english french german greek italian lithuanian russian serbian spanish
Home arrow In Brief arrow New Winds, Resurgences : PACE October 2019

New Winds, Resurgences : PACE October 2019

Pisac ACM
16. 11. 2019.




“New winds, resurgences” : PACE October 2019

 Viewpoint by Patrick Bracker



(NDLR : Viewpoints express the Opinions of their Author,

which are Not necessarily endorsed by "Eurofora")


(+ A Translation in French is provided hereafter)



PACE's autumn session was attended by the delegation of the Russian Federation.

You could feel a different atmosphere from what you had been experiencing for almost four years now: a kind of general relief, which you could already feel after the internal developments in April and June.

President Maury-Pasquier introduced the parliamentary proceedings by delivering a balanced, quiet speech, containing a search for justice and dialogue, while regretting the absence of some members of the Assembly, including the Ukrainian delegation, but also of Georgians, Lithuanians and others.

However, some of these absences were foreseeable in the light of developments, particularly following the results of the June votes, with regard to the return of the Russian delegation. The P.A. seems to have covered the whole issue with regard to the excessive lobbying that had existed for so long to the detriment of its internal functioning and, above all, unfair to the parliamentarians in the Russian delegation. In addition, this infertile or unproductive situation had had a major impact on the work of parliamentarians, and caused a bad atmosphere among the members of the Institution, not to mention financial complications.

It should be added that the brand image of our pan-European organization serving 830 million citizens has been damaged during this long period, not only because of the behaviour displayed on the surface by a  number of people, external or even internal, also undoubtedly because of a more or less subtle bad game played!  

It will be recalled that the Russian absence was mainly due to the fact that the vote on the cancellation of the already ratified credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation by the PA in June 2015: 128 votes in favour, 11 against and 13 abstentions, which the Russian parliamentarians had felt was an injustice. In real time the head of delegation Mr A. Pushkov had expressed all their disappointment and considered leaving the Council of Europe as he had expressed it in the press conference given in Room 1 after the vote. ***

The former President of the Assembly, Jean-Claude Mignon, who had been informed of this reaction, was also surprised; he immediately went to see the head of the Russian delegation to try in vain to change his mind the same day before the press conference. Subsequent events had shown that Mr. Pushkov's point of view was correct, the context revealed that many members had a poor approach to the knowledge of their Russian colleagues and the file concerned.

On the other hand, it seems that the hierarchy of the Russian Federation had intervened to ensure that Russian members were not present in the Chamber at the time of the vote. While this choice can be challenged for different reasons, it is nevertheless judicious and intelligent because it avoids the possibility of possible influence by their MPs. It is understandable that the authorities wanted to know the degree of opposition; the result was clear but unfair, especially from the perspective of an international discussion platform.

With regard to this observation of Russian absence in reaction to sanction, the policy of the empty chair of Ukrainians and other colleagues in this session does not represent a reaction to a sanction given by the PA, but results from a different choice that it is up to everyone to understand, there are several realities in the reasons of each other

That being said, it is nevertheless curious to note that the accusing finger is absent at the very moment of the return of the “accused”... It is necessary to understand what is happening there, because when an Institution of this size is shaken by such a devious operation, it is not the result of chance

Since 2015 it appears that the PA has become poorer in terms of the Russian perspective in the many issues it has dealt with. However, we could appreciate the relevance and areas of expertise of Russian members in the majority of their interventions since 1996! What about the bilateral progress made in such a short period of time? It was felt that half of the Chamber was missing after their departure, which posed a serious problem for the meaning of the organization’s existence, since there can be no pan-European vocation without discussion with our Russian colleagues.

I would add to my comments, for the benefit of PACE members, PACE staff, member states and Russian colleagues that a number of Ukrainian parliamentarians were, however, acting in good faith in this rather pitiful matter on both the substance and the form.  

I think it is useful here to recall that the entities and individuals who operate this type of multi-level operation with a view to destabilization are otherwise endowed with intelligence that is even harmful than deputies or civil servants of states or an institution that would like to be academic, while some seem sometimes far from our human standards; it is fortunate that this observation is not widespread.

After deviations from established normative standards, impertinent, rude or even aggressive behaviour, bad looks or other situations at the psychological level, vociferous shouting, and influence peddling operations, it is time to return to the actual academic standards of the Council of Europe.

With regard to my observations on the ground, I can testify that the Russians were in no way involved in such deviant, violent or sneaky movements of attitudes, it would be good to think about it, their delegation had kept the academic sense of the so-called common house. Everyone can measure my point by the markings made over four years but also on the basis of the last twenty years of high-level cooperation and relevant expertise between colleagues in all our Member States.

That said, it is reassuring that many members have kept their heads during this time, which seems to have been lost (*1), in the face of an uncomfortable situation for all, and to note that the Assembly has succeeded in maintaining an honourable and dignified course of action while developing knowledge of issues of general interest at the service of our Member States and our fellow citizens on a pan-European scale

This constancy and perseverance undoubtedly constitute the basis for its redeployment towards its essential missions, while remaining committed to the fundamentals, which were well recalled by the President of the PA, with the effective presence of all its members.

I would like to acknowledge the excellent work done by President Maury-Pasquier, who has managed this turbulent and delicate situation with heart and intelligence, looking at the PA's code of conduct or regulations.

On Tuesday, the schedule was partly taken up by the celebration of the CoE's 70th anniversary, as after the speech given by the French President, members were invited to a theatrical performance at the Strasbourg Opera House. It turns out that the deputies after attending this event had not returned to the Palace, in fact half a day's work was lost, which was reflected in the organization of the offices.

However, the president's fine words do not correspond to the reality on the ground and the method leaves something to be desired. (*2)

On Wednesday, Mrs Maria Pejcinovic Buric gave her first official speech as Secretary General of the Council of Europe. She spoke with a calm and appeased voice in both official languages of the Institution, giving some initial outlines of her action. She then listened to the members of the Assembly to hear their opinions and proposals. We wish her every success in her mission for the general good of European integration and pan-European citizens.

The celebration of the 70th anniversary, on Thursday in the Chamber, presented in a sober and professional manner by the President, was more than enough to mark this anniversary, especially as the event was postponed to October during the June 2019 session, due to the obstructive behaviour of some Members who had deviated from the timing of the session at the beginning of the session.

During the session we noticed that the French members were very active, seven reports presented during the week! If we add the interventions of the Secretary of State and the President, it can be said that France had a strong presence to conclude its time as rotating Chair of the Committee of Ministers.

The reports discussed on various topics proved interesting, such as the protection of whistleblowers, the need for a set of common values for ombudsman institutions in Europe, obstetrical or gynecological violence...

With regard to the report on a legal status for climate refugees, a request for referral was requested on the grounds of the number of legal aspects not discussed in committee. This request, which was opposed by the chairwoman of the Legal Committee, was rejected by the assembly by a margin of 6 votes to 23, 17 in favour and 10 abstentions. After the discussion the proposed weighting amendments were rejected as a whole during the votes. The text was adopted by 45 votes to 15 with 14 abstentions

During the current affairs debate on the violation of democratic rights and repression of peaceful demonstrations in the Russian Federation in the context of the Moscow City Council elections, Russian parliamentarians presented elements of the law in an intelligible argument that can be heard and understood. They also identified problems of a more serious nature in other PACE member states, such as the management of the yellow vest crisis in France or domestic policy data in Turkey. A member of the Russian delegation also denounced the exploitation of the arrest of children during demonstrations and the distortion of facts by some media against the authorities

In any case, it is good that the Russians should be able to present their views, while it is not uncommon for members who criticize also to experience difficult situations in their states, which are not systematically discussed in PACE reports. This was recalled by another Member who specified that the discussion was more about the values of freedom of expression and free elections and not focusing on one country, because there are problems elsewhere as well. Other speakers were satisfied with the return of the Russians so that they could present their opinion.

I would like to point out that many Members of Parliament were saddened to learn of the police killings in Paris and offered their condolences to France and the families of the victims.  

Other reports were presented; I did not follow all the discussions.

As is often the case, side events have taken place.  On Monday, sponsored by MP Maryvonne Blondin, we were pleased to see again a PACE figure, Josette Durrieu, who presented the book co-written with Mr Florent Parmentier: "Moldova at the crossroad of worlds". Many colleagues came to see Josette again for a friendly and interesting meeting since she is an expert on the area studied.

 Another event sponsored by MP Sylvain Waserman introduced us to a high quality early childhood development program was presented by the president of the "Together for Early Childhood Education" foundation. The content of this presentation suggested a real support for future parliamentary work in the service of the development and well-being of the human person, and of the citizens of the greater Europe.

In addition, the exemplarity given can open paths of societal reflection in other institutional or geographical spheres. Concerning these neurosciences, however, there would be legal weighting points to be taken as a precautionary principle for this type of case, in order to avoid possible drift or influence on young brains in the process of training. I am thinking in particular of the specific long-term parapsychological and metaphysical programs carried out by the entities of power.    

Later in the week was held a meeting supported by MP Schwabe entitled "How authoritrian states undermine international human rights mechanisms" with the presence of MP Rempi and “Open dialogue foundation”.

I intervened to point out that this presentation gave the impression of a one-sided discussion. The Turks, Kazakhs or Russians were not present to defend their points of view... With regard to Interpol Red Notices, I argued that if someone embezzled 500 million euros in London, Paris or Frankfurt, banking systems would seek to bring the perpetrators to justice, so there is no abuse of Interpol's red notices by states that have suffered this type of high-flying fraud! I also asked how the Open Dialogue Foundation was funded.

The destabilization of a Member State such as Ukraine is part of an action against European integration. I asked that this manipulation stop, specifying that the Council of Europe is not an annex to an intelligence agency. Indeed, one may wonder what the son of the US VP's son was doing in Ukraine before, during and after the events that led to the chaos. This is true for other observed presences. Is there a degree of involvement, which ones? In this sense, the current US President's request for an investigation seems to me legitimate. ***

These many meetings held behind the scenes at the “Palais de l'Europe" during the sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly did not have French translations. At that moment the person from Open dialogue cut me off, but I ended my speech by saying that the French President had spoken in French. The Italian Member of the P.A. Mr Rempi, acknowledged that there was a technical error concerning translations and that this had to be corrected in the future. This attitude of Rempi is correct.

It is also time to regain serenity during the side events that take place during parliamentary sessions.

* During this meeting, a projection of information on the board was similar to a desired effect of influence, having nothing to do with the subjects dealt with, in terms of human rights. This transversal action of mind manipulation has a divisive aim, undoubtedly for issues of a different nature to the actions of the Council of Europe, and has no place in our discussions. This information was transmitted to the relevant state.   

To conclude my remarks on the progress of the discussion at the PACE in June and October 2019, it is confirmed that the atmosphere is more serene during the 37th session of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, which is being held from 29 to 31 October. The reports and debates on Turkey and Russia took place in a much more peaceful atmosphere. There has been progress in the dialogue requested by both sides, with mutual acceptance of positive points but also of shortcomings to be filled or corrected.

Time should do its work as long as we work in an atmosphere of respect for each other, which is well suited to our Institution.

As for me, I had no doubt about it since the beginning of the affair by observing, then checking for drifts in real time; it was quite sad and distressing. It is fortunate that we have been able to redress the situation through the substantive work we have done. Good luck to all for the future.



*1 this time a priori lost *1 if we learn from this experience the dialogue can progress to avoid such situations




Vents nouveaux, résurgences : APCE Octobre 2019


Points de vue, by Patrick Bracker


(NDLR: Les points de vue expriment les opinions de leurs auteurs,

et ne reflettent pas necessairement celles d' "Eurofora").




La session d’automne de l’APCE s’est déroulée avec la présence de la délégation de la Fédération de Russie.

L’on pouvait ressentir une atmosphère différente de ce à quoi l’on avait pu assister depuis près de quatre ans déjà : une sorte de soulagement général, que l’on pouvait déjà percevoir après les évolutions internes en avril puis au mois de juin dernier.

La présidente Maury-Pasquier introduisait les travaux parlementaires en prononçant un discours équilibré, apaisé, contenant une recherche de la justice et du dialogue, tout en regrettant l’absence de certains membres de l’Assemblée, dont la délégation ukrainienne, mais aussi de géorgiens, lithuaniens et d’autres.

Certaines de ces absences étaient toutefois prévisibles devant l’évolution de la situation, particulièrement suite aux résultats des votes de juin, s’agissant du retour de la délégation russe. L’AP semble avoir fait le tour de la question au sujet du lobbying exagéré qui avait existé durant si longtemps au détriment de son fonctionnement interne et surtout injuste par rapport aux parlementaires de la délégation russe. En outre cette situation infertile ou improductive avait largement pesé sur les travaux des parlementaires, et causé de mauvaises ambiances entre les membres de l’Institution, sans oublier les complications financières.

Il se rajoute que l’image de marque de notre organisation à vocation paneuropéenne au service de 830 millions de citoyens, a été écornée durant cette période longue, non seulement en raison des comportements affichés en surface par un certain nombre de personnes, externes ou même internes, mais  sans doute aussi du fait d’un mauvais jeu plus ou moins subtil effectué!  

L’on se souviendra que l’absence russe était principalement due au fait du vote sur l'annulation des pouvoirs déjà ratifiés de la délégation de la Fédération de Russie par l’AP en juin 2015 : 128 voix pour, 11 contre et 13 abstentions, ce que les parlementaires russes avaient ressenti comme une injustice. En temps réel le chef de délégation Mr A. Pushkov avait dit toute leur déception et envisagé de quitter le Conseil de l’Europe  comme il l’avait exprimé dans la conférence de presse donnée en salle 1 après le vote.

L’ancien président de l’Assemblée, Jean-Claude Mignon, prévenu de cette réaction, en était aussi surpris, il était allé voir le chef de la délégation russe pour tenter vainement de le faire changer d’avis le jour même avant la conférence de presse. La suite des événements avait montré que le point de vue de Mr Pushkov était exact, le contexte révélait que nombre de membres avaient une mauvaise approche de la connaissance de leurs collègues russes et du dossier concerné.

D’autre part, il semble que la hiérarchie de la Fédération de Russie était intervenue pour que les membres russes ne soient pas présents dans l’hémicycle à l’instant du vote. Si ce choix peut être contesté pour différents raisons, il n’en est pas moins judicieux et intelligent car on évitait ainsi la possibilité d’une éventuelle influence de leurs députés. L’on peut comprendre que les autorités voulaient savoir le degré d’opposition, Le résultat était clair mais injuste, en particulier si l’on se place dans la perspective d’une plateforme de discussion internationale.

Par rapport à ce constat d’absence russe en réaction à sanction, la politique de la chaise vide des ukrainiens  et des autres collègues dans la présente session,  ne représente pas une réaction à une sanction donnée par l’AP, mais résulte d’un choix différent qu’il appartient à chacun de comprendre, il existe plusieurs réalités dans les motifs des uns ou des autres

Ceci étant, il est tout de même curieux de constater que le doigt accusateur soit absent à l’instant même du retour de celui qui était accusé… Il y a lieu de comprendre ce qui se passe là, car lorsqu’une Institution de cette envergure est ébranlée par une manœuvre aussi sournoise constatée, ce n’est pas le fruit du hasard

Depuis 2015 il apparait que l’assemblée parlementaire s’est appauvrie de l’angle de vision russe dans les nombreux dossiers traités. L’on pouvait cependant apprécier à sa juste valeur la pertinence et les domaines d’expertises de nos amis russes dans la majorité de leurs interventions depuis 1996 ! Quid des progrès bilatéraux réalisés en si peu de temps ? On avait l’impression que la moitié de l’hémicycle manquait après leur départ, ce qui posait un sérieux problème sur le sens  de l’existence de l’organisation, puisque il ne peut y avoir vocation paneuropéenne sans la discussion avec nos collègues russes.

Je rajoute à mes observations, à l’intention aussi bien des membres de l’APCE, des personnels de l’organisation, des états membres et des collègues russes, qu’un certain nombre de députés ukrainiens agissaient cependant de bonne foi dans cette affaire assez pitoyable sur le fonds aussi bien que sur la forme.  

Je pense qu’il est utile ici de rappeler que les entités et individus qui manœuvrent ce type d’opération multi- niveau à vue de déstabilisation sont autrement dotés d’intelligence même nuisible que des députés voire agents fonctionnaires d’états ou d’une institution qui se voudrait académique, alors que certains semblent quelques fois éloignés de nos standards humains ; il est  heureux que ce constat ne soit pas généralisé.

Après les déviations des standards normatifs avérés, les comportements impertinents, impolis voire même agressifs, les regards mauvais ou autres situations de niveau  psychologie déficientes, les  vociférations, les manœuvres de trafic d’influences, il est temps de revenir aux standards académiques  effectifs du Conseil de l’Europe

 À mon propos constaté sur le terrain, Je peux témoigner que les russes n’étaient en rien impliqués dans de tels mouvements d’attitudes déviées, violentes ou sournoises, il serait bon d’y réfléchir, leur délégation avait gardé le sens académique de la maison dite commune. Chacun peut mesurer mon propos à. l’aune des balisages réalisés durant quatre années mais aussi sur la base des vingt dernières années de coopération de haut niveau et d’expertises pertinentes entre les collègues de tous nos EM.

Ceci dit, il est rassurant que nombre de membres aient gardé leur sang froid durant ce temps à priori perdu (*1) face çà une situation inconfortable pour tous, et de relever que notre assemblée ait réussi à maintenir une ligne de conduite honorable et digne tout en développant les connaissances des dossiers d’intérêt général au service de nos EM et de nos concitoyens à l’échelle paneuropéenne.

Cette constance et persévérance constituent sans nul doute le socle de son redéploiement vers ses missions essentielles, en restant collée aux fondamentaux, qui ont été bien rappelé par la présidente de l’AP, avec la présence effective de tous ses membres.

 Je salue ici l’excellent travail réalisé par la présidente Madame Maury-Pasquier qui a su géré avec cœur et intelligence cette situation turbulente et délicate, le regard posé sur le code de conduite ou réglementaire de l’AP.

Mardi, l’emploi de temps était pris en partie par la célébration du 70ème anniversaire du CoE, puisque après le discours  prononcé par le Président français, les membres étaient conviés à un spectacle théâtral à l’opéra de Strasbourg. Il s’avère que les députés après s’être rendus à cet événement n‘étaient pas revenus au Palais, de fait une demi journée de travail a été perdue, ce qui s’est ressenti dans l’organisation des bureaux.

Cependant les belles parles du président ne correspondent pas à la réalité du terrain et la méthode laisse à désirer. *2

Mercredi, madame Maria Pejcinovic Buric, a prononcé son premier discours officiel en qualité de Secrétaire Générale du Conseil de l’Europe. Elle s’et exprimée d’une voix posée et calme dans les deux langues officielles de l’Institution, en donnant quelques premières grandes lignes de son action. Puis elle a écouté les membres de l’Assemblée pour connaitre  leurs opinions et propositions. On lui souhaite un bon succès de sa mission pour le bien général de la construction européenne et des citoyens paneuropéens.

La célébration du 70ème anniversaire, jeudi dans l’hémicycle présentée de manière sobre et professionnelle par la présidente suffisait amplement à marquer cet anniversaire, d’autant que l’événement fût reporté au mois d’octobre lors de la session de juin 2019, en raison du comportement d’obstruction de quelques  députés qui avaient dévié le timing de la session à l’entame des travaux.

Durant la session l’on aura remarqué que les membres français étaient très actifs, Sept rapports présentés dans la semaine ! Si l’on rajoute les interventions de la secrétaire d’état  et du Président, l’on peut dire que la France a assuré une grande présence pour conclure son temps de présidence tournante du Comité des ministres.

Les rapports discutés sur des thèmes variés se sont révélés intéressants, comme la protection des lanceurs d’alerte, la nécessité d’un ensemble de valeurs communes  pour les institutions du médiateur en Europe, les violences obstétricales ou gynécologiques…

 Concernant le rapport relatif à un statut juridique pour les réfugiés climatiques, une demande de renvoi a été demandée au motif du nombre d’aspects juridiques non discutés en commission. Cette demande à laquelle s’est opposée la présidente de la commission juridique a été rejetée par l’assemblée par un écart de 6 voix : 23 voix contre, 17 pour et 10 abstentions. Après la discussion les amendements de pondération proposés furent rejetés dans leur ensemble durant les votes. Et le texte adopté par 45 voix pour 15 contre et 14 abstentions

Lors du débat d’actualité sur la violation des droits démocratiques et répression des manifestations pacifiques en Fédération de Russie dans le contexte des élections au Conseil de la ville de Moscou, les députés russes ont présenté des éléments de droit dans un argumentaire intelligible que l’on peut  entendre et comprendre. Ils ont aussi désigné des problèmes de nature plus grave dans d’autres états membres de l’AP, comme par exemple la gestion de la crise des gilets jaunes en France ou des données de politiques intérieures en Turquie. Un membre russe a également dénoncé l’exploitation de l’arrestation des enfants lors des manifestations, et la déformation des faits réalisés par certains médias contre les autorités

En tout état de cause il  est bon que les russes puissent exposer leur façon de voir les choses, alors qu’il n’est pas rare que les membres qui critiquent connaissent également des situations difficiles dans leurs  états  ce qui n’est pas systématiquement discuté dans des rapports de l’APCE. Cela a été rappelé par un autre député qui a spécifié que la discussion portait plutôt sur les valeurs de la liberté d’expression et d’élections libres et de ne pas se focaliser sur un seul pays, car il y a des problèmes aussi ailleurs. D’autres intervenants se sont montrés satisfaits du retour des russes pour qu’ils puissent présenter leur opinion.  

Je souligne que nombre de députés ont été attristés d’apprendre la tuerie des  policiers à Paris et ont présentés leurs condoléances à la France et aux familles des victimes. .  

D’autres rapports ont été présentés, je n’ai pas suivi toutes les discussions.

Comme souvent des sides events ont eu lieu.  Dès lundi, parrainée par la députée Maryvonne Blondin,  nous avons revu avec plaisir une figure de l’APCE madame Josette Durrieu qui a présenté l’ouvrage coécrit avec Mr Florent Parmentier : « Moldova at the crossroad of worlds » Nombre de collègues se sont déplacés pour revoir Josette pour une rencontre conviviale et d’intérêt puisqu’elle est une experte de la zone étudiée.

 Un autre événement parrainé par le député Sylvain Waserman nous faisait découvrir un programme de haute qualité  pour le développement de la petite enfance, présenté par la présidente de la fondation « ensemble pour l’éducation de la petite enfance ». Le contenu de cet exposé laissait entrevoir un réel support pour alimenter les travaux parlementaires au service du développement et bien-être de la personne humaine, et des citoyens de la grande Europe.

En outre, l’exemplarité donnée peut ouvrir des chemins de réflexion sociétale dans d’autres sphères Institutionnelles ou géographiques. Concernant ces neurosciences il y aurait néanmoins des points de pondération juridique à prendre comme principe de précaution pour ce genre de dossier, pour éviter d’éventuelles dérives ou emprises sur des jeunes cerveaux en cours de formation. Je pense en particulier aux programmes spécifiques de long terme, parapsychologiques et métaphysiques, menés par les entités de pouvoirs.

Plus tard dans la semaine s’est tenu une  rencontre soutenue par le député Frank Schwabe intitulé «  How authoritrian states undermine international human rights mechanisms » avec la  participation du député Rempi et de la fondation Open dialogue.

 Je suis intervenu pour signaler que cette présentation donnait l’impression d’une discussion unilatérale. Les turcs, les kazakhs ou les russes n’étaient pas présents pour défendre leurs points de vue… S’agissant de notice rouges d’Interpol, j’ai argumenté que si un personne détournait 500 millions d’euros à Londres, Paris ou Frankfort, les systèmes bancaires chercheraient à traduire les coupables en justice, il ‘y a donc pas d’abus des « red notices » d’Interpol par des états ayant subi ce type d’escroquerie de haute volée! J’ai également demandé comment était financé la fondation Open dialogue.   

La démarche de déstabilisation d’un état membre comme l’Ukraine relève d’une action contre la construction européenne. J’ai demandé que cette manipulation cesse, en spécifiant que le Conseil de l’Europe n’est pas une annexe d’une agence de renseignement ou d’intelligence. L’on peut en effet se demander ce que faisait le fils du VP des USA en Ukraine avant, pendant et après les événements ayant conduit au chaos constaté. Cela vaut pour d’autres présences constatées. Y a-t-il un degré d’implication, lesquels ?… En ce sens, la demande d’enquête de l’actuel Président des USA me semble légitime. ***

Ces nombreux meetings tenus dans les coulisses du Palais de l’Europe, pendant les sessions de l’assemblée parlementaire, ne disposaient pas de traductions en langue française. A cet instant la personne d’Open dialogue m’a coupé la parole, mais j’avais insisté pour finir mon intervention en disant que le président français s’était exprimé en français. Le député italien Rempi a reconnu qu’il y avait une erreur technique concernant les traductions et qu’il fallait y remédier dans le futur.

* Au cours de cette réunion une projection d’information sur le tableau s’apparentait à un effet d’ d’influence recherché, n’ayant rien à voir avec les sujets traités, en matière des droits humains. Cette action transversale de manipulation des esprits à un but de division sans doute pour des enjeux de nature différente  aux actions du Conseil de l’Europe, et n’a pas sa place dans nos discussions.

Il est temps aussi de retrouver la sérénité lors des side events qui se déroulent pendant les sessions parlementaires.

Pour conclure mon propos de l’évolution de la discussion lors de l’APCE de juin puis d’octobre 2019, il se confirme que l’ambiance est plus sereine durant le Congrès de Pouvoirs locaux et régionaux d’Europe qui se tient du 29 au 31 octobre. Les rapports et débats relatifs à la Turquie et la Russie se sont déroulés dans une atmosphère nettement plus apaisée. L’on constate des progrès dans le dialogue demandé par les uns et les autres avec l’acceptation réciproque des points positifs mais aussi des lacunes à combler ou corriger. Le temps devrait faire son œuvre dès lors que l’on travaille dans une ambiance de respect les uns et des autres, ce qui convient bien à notre Institution.

Je n’avais quant à moi aucun doute à ce sujet depuis le début de l’affaire en constatant, puis en vérifiant les dérives en temps réel ; c’était assez triste et navrant. Il est heureux que nous ayons réussi à redresser la situation grâce au travail de fond réalisé.

 Bonne chance à tous pour la suite des événements.     




*1 ce temps à priori perdu *1 si l’on tire les leçons de cette expérience le dialogue pourra progresser pour éviter  situations de ce type







Posetioci: 54898159


Login Form

Upamti me

Izgubili ste lozinku?
Nemate nalog? Napravite nalog


RSS 0.91
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
ATOM 0.3

Other Menu


Hu Jia's prize brings SAKHAROV's wife to "EuroFora" on murders of Journalists Politkofskaya, Gongadze and Adali :

- Elena Bonner : "All Journalists' murders must be fully investigated", without Double Standards.                                                                                    

During a special Mega-Event to celebrate 20 Years of SAKHAROV Prize for "Freedom of Thought", attributed in 2008 by EU Parliament to jailed Chinese Cyber-Dissident Hu JIA, the move was reinforced by strongly criticizing the persisting impunity in three cases of Journalists' Murders, such as POLITKOVSKAYA in Russia, GONGADZE in Ukraine, and ADALI in Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus.

Any bureaucratic doubt about whether Cyber-dissidents like Hu JIA might have, or not, a right to be protected as all Journalists must be, particularly when they take risks to search, find and publish original and critical News on issues of general interest to the society, could not resist to the emotion provoked by the message of his Wife, Zeng JINYAN spectacularly transmitted at a big screen in EU Parliament's hemicycle :

- "The most important and most interesting thing he did was to ... say the Truth :.. to write about the phenomena he observed... He never stopped Publishing.. on websites, so that the Public could learn about the reality .. and understand it.  In my view, this has been his greatest contribution", stressed the young wife of the jailed man, eager to cite also the cases of other critical journalists who faced various kinds of "harassment".

 - "Welcoming all those who have suffered for defending Human Rights", EU Parliament's President, German MEP Hans Gert POETTERING, who had invited to Strasbourg all former Sakharov prize-winners from various Countries throughout the World, said that "China needs Europe, and Europe needs China : A great nation" with which "we want to have a good relationship", "association and ..friendship". "But we are never going to stop our fight for Human Rights, and No Government can expect this from us".

    - "It's impossible  to achieve goals of Peace, if Human Rights are left out. In fact, Peace and Human Rights are intrinsequaly linked", added POETTERING.

    It's in this spirit that MEPs adopted, on Thursday, a Resolution denouncing that "the criminal
investigation and trial following the murder of (a) Journalist ...raises serious concerns with regard to transparency and respect for the rule of law", when a "brutal killing has not yet been fully investigated and solved in a satisfactory way".

    The text refered to dissident Journalist "Anna POLITOVSKAYA", a critic of Tchechen conflict, killed some years ago in Moscow, where Russian Authorities have found, arrested and are currently judging two executants, while also searching to arrest also a 3rd one, allegedly escaped in Belgium. But they have not yet found the instigators.

     Similar texts were adopted recently also on dissident Ukranian Journalist Georgiy GONGADZE's murder, for which Ukranian Authorities have at least found, arrested and condemned 2 executants to 12 and 13 Years of jail, but not yet the instigators. For that purpose, they recently accepted an International Experts team to participate to the investigations.     

But, it's only for the Murder of dissident Turkish Cypriot Journalist ADALI, in the occupied territories of Cyprus, that Turkey has NOT yet found ANYONE responsible, and even claimed recently inside CoE that it would be "impossible" to do so !    

These astonishing differences exist despite the fact that ECHR condemned alike Ukraine and Turkey with 2 Judgements on the same year : 2005, for the murders of  Journalists GONGADZE and ADALI, strong critics of Corruption in Ukraine, and of Ankara's policies on mass-influx of Turkish Settlers in the Occupied Territories of Cyprus, respectively.    

Regarless of that, CoE's Committee of Ministers, who is entrusted with the duty to supervise execution of ECHR's judgements, has just asked Ukraine's Government to reply to further questions on Gongadze's murder before March 2009, while Turkey, curiously, got a longer postponement for answering questions on Adali's murder, until June...   

A comparison of these cases, raises serious questions about Double Standards :


    On Gongadze's murder, CoE's body speaks even about the participation of
"an INTERNATIONAL group of Experts" in the Investigation, (f.ex. of "Tape Recordings"), accepted by Ukraine.
    On the contrary, on Adali's murder, CoE is obliged to repeatedly ask (for a 2nd
time) Turkey whether, at least, it informed the victims' Family, or not...
On Gongadze's murder, CoE formally "recalls that the Committee (of Ministers) ..URGED the Ukranian authorities.. to TAKE ALL NECESSARY INVESTIGATIVE STEPS TO ACHIEVE CONCRETE and VISIBLE RESULTS in the INVESTIGATION, aimed at the Identification of the INSTIGATORS and Organisers of the Murder", and "STRONGLY INVITED the Ukranian Authorities to provide information on the PROGRESS IN THE INVESTIGATION", before MARCH 2009.

But, on Adali's murder, on the contrary, CoE's body merely .. "took note" of the "arguments presented by" Cyprus, which denounce the absence of any proof of new "investigation" by Turkey. Following Turkey's own suggestion (!), it simply "noted" that there is "no limitation period" for "any new element" to "lead potentialy (sic !) to a Re-Opening of the Investigation". Without saying who might find any such "new" fact, since Turkey stoped searching... It also POSTPONED the issue until .. JUNE  !
 -  On Gongadze's murder case, Ukranian Authorities already arrested and condemned, at least 2 suspects, to 12 and 13 Years of jail. And on Politkovskaya's murder at least 2 suspects are judged, and a 3rd one "wanted".

On the contrary, on Adali's murder case, the Turkish authorities simply claim that "it had not been possible to obtain new .. information .. on the basis of which criminal charges could be brought against ANY person" !...

Moreover,  a LETTER sent by Turkey ...2 Years after CoE's 2006 call to re-investigate anew Adali's murder case, is totally EMPTY of Facts ! As Cypus' Delegation denounced earlier, Turkey's Letter ONLY CLAIMS that a "New Investigation" was made without any result, but does NOT even cite ANY FACT to prove it :

F.ex.,on the crucial issue of the "MOTIVATIONS" behind Adali's murder, noted by ECHR, Turkey MERELY CLAIMS that "all allegations  were investigated; without result", but OMITS ANY FACT TO PROVE IT !..(It doesn't even remind which were these "allegations").. .

+ On ECHR's astonishment that the Turkish Occupation regime didn't produce any "BALLISTIC REPORT" on the Shots which murdered Adali, Turkey again repeats, 12 years later, that, still, even until now, "it  was not possible to obtain the BalisticReport"...

- As for the astonishing absence of key-WITNESSES' Testimonies, denounced by ECHR, Turkey agains repeats various pretexts avoiding to reveal anything, (Fex. that a person "left" the Occupied Territories  "on 2002", or that another witness was heard, but without revealing nothing of what he said, etc).

Turkey obviously "FAILS TO MEET THE CRITICISM made BY THE COURT" for lack of any efficient Investigation in Adali's case, concluded Cyprus' Government.
Replying to our Question which COMPARED these 3 outstanding cases of "JOURNALISTS MURDERS", Adali, Gongadze and Politkovskaya, in order to avoid "Double Standards" by asking from Ukraine and Russia more than what is asked EU candidate Turkey, many European personalities were critical /

They criticised Ankara's recent claim at the CoE to stop investigating, because it would be "impossible to find anyone" responsible for the 5 bullet shots which killed Kutlu ADALI in front of his Family Home, contrary to the other two Journalists' murders, where Ukraine and Russia at least arrested the executants, searching now for the instigators :


    - "Where was that ? In Turkish Occupied Cyprus ? WITHOUT ANY DOUBT : Any murder of Journalist should be investigated in full ! All these Murders must be investigated !", replied the famous SAKHAROV's wife, Elena BONNER to our question on Adali's case, compared to Gongadze and Politofskaya.

    Elena Bonner spoke us EXCLUSIVELY shortly after being honored by the President
of EU Parliament on the occasion of 20 Years of her husband's SAKHAROV Prize.

    A strong personality, Sakharov's wife even had to struggle against an anonymous EU staffer who, astonishingly, tried to stop her speaking when h heard our question on "Turkey" (!) : - "Please, let me translate, she continues
speaking, don't stop us !", had to cry Sakharov's daughter, (a Journalist
herself), who was translating her mothers' reply, (obliged to speak louder to
make her voice heard despite the harassment).. (= + Audio Proof !)

    Earlier, Elena Bonner also fustigated "Double Standards" at another case, on
Western countries' attitude vis a vis Kosovo and the Kurds : -F.ex. "You have
recognized a few 400.000 Kosovars as an "independent" country, but you still
deny that to 30 millions of Kurds in Turkey !", she denounced.
    - "This (ADALI's murder) is an issue which should be pursued by the Committee
for Human Rights. That's why we have one, and it's its duty to examine cases of
Journalists' murders as the one you referred to. You should bring the case in
front of that Committee", suggested in reply to our question on Adali, EU
Parliament's President, German MEP Hans Gert POETTERING.

    - "It's impossible  to achieve goals of PEACE, if HUMAN RIGHTS are left out :
in fact, Peace and Human Rights are intrinsequaly linked", added POETTERING.
    + "For us (European/International Federation of Journalists) it's clear :
Whenever a Journalist is Murdered, the Investigation should continue until
those Responsible are found !", replied earlier to another question on ADALI
EFJ/IFJ's Secretary General, Aidan WHITE.

    Speaking as a matter of General Principle, White asked us for "concrete data"
on the execution of ECHR's judgement on Adali case, in order to "look at it in
depth" and "make a formal statement", in comparison with the other Murdered
Journalist case, also pending at CoE's  Ministers for completing its execution,
on Ukranian Gongadze.
     From EU Rapporteur on Human Rights, vice-President of EU Parliament Liberties' Committee, MEP Giusto CATANIA, we were told that, since there is an ECHR judgement in both Adali and Gongadge's cases, "Turkey must naturally execute the judgement and make a full and efficient investigation, until those responsible for the Journalist's murder are found and punished".

    Even if "we (Catania's "EuroLeft" Group) support Turkey's EU perspectives, this does not mean that Ankara should not behave properly. On the contrary, it means that they have to meet tough conditions, particularly on Human Rights", was added on the occasion of Adali's murder case.

    Moreover, "since you raise the issue of Mr. Adali's muder as a part of a Series of Journalist's murders, including fex. Gongadze, Politkovskaya, ao., tthen we (EU) could also act together with CoE's Commissioner on Human Rights, Thomas HAMMARBERG, it was suggested.

    - "We (EU) must step up efforts against the problem of IMPUNITY : Real Peace cannot exist without Justice",  stressed also this week at EU Parliament in Strasbourg, French Minister on Human Rights, Mrs Rama YADE.


2009 EU Elections were won by Parties against Technocracy and Turkey's controversial EU bid, while the 1999-2004 Majority Abstention trend decelerated. What should be done in 2009-2014 ?


SMF Recent Topics SA

Copyright (c) 2007-2009 EIW/SENAS - EuroFora.net. All rights reserved. ISSN 1969-6361.
Powered by Elxis - Open Source CMS.