Standing Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AS/Per (2013) PV 02 22 June 2013 Standing Committee Minutes1 of the meeting held in Yerevan (Armenia) on 31 May 2013 1 Approved by the Assembly on 24 June 2013. F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 33 AS/Per (2013) PV 02 1. OPENING OF THE MEETING Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, opened the meeting at 9 am. The Parliamentary Assembly shared and supported the priorities of the Armenian Chairmanship because they were fully consistent with the main lines of action of the Assembly, which would provide the Armenian Chairmanship with contributions and input in fields such as combating racism and xenophobia in Europe, the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue and strengthening the protection system established under the European Convention on Human Rights. The goal of reinforcing the role of the Council of Europe in the European architecture was to be welcomed as was the European commitment and the major progress on the path to building democratic societies in the three countries in the region – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. The Council of Europe needed these countries to ensure the success of the European project. Lastly, even though the Minsk Group was the international negotiation framework recognised by all parties, parliamentary diplomacy could play a part in a peaceful settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The President drew attention to the draft declaration on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh to be discussed under agenda item 6. 2. WELCOME ADDRESS BY MR HOVIK ABRAHAMYAN, SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF ARMENIA Mr Abrahamyan welcomed the Standing Committee. The European vector in Armenia’s development, which had been approved by the voters, was the choice dictated by a system of shared values and a desire to build a democratic state. The Armenian Chairmanship’s ambitious agenda dealt with common European challenges such as racism, xenophobia and intolerance. In today’s world marked by great movement of people, the cultural environment was becoming more and more diversified, which was leading to new political and social challenges. The Council of Europe needed to use its full range of legal instruments in order to tackle these challenges from a practical point of view. Like Europe, Armenia had been a historic crossroads of different civilisations and cultures, which had provided the basis for peaceful coexistence with mutual respect for cultures, religions and traditions. 3. EXCHANGE OF VIEWS WITH MR EDWARD NALBANDIAN, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ARMENIA, CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS CM/Inf (2013) 15 CM/Inf (2013) 16 Mr Nalbandian said that the Armenian Chairmanship of the Council of Europe was both an opportunity and a challenge. The Chairmanship’s priorities had been established in the light of common European challenges, including racism and xenophobia, which currently served as a means of political propaganda and encouraged hate crimes. To combat these trends, it was necessary to promote European values and intercultural dialogue. The Armenian Chairmanship would be involved in organising the High-Level Conference on Combating Racism and Xenophobia and Intolerance in Europe and would support activities carried out as part of the No Hate Speech Movement. In addition, the Council of Europe’s 2013 Exchange on the Religious Dimension of Intercultural Dialogue would be held in Yerevan. The Armenian Chairmanship would build upon the efforts of previous Council of Europe chairmanships aimed at strengthening the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the angle of continuing discussion of European standards on the rule of law, Armenia would host a conference on European Standards on the Rule of Law and the Scope of Discretion of Powers in the Member States of the Council of Europe. A Conference on Participatory Democracy would look at ways of boosting citizen participation in decision-making at local and regional level in the light of existing best practice. There would also be a particular focus on the issue of capital cities and their role in the development of local democracy. Education remained a priority for the Chairmanship, which would contribute to co-operation and dialogue in the area of higher education. Armenia would also pay special attention to the area of education for democratic citizenship and youth participation. In this context, Armenia would hold a Youth Policy Symposium, which would serve as a platform for exchange and furthering discussions on youth participation. Utmost importance would be attached to the cultural dimension of the Council of Europe’s activities aimed at raising European citizens’ awareness of the richness and cultural diversity of Europe. Lastly, the Armenian Chairmanship would contribute to the Council of Europe’s co-operation with international and regional organisations to optimise co-ordination and synergy of their efforts. 2 AS/Per (2013) PV 02 Many decisions taken at the 123rd ministerial session of the Council of Europe were important and relevant and geared towards consolidating and focusing the Committee of Ministers’ work. They included the decision to secure the long-term effectiveness of the supervisory mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights, the adoption of Additional Protocol No. 15 to the Convention on Human Rights and the approval of the report on the implementation of the Council of Europe policy towards neighbouring regions. The ministers had also approved the report prepared by the Ministers’ Deputies concerning co-operation with the European Union. EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights was eagerly awaited, as it would bring all of Europe together under the same standards and rules. In conclusion, increased co-operation between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly was vital, as the two bodies shared the same objective, which they addressed from the angle of their respective powers and responsibilities. Mr Volontè welcomed the consistency and continuity of the successive chairmanships’ priorities. Co- ordination between the two statutory bodies needed to be further consolidated, in particular in the area of monitoring the honouring of obligations and commitments by member states. Mr Nalbandian underlined the great store which the Committee of Ministers set by co-operation between the two bodies and their shared objectives of promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The interaction between the President of the Assembly and the Chair of the Committee of Ministers and between Assembly rapporteurs and the Committee of Ministers’ Rapporteur Groups had been stepped up. Looking for synergy did not necessarily imply identical points of view and approaches. He welcomed the Assembly President’s proposal for frequent exchanges with the Committee of Ministers and undertook to inform the Assembly regularly about the decisions taken by the Committee of Ministers. In reply to Mr Kox, who was surprised that the need to find a lasting solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and, more broadly, bring about reconciliation between Armenia and Azerbaijan was not included in the Chairmanship’s priorities, Mr Nalbandian, speaking in his capacity as Armenian Minister for Foreign Affairs, endorsed the efforts by international institutions, including the Council of Europe, to bring about a peaceful settlement to the conflict. However, only the Minsk Group had an international mandate for mediating and making proposals. Co-chaired by three countries – Russia, France and the United States – the group offered an effective format. The four declarations it had adopted in Aquila, Muskoka, Deauville and Los Cabos, which Armenia welcomed, formed a sound basis for settling the conflict. Moreover, Armenia subscribed to other declarations adopted by the OSCE ministerial councils in Helsinki in 2008, Almaty in 2009, Vilnius in 2011 and Dublin in 2012, as well as at the OSCE summit in Astana, and called for international community support for the positions expressed in these documents and for the efforts of the three Minsl Group co-chairs. In reply to Mr Mendes Bota’s request for details about the Chairmanship’s action concerning gender equality and combating violence against women and children, Mr Nalbandian indicated the determination of the Armenian Chairmanship to continue the efforts made by the previous chairmanships to step up the promotion of equality, which was one of the organisation’s founding values. In addition, the Chairmanship would implement the Council of Europe’s neighbourhood policy, with a particular focus on the countries of North Africa with the assistance of the North-South Centre. Mr Walter wondered what the Chairmanship’s view was concerning a peaceful settlement of the situation in Syria, given the diverging approaches among Council of Europe member states. A large number of Armenians lived in Syria. Mr Nalbandian underlined the Committee of Ministers’ ongoing concern regarding the situation in Syria. A declaration adopted on 9 May 2012 had condemned in the strongest terms the human rights violations committed since the start of the hostilities. As Minister for Foreign Affairs and a former ambassador in the region, Mr Nalbandian welcomed the agreement between Mr Lavrov and Mr Kerry on holding the Geneva 2 peace conference and said that it was necessary to understand why Geneva 1 had failed. It was vital to bring together all the opposition groups and the representatives of the Syrian authorities, as well as the major regional players with a view to finding a solution quickly, as the situation was getting worse and worse. No section of the population should be ignored. Although the success of Geneva 2 could not be guaranteed in advance, the international community had to do everything it could to put an end to the hostilities and reconcile the various communities by taking account of their fears and aspirations. The Armenian population in Syria, which had been put at between 120 000 and 140 000 people before the conflict, had declined substantially since the outbreak of the fighting and now totalled only 40 000 to 50 000 people.