| PRIMA News 18.7.2005 PACE tired of appearing foolish The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which for the last nine years has been examining Russia’s gross misdeeds, appears finally to have become tired of appearing blind, complacent and helpless. Resolution 1455, passed on 22 June, specifies that Russia, a member of the Council of Europe since 1996, has evaded its responsibilities defined by international obligations. While noting the complexities of this transitory period and the difficulties involved in democratic reform, the resolution clearly defines what Russia has not done during its membership of the Council of Europe. Russia has not formally abolished the death penalty; nor has it withdrawn its troops from Moldavia. In addition, those guilty of human rights violations in Chechnya have not been handed over to the courts. Reforms in the sphere of politics and administration do not conform to those set down by the Council. The resolution states that ‘the Assembly regards the (Russian) reform packet, introduced in autumn 2004 to strengthen the ‘vertical of power’, as a cause of serious concern, asit in many respects undermines the system of checks and balances necessary for the normal functioning of any democracy. For the appropriate functioning of a democracy, authority should not only become stronger vertically, but this should also take place horizontally too’. Changes to electoral legislation will effectively limit pluralism in Russia. ‘The considerably higher threshold at elections (7 per cent), the forbidding of pre-election coalitions, and the reduction in the minimum number of parties that must be represented in the Lower Chamber’ from 4 to 2, will considerably heighten the barrier into parliament, benefiting the parties already in the Duma. The new principles to form the Federal Council ‘are incompatible with basic democratic principles of division of power between legislative and executive organs.’ Recent suggestions to reform the judicial system (the appointment of judges to, and dismissal from, their posts) ‘could undermine the independence and impartiality of the judicial system in the Russian Federation’. The creation of a ‘Civic Chamber’ has caused bewilderment at the Council. It is ‘difficult to understand why it was necessary to create a body, the role of which is normally carried out by a pluralistic democratically-elected parliament on the one hand, and an independent and freely-working civic society on the other’, the PACE Resolution continued. An assembly delegation observed the last parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia. In both cases they ‘sharply criticised the biased presentation of events by the media, and the use of administrative resources to further the interests of the president and his political allies.’ The assembly, limited by the dictates of diplomatic protocol, has of course not stated in its resolution that the position of the Russian powers involves insincere political manoeuvres. But from the angry tone of the Resolution and the noticeably precise points raised in it, one can assume the answer to the question of ‘Who is Mr. Putin?’ is all too clearly understood. Resolution 1455 demands an ‘immediate halt to oppression and intimidation of civic leaders who criticise the authorities and, in particular, of journalists representatives of scientific and environmental bodies who have become victims of the unreasonable application of laws concerning defamation and state secrecy’. The assembly calls for the immediate ratification of report no. 6 concerning the abolishment of the death penalty. It notes a six year delay: stating ‘‘the initial deadline for completion of this duty was 1999, and other countries who have not carried out this measure have been subjected to sanctions.’ Concerning the situation in Chechnya, PACE DEMANDS ‘effective measures to immediately put an end to the continuing disappearances, torture, illegal detentions, holding people in custody in secret jails, extra-judicial killings; to bring to trial those guilty of human rights abuses, to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict, to strictly observe norms of international human rights conventions, to carry out the recommendations contained in reports from the European council for prevention of torture and consider the question of publication.’ PACE reminds in the report how it has been led by the nose all these years. The organisation demands Russia ‘unconditionally cooperate with the European court of human rights and carry out in full its decisions. To carry out in the army a policy of zero tolerance towards the problem of ‘Dedovshina’ (brutality towards recruits). And to examine the recently passed law on alternative civilian service ‘with the aim to change its disproportionately long character and bring it in line with European practice. To make active efforts in the struggle against violence and discrimination on ethnic and religious grounds. To improve the situation of the Meskhetian Turks in the Krasnodar region, and investigate cases of discrimination and oppression, and to punish transgressors. To guarantee the exclusion of any legal, administrative and tax discrimination against those with ‘non-conventional beliefs’, and carry out the federal law on freedom of worship in accordance with standards of the Council of Europe.’ To reform the judicial system in strict accordance with the guidelines set by the Council of Europe, to ‘effectively remove any doubt as to the fairness and independence of the Russian judicial system, arising in particular in connection with the heads of Yukos.’ To reconsider the law on the Federal Security Service, with a view to reducing its investigatory and law-enforcement powers to conform with principles and standards of the Council of Europe, and the acceptance of obligations whose realisation expired in February 1997. To transfer the Lefortovo and all other remand prisons, currently under the control of the Federal Security Service, to the Ministry of Justice.’ PACE unmistakeably condemned Russia for issuing its passports to citizens of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, thus undermining the sovereignty of Georgia. The assembly ordered Russia to pay compensation to ‘people who were deported from the occupied Baltic states, and their descendants’. And to quickly resolve all questions concerning the return of cultural goods, the demanded by members of the Council of Europe.’ Concerning in particular relations with Belarus, the assembly called on Russia to ‘link all political and economic assistance with the observance of human rights and freedom in Belarus.’ The resolution’s last point reads as follows: ‘In this context, the Assembly accepts the decision to continue monitoring of the Russian Federation’s carrying out its responsibilities and commitments until it shows meaningful progress, in particular concerning questions mentioned in this Resolution’. The long list of European reproaches towards Russia has provoked a similarly long list of insults in return, the first of which came from the head of the Russian PACE delegation, Konstantin Kosachev. Probably the worst insult for him was that 91 people voted for the resolution, and only 17 against. Not in agreement with many of the points in the resolution, Kosachev declared the resolution ‘absolutely unacceptable for Russia’. And he continued, speculating craftily, by saying Russia could reduce its payments to the Council of Europe for 2006. ‘The money which is paid, by Russia too, into the CE budget, is used by our opponents once again to conduct certain anti-Russian discussions’ ‘ so the head of the Russian delegation. The General Secretary of the EC, Terry Davis, replied it was Russia’s right to choose to remain a major financer of the EC, as it had been Russia’s decision to be one of the major financer’s of it. But a reduction in in Russian payments, according to Terry Davis, would not mean the difference be compensated by other countries. ‘I shall reduce the volume of work and number of people occupied with it. But Russia will not decide what work is reduced.’ Davis made it clear that while the amount of work might decrease, its quality would remain as before, as demonstrated in Resolution 1455. Perhaps European politicians have started to understand how foolish they appear, indulging the dictatorial tendencies of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. The failure of the referendum in the Netherlands and France, if not torpedoing their political arrogance, may at least have forced them to reflect on their role in the Europe of nationalities. Or maybe on their role with regard to freedom and human rights, on which the majority of European documents are based. Friendly relations with tyrants, and silence concerning their crimes simply unties their hands and encourages them in their evil deeds. However, presenting true information and condemning tyranny can bring them to fall, even if ostensibly strong and durable. Moreover, strong moral condemnation could warn society against tyrants to come, and stop the drift towards tyranny before it is too late. Alexander PODRABINEK Translated Michael Garrood |