AVRUPA KONSEYİ PARLAMENTER MECLİSİ
OCAK 2006 GENEL KURUL TOPLANTISI

23-27 OCAK 2006, STRAZBURG

TÜRK DELEGASYONU ÜYELERİNİN YAPMIŞ OLDUĞU KONUŞMALAR

Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee

Mr MERCAN (Turkey): The whole referendum process on the constitutional reforms in Armenia has been followed by the international community and the neighbouring countries. Coming events cast their shadows before them. The Armenian authorities had been warned several times that the bad state of the electoral lists would endanger the credibility of the turn-out. We do not know exactly how many people voted in favour of the constitutional amendments and whether the quorum was indeed reached since the census figures are classified as “top secret” in Armenia. What we do know is that the extremely low voting activity did not correspond to the high figures provided by the electoral commissions. The outcome of the referendum could be in the interest of the Armenian people and in line with the expectations of the Council of Europe. Yet, the questions are: can we accept reforms as truly democratic even though they are achieved through undemocratic means? Can we overlook the lack of respect for the values the Council of Europe stands for? Can we advocate the principles of democracy for all other member countries while we tolerate their violation in one of them? Armenia, like all other members of the Council of Europe, is obliged to hold free and fair ballots. Unfortunately, as highlighted in the report of the ad hoc committee, not a single election since its accession to the Council of Europe has been considered as free and fair. What Armenia is expected to do is to investigate thoroughly all the allegations and take all the necessary measures against those responsible for fraud. The Assembly, on the other hand, is expected to treat its members fairly and equally when it is reacting to similar events.

Implementation of Resolution 1415 (2005) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – On behalf of the European Democratic Group I would like to thank the co-rapporteurs, Mr Eörsi and Mr Kirilov, for their excellent report.

The report takes into account the extraordinary situation created by the Rose Revolution and provides in-depth information on the fulfilment of the reforms by the Georgian Government. There has been a great deal of progress, but a great deal remains to be done. The most important component in ensuring the fulfilment of obligations and commitments is political will, and there is no doubt that the Georgian leadership has the right state of mind to achieve such aims. Major challenges lie ahead, and we appreciate Georgia’s determination to overcome those problems.

We must extend our full support to the Georgian Government in carrying out those reforms to achieve a stable and modern European democracy. In turn, that will result in the full integration of Georgia in European and Euro-Atlantic structures. We believe that Georgia will fulfil its promises with regard to its democratic institutions, local government reform, the conflicts of 1990 to 1994, the rule of law, the protection of human rights, and freedom of expression and of information.

On the other hand, the efforts of the Georgian Government to reach a settlement in the South Ossetia conflict must be supported. The peace plan recently presented by the Georgian Government provides a sound basis for a peaceful and democratic settlement. Turkey, as a neighbouring country, announced its full support for the peace plan, which deserves encouragement and support, especially from other neighbouring countries and the international community. As for Abkhazia, new initiatives are needed to re-integrate the Abkhazian people with the rest of the Georgian population.

We should be ready to contribute to a peaceful solution of the conflicts in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as that is in the interests of all parties concerned. Turkey has provided full support to the Georgian authorities to help them to achieve regional stability. Territorial integrity is the most important principle in that regard, and it must be respected. Settlement of longstanding conflicts in the region will eventually lead to peace and prosperity with the help of political stability and economic co-operation which, in the end, will benefit all of us.

Before concluding, may I touch on an important issue? A commitment that Georgia made when it became a member of the Council of Europe concerns the repatriation of the Meskhetian Turks. The Georgian authorities must create the necessary legal, administrative and political conditions for the repatriation of the Meskhetian Turks to their homeland. There is some movement in the right direction, but it is far from enough. As the draft resolution correctly says, the Georgian authorities must complete the repatriation of the Meskhetian Turks by 2011. There has been a long delay and the original time lines were not respected. We must not disappoint the Meskhetian Turks any longer. That is a purely humanitarian issue which deserves due attention. Of the peoples deported from the homeland in the 1940s in the Stalin era, the Meskhetian Turks remain the only group who are still unable to return to their motherland.

I do not want to underestimate the difficulties that the Georgian authorities face, especially with regard to internally displaced persons. However, those difficulties could be overcome and the Georgian authorities can find ways to fulfil their obligation to repatriate the Meskhetian Turks. The Council of Europe, given all its expertise, has provided invaluable assistance to Georgia. My country, Turkey, is ready to support any plan, as it has done before. In conclusion, I congratulate the rapporteurs and the Georgian Government on the progress that has been made. We must all work hard to continue to support future progress.

Integration of immigrant women in Europe

Mrs BILGEHAN (Turkey) said that it was a pleasure to introduce this report. The management of migration flows and immigration policy did not take into account the particular needs of immigrant women, yet they represented almost half of all immigrants. Immigrant women faced discrimination on grounds of gender and origin. Her committee was convinced of the value that immigrant women could bring to their host countries, both in terms of social cohesion and cultural diversity. There needed to be further progress on the protection of immigrant women’s rights. Often these women suffered violations of their human rights and member states needed to enforce the international conventions governing these matters as well as giving immigrant women an independent legal status.

The application of international private law could not justify discrimination. The committee had a number of recommendations for member states. Women immigrating under family reunion arrangements needed to be given an independent legal status. They also needed to have their own passports and other legal documents. Foreign legislation that was contrary to human rights conventions should not be applied. Independent legal adjudication of marriage, divorce and custody cases needed to be provided. She strongly urged member states to combat violence suffered by immigrant women and to take all possible action to protect immigrant women exposed to violence, including in their homes and communities. These women had a particular need because of the language barrier and cultural isolation to which they were subject. The forthcoming committee meeting on domestic violence should address these issues.

Immigrant women had been invisible in our societies. In today’s world they had the potential to play a full part in society and to contribute on a social, economic and political level in their host countries. To realise this ambition it was necessary to work with international institutions and to gather reliable statistical data, broken down by gender. Among the measures proposed in the draft resolution were the provision of training – where possible at no cost – including language training; the provision of information on the host countries’ laws, including the principle of equality between men and women; vocational training that was not limited to the traditional subsidiary roles of women; efforts to counter discrimination against immigrant workers; efforts to end racial discrimination; and a media and school awareness campaign that would combat the passive stereotypes often applied to immigrant women.

She stressed that the involvement of men was key to the success of immigrant women. There was a role to be played by local communities ensuring that the wives and daughters of immigrant families received the training they required to enable integration.

The participation of immigrant men, fathers, spouses and brothers was essential in the integration process and would promote and implement within immigrant communities the principle of equality between women and men.

It was the responsibility of states to inform immigrant men of the host country’s societal values. Cultural and religious relativism had to be discouraged by host states.

It was the responsibility of the Council of Europe to take steps to ensure the fundamental rights of immigrant women. It was important to initiate dialogue with the countries of origin and to include gender equality in the discussions on migration for example, in the “Council of Europe Political Platform on Migration – a North-South East-West Dialogue”. It was also necessary to exert pressure on the countries of origin to call upon them to prohibit practices that were contrary to human rights such as repudiation, polygamy, divorce without mutual consent, and the automatic granting of custody of the children to the father.

She thanked her colleagues in advance for supporting her proposals, and also thanked contributors.

Mr GULÇIÇEK (Turkey) thanked the rapporteur for an excellent report. There was a growing feminisation of migration, and the reasons for that were contained in the report. Campaigns at both national and international level were needed to promote equality of opportunity for women. Women had taken on a greater share of the responsibility previously borne by men, but that did not mean that they shared equal rights. The Assembly should be targeting its attention on integration programmes aimed at women only.

Immigrant women were sometimes captives to their own culture, hindered their integration into a new culture. New cultures brought new values and new stereotypes. It was helpful if immigrant women could meet with other women in the same position. A number of measures were necessary on social and cultural levels, including language classes. Through language, a woman could come to grips with her new society. Language should not be a barrier to integration. Some people in the host country would be prejudiced against migrant communities. It was therefore necessary to inform immigrant women about their rights through information campaigns and training programmes. Public officials should also undergo training, particularly on the subject of domestic violence. Some women had no independent residence permit or passport, and that made them even more vulnerable. Legal aid and assistance should be provided as well as access to medical and social services.

Employment was an important source of integration. The budget cuts in many European countries threatened that channel. Immigrant women had an important contribution to make to their host country, which needed to be acknowledged. Member states should promote the position of women and their integration through campaigns such as the recent initiatives on electoral law and participation, and rights of property. That would have a huge impact.

Member states needed to draw on the cultural differences represented in migrant communities, and to tap that as a resource. He repeated that women had an enormous contribution to make to society and concluded by thanking Mrs Bilgehan and supporting her report.

The challenge of still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan on substantial grounds

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – Thank you, Mr President. In fact, it is clear that the parliamentary elections held last November in Azerbaijan did not meet a number of the standards and principles of the Council of Europe. Compared with previous elections, these elections constituted a step forward, yet it was insufficient. I also agree that the elections were a disappointment to the Council of Europe and for the pre-election mission and the election mission, which was chaired by Mr Platvoet. Yes, there are deficiencies and there is progress.

While our young colleague from Azerbaijan – Mr Abbasov – was speaking, Mr Gross was shouting that he was lying. First, as a good friend of yours, Mr Gross, I condemn your attitude and behaviour. It was not polite. Secondly, both the pre-election mission report and the election report clearly outlined the progress and the deficiencies of the elections, but now my dear colleagues are saying repeatedly that there is no progress, even though we all agreed during the pre-election mission and the elections on what was happening. Either we were lying that time or we are lying now. That is the question . All colleagues can read both reports. You say that there is a lot of progress; now you say that there is no progress. Which one is the correct statement?

Unfortunately, Mr Gross’s problem is that he assumes that he is above the Azerbaijan Parliament and above the Constitutional Court of Azerbaijan. We see that in his behaviour. We are within the framework of the Council of Europe’s mandate. Mr Gross, you are my good friend, but I have to say this. What are we doing today? We are trying to send a message to Azerbaijan – not only to the government and the governing party, but to the opposition. We are giving a message not only to Azerbaijan, but to other countries that do not have democratic referendums, elections and so on. I think that everyone has got this message.

We agreed in the committee yesterday that the reports and the draft resolution constitute a good message for everyone and that we had to wait. We should not challenge the credentials of the Azerbaijan delegation, and we should not suspend its voting rights. We should wait for the election in May. The Assembly is ready to take any step if there is no democratic and fair election in May, but we should not cut the only channel between the Council of Europe and Azerbaijan by suspending voting rights or challenging credentials.

We should vote for this balanced report and the draft resolution.

As for the figure of 43%, I accept that claims were made about 43% of the counts, but not all those claims were critical or serious. Many colleagues made the criticism that the ballot boxes were small or that polling stations were small and cold. Many colleagues made the criticism – I did so myself – that they had not seen the names, but they went to court and returned with a certificate that would allow them to do so. In conclusion, we should support the draft resolution because it is fair.