Trend Daily News (Azerbaijan)
October 6, 2012 Saturday 4:53 PM GMT +4
German MP Strasser’s report on “Definition of political prisoner” discussed
Elhan Suleymanov, a member of the PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and
Human Rights
As informed, the report on “Definition of political prisoner” was
included in the agenda of the autumn plenary session of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held in Strasburg on
October 1-5, 2012.
1. Tabling of 2 amendments, October 2nd, till 16.00h.
On October 2nd, at 14:00, representatives of all political groups in
the PACE tabled two amendments on the draft report. The first
amendment was factual recognition that so far never any criteria were
approved by the Assembly, as many MP’s have stated. The second
amendment aimed at referring to the exclusive competence of the
European Court with regard to the interpretation and application of
any criteria.
On the following day, immediately after both amendments were tabled,
the Committee’s secretaries Mr. Drzemczewski and Mr. Schirmer and the
Secretary-General’s office – who should behave neutral! – were
approaching MPs from the Parliamentary Assembly on the corridors and
buffets and lobbying very actively to vote against both amendments and
in favor of the report by using different methods. They were trying to
spread hurriedly prepared various statements and addresses, for
example so-called documents by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International.
2. Political Group meetings, October 3rd, 09.00h.
During the meetings of political groups on October 3, the German
speaking Swiss leader Gross and the leadership of Liberals, obviously
disrespecting and roughly attacking their group colleagues, forced
them to vote in favor of Straesser’s report, and compiled a nominative
list. Thus, Mr. Gross incited the members to vote against the
amendments via an “indicative” vote, which never happened during the
recent five years, menacing them to be kicked out of the political
group if ever they vote in favor of the amendments. Consequently, he
succeeded to compile the list of 46 votes from the Socialist Group. Is
this the fruit of democracy?
In the EPP-group members are in principle allowed a free vote. But the
chairing Spanish vice-president, being personally in favor of the
amendments, was under very heavy attack by Dutch and German MPs. Such
aggressive scenes took place, which never happened before in the
EPP-group meeting. The Germans even request his immediate resignation.
Moreover, a few hours later very unfortunately the Italian group
leader expressed by email to all members his personal opinion, being
also against the amendments.
In the liberal group, the German MP Schuster requested all members to
vote against the amendments. A big majority of the group agreed to
speak and vote against the amendments, and the official opinion of the
group was negative towards the both amendments.
In the conservative group, there was more support for the amendments,
but people were free to vote. The same in the small communist group,
where the situation was rather confusing.
During whole Tuesday and Wednesday, the socialist leader, the
Committee Secretaries Mr. Drzemczewski and Mr. Schirmer, the German
rapporteur, and all the Germans with support of the civil servants,
continued to lobby and convince liberals and communists to strongly
speak and vote against the amendments.
The leadership and members of the German delegation threatened their
colleagues from other European countries, which face economic
difficulties at the moment, by stating that if they vote in favor of
the amendments, the issue will be raised before the German Bundestag,
and thus, they did not avoid from menacing these countries with
prevention of aid to them, even adoption of economic sanctions against
them, and threatening to make their economy sink.
3. Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, October 3th, 14.00h.
On October 3rd at 14:00, the two amendments on the report were put to
vote in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. At the
Committee meeting, Head of the Secretariat Mr. Drzemczewski acted in
contradiction with the existing procedures and taking the floor before
the voting for the amendments, stated that if the Committee adopts
these amendments, the PACE chairman will veto these amendments using
his powers.
After a very tough debate, with many German speakers, including the
German rapporteur Straesser, the first amendment was put to vote after
including two technical corrections. The first amendment was accepted
by the Committee.
The second amendment, being the heart of the debate was even more
heavily attacked. However, once put to the vote, it was also accepted
by the very close vote of 30 against 28 votes. It was a clear victory
for the amendment and a total surprise for the PACE. The Germans and
their allies in the secretariat were extremely angry and disappointed.
Moreover, several members remarked that the votes in favor of the
amendments in reality amounted 34, and not 30. But exactly as happened
in previous voting, the Secretariat tried to cheat in favor of the
rapporteur, and to falsify the result. The votes in favor however,
were far too strong, and the final outcome could not be falsified. As
30 minutes was allowed for voting in the Committee, there was no
opportunity to campaign against Azerbaijan. Consequently, the MPs
voted for justice and truth.
The attempts to conceal votes and falsification of the results of
voting by the Committee Secretariat are already usual things.
Nevertheless, despite attacks and vagueness in the calculation of
votes, the amendment to Paragraph 3 was adopted and the heart of the
report was undermined. The support for this amendment is a sign that
the Committee members voted for justice and rule of law due to their
internal opinions and responsibility before their conscience.
4. The plenary session debate and votes, October 3th, 16.30h.
During the two hours break an extremely strong lobbying took place by
the opponents of the amendments – leaders of the Socialists and
Liberals, members and secretaries of the German Delegation, and Mr.
Mr. Drzemczewski and Mr. Schirmer, Secretaries of the Committee on
Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to influence the vote in plenary
session.
As the members of South European countries were supportive of the
amendments, their German colleagues approached them, informing that
their position in this matter will strongly hamper any future support
from Germany to South European countries with regard to resolving the
economic and financial crisis in these countries. The leader of German
delegation urged the leaders of the delegations of these countries to
follow the German directive.
It’s clear to all that Germany is not hiding to act as the only real
ruler of Europe, and is imposing to any other country its requests,
threatening MP’s that Foreign Ministers will be informed and that
personal and general sanctions will occur. The imperial behavior of
the Germans, with support of Baltic’s and Scandinavians is astonishing
to all observers.
On the speakers list in the general debate, also many Armenians got
the floor, which was not possible for them in the Committee. Now
Armenians saw the opportunity to strongly attack the both amendments,
to express their support to the Germans, at the same time to directly
attack Azerbaijan, in a very emotional and insulting way, trying to
influence the whole Assembly.
Appointed representatives of political groups took the floor in the
plenary session: they were persons appointed and prepared in advance
by the group leadership. Particularly, it was obviously noticed that
representatives of socialists and liberals group had been prepared to
biased position against Azerbaijan.
Nevertheless, several MP’s showed the courage to defend the
amendments. But each time, right after their positive speech, those
few were immediately and publicly very heavily attacked and insulted,
mainly by Germans, Baltic and Scandinavian socialists.
The plenary meeting continuing two hours and a half appeared to be a
debate against Azerbaijan, but not on definitions of political
prisoners and the demonstration of biased and hostile positions
against our country. Participants of this shamelessness were mainly
German MPs, representatives of socialists and liberals.
Though in their speeches, some MPs provided many examples based on the
concrete facts showing that the proposed criteria are obsolete and not
applicable. They also stated that the amendment proposed to paragraph
3 of report provides for fair and legal solution of the issue, notably
within the framework of current exclusive competence of the European
Court of Human Rights under Convention.
However, Mr. Straesser, Ms. Schuster and other socialists and liberals
addressed entreatingly participants of plenary meeting and expressed
their concern hysterically that in case amendment to the paragraph 3
of report was adopted, this report against Azerbaijan would not be
adopted in January. Mr. Straesser said clearly, “get me right, if the
amendment is adopted, my report against Azerbaijan will not be adopted
in January”. Mainly speeches of these pro-Armenians and socialists and
liberals that were under influence of Mr. Gross affected positions.
However, even after such a political clownery, the vote resulted in
equal 89/89 votes.
While putting pressure on their colleagues, the leadership of liberal
group demonstrated biased position to the activities of Azerbaijan in
the Council of Europe and charged accusations against our country with
language inappropriate to the reputation of this organization.
All members of Azerbaijani Delegation in their turn displayed
exemplary tolerance, did not react to provocations and did not even
take the floor and utter a word during discussion of Mr. Straesser’s
report.
The first amendment – with the two technical corrections – is adopted.
The result of vote on the second amendment was: 89 to 89, and 5
abstentions. In order to be adopted, one more vote was needed…This
is unfortunately the rule and nothing can be done about that. Again
unfortunately, the chairing president, being also the leader of the
Conservative group, was not allowed to vote, as he was chairing the
plenary session. His vote would have changed the outcome into the
adoption of the amendment…
Some older MP’s say that they never before in their career they have
seen such an equality of votes – and deep split ! – in the Council of
Europe.
The last vote was regarding the final adoption of the report. Majority
of MPs did not understand the importance of general vote which took
place after the amendments to the paragraph 3 were not adopted.
5. Conclusion.
Theoretically, though the report was applicable to all Member States
of the Council of Europe, all speeches regarding political prisoner
were addressed to Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan was many times, from different sides, under very strong
attack with regard to the issue of political prisoners, in this
so-called general debate. All these factors affected the result of
voting.
The appeal from the Germans and their allies was very emotional. They
made dramatic appeals in the debates and this completely poisoned the
atmosphere. What was meant to be a debate on a legal issue, ended up
in low shouting and personal insults. Many were surprised that after
such strong language in public against, even 89 to 89 votes were
obtained in favor of the second amendments.
After this political thriller, rarely seen before in Strasbourg, for
sure this debate and votes sincerely undermined the PACE’s credibility
in this matter and showed a deep split throughout the whole Assembly.
A general awareness has raised that Straesser wants only to focus and
to attack Azerbaijan, and was never really interested in a debate on
the criteria. Also, it now became clear to many more MP’s that his
upcoming report on Azerbaijan, including lists with names, seriously
risks to interfere with the exclusive competence of the European
Court. The this week debate clarified that risk very clearly and many
more MP’s are now raising questions with regard to the practice of
producing nominative lists, which so far was never really contested.
Finally, the Straesser proposal on the definition in paragraph 3 was
adopted under a 89 – 89 vote result. There is no reason for him – or
the PACE as a whole – to be proud of the victory. Obviously 89 MP’s do
not want him to interfere with the European Court’s exclusive
competence in this matter.
I believe that this political game which ended in a draw of 89/89 had
been written as a disgrace to the history of the Council of Europe,
such an influential organization. If football teams ended in a draw,
the teams and their fans leave the stadium with disappointment. Even
when the main part of final match ends in a draw, it continues until
one of them achieves victory. By showing such a comparison, I would
like to state that the result of football match impacts only teams and
their fans, but the decision of the Council of Europe is crucial to
the lives of all people. Therefore, perfectness of the rules of this
institution is very important.
Unfortunately, this “victory”, which ended in a draw of 89-89 because
of disputable rules of procedure, undermined the reputation of this
institution, its image as a guardian of justice and fairness. It is a
disgrace to the European values, democracy and the rule of law.
Though PACE had been legally declared a winner, this result is a
shameful factor for the Council of Europe from political, moral and
ethical point of view and is not a pride for those who will refer to
the absurdity of these criteria in the future.
These are things worth to think about..!