Strasbourg, 03/10/2012 (Agence Europe) - A full day of lively debates at the Council of Europe, two votes in the final stages and, running through it all, the fundamental question of relations between the Federation of Russia and the oldest of the pan-European institutions. These discussions, held on Tuesday 2 October, focused on two texts: the joint report by the Romanian Gygörgy Frunda (European People's Party, centre right) and Switzerland's Andreas Gross (Socialist) on the “honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation” (currently monitored by the monitoring committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a consultative body) and a recommendation aiming to transfer the responsibility for this procedure to the Committee of Ministers, an executive and binding body of the Council of Europe.
As one would expect, it was on the second of these texts that the gaps widened, ultimately ending up with its rejection, because the two-thirds majority required for its adoption was not achieved. On the Russian side, it would be an understatement to say that it was not accepted. The text went down so badly that Sergueï Narychkine, president of the Duma (lower chamber of the parliament), cancelled his trip to Strasbourg, where he was due to speak on Monday on the “construction of a Europe with no boundaries”. "We felt that my strategic proposals had few chances of being heard by a number of leaders of the Parliamentary Assembly and anti-Russian delegations”, he told Ria Novosti whilst, for its part, the Russian delegation to the Council of Europe was fully mobilised against what it saw as a national affront, a double standard aiming to apply an exemption procedure to Russia on the basis of dubious doubts.
Less unpopular than the recommendation and the contributions from the floor, but also taken badly by the Russian parliamentarians, was the monitoring report itself, which its authors saw as “well-balanced”. It documents positive points such as the ratification of the European Social Charter, the moratorium on the death penalty (but not yet its abolition), new procedures for the registration of political parties, the direct election of provincial governors, etc. But it also flags up serious retrograde steps, such as new restrictive laws on demonstrations, one penalising defamation, that categorising NGOs as foreign agents and the recent sentencing of the young women of “Pussy Riot”. All of these reasons for concern justify the keeping in place of the monitoring procedure, according to the PACE, which largely voted for it but without validating its transfer under the aegis of the Committee of Ministers. Fears of a chilly atmosphere between the Council of Europe and Russia, which is one of its principal financial contributors? Preference for sticking with soft diplomacy in the hope that it will be a more productive approach over the long-term? In any case, apprehension from certain delegations (particularly the one bringing together representatives of Azerbaijan) of creating a precedent of banging on the table leading to more binding monitoring. The rapporteurs declared themselves "disappointed" with the non-adoption of the recommendation, but “we would have been more disappointed if it had been simply withdrawn”, said Andreas Gross. “We were able to get our message across to the Council of Ministers and it was heard: we do not want to create art for art's sake”. In other words, the two parliamentarians do not want to draft monitoring reports for the sake of monitoring reports, create debates for their own sake. In the view of Andreas Gross and Gygörgy Frunda it is important that the measure of their conclusions is taken and that everybody plays their part, including the Committee of Ministers. The text contains 100 specific recommendations, none of them is more important than any other and the role of the Council of Europe is not to give up in the face of the fledgeling democratisation of Russia.
An unnatural cohabitation?
The Federation of Russia joined the Council of Europe in 1996, seeing this as recognition of its European identity, but committing by the same act to respect a number of criteria regarding human rights and the preeminence of the rule of law. Ten years later, it will hold the presidency of the Council of Ministers, particularly controversially as the first report of the monitoring committee - itself also set up in 1996 - reported serious democratic gaps in 2005. In 2012, although these shortcomings persist, it is mainly the regressions which are of concern to the rapporteurs of the monitoring committee, who are keen to get across a strong message both to the Russian authorities and to members of civil society who are coming together in order to move things forward. It is important for the Council of Europe not to lose its soul and its credibility in its cohabitation with a State which is “out of step” with its values. The credibility of its human rights function depends on this and the attitude of the Committee of Ministers is vital. (VL/transl.fl)