. Minority rights cannot

     mean, and should not provoke, separation. They should be used for national unity.

     Nobody should support separatists and promote the idea that every ethnic group has a

     right to its own state. If every major racial, ethnic and religious group won independence,

     we might have nearly a thousand countries in the world and have a very difficult time

     having a functioning economy.

 

                 The lobbyists who speak for minorities argue that they should be given the right to

     have education in their own language; a television channel or two of their own; a place on

     the board of the broadcasting authority; maybe even a share of seats in parliament and a

     turn, every so often, in holding the country’s rotating ruling posts. It is true that, in some

     places, rights like these would make sense. In some countries, however, they might

     encourage conflict and national disintegration rather than peace and cohesion if the

     responsibilities of those minorities as citizens are not part of the process. Lebanon and

     Yugoslavia were examples of countries that exploded despite minority rights being

     proclaimed and indeed respected.

 

                 For some countries, accommodating minorities will not be easy. These countries

     rightly fear that concessions will lead to demands for more concessions; and ultimately to

     calls for autonomy or independence.

 

                 So here, the question is: how should minority rights be exercised? Which will help

     the minorities to be successfully woven into the fabric of society; exercising these rights as

     minority or as equal citizens?

 

                 Many of our countries have minority problems of their own. I believe that the only

     rights that should be entrenched in any constitution are those that apply to all the citizens

     of the country. For a moment, leave aside Turkey and France. Think of the United States.

     If the constitution laid down minority rights for blacks, whites and Hispanics, it would

     undoubtedly make the place more fractious and litigious; and it is unlikely that the

     minorities would be better protected.

 

                 I want to draw attention to the millions of foreigners, mostly Turks and Serbs, in

     some European countries. It is said that they are migrants. That is true, but it should not

     be forgotten that it is the second and third generation of this migration. Therefore, I think

     the time has come for the European countries to take the necessary measures to solve this

     new minority problem as well.

 

    

                 Mr AKÇALI (Turkey) congratulated the rapporteurs.  The problem of minorities

     had been on the Council of Europe’s agenda for a long time and was very important.  It

     had been under discussion for so long because there had never been a definition of

     minority.  When defined imprecisely, a concept could not be dealt with in legal terms.

     The Rapporteur had not defined minority, but said that minority rights had arisen after

     there had been discrimination against one group by another.  If a country did not have

     minority rights, its democracy had failed.

 

                 There were points in the report he wished to discuss.  He was concerned that in

     the approach to the subject of minorities, certain ideological mistakes might be made.

     That would provide a negative influence and such an approach would not yield rights for

     minorities.  Style was important when talking of minorities as it could cause agitation and

     lead to tragic incidents.  In the last sentence, the report talked of self-determination.  That

     could be misinterpreted.  States were formed by consensus and it would be wrong to

     remove an element of that: nations should be a mixture.  It was important to mention those

     who had become minorities through migration.