Ljubljana, 20/03/2008 (Agence Europe) - All the efforts of conciliation deployed for hours on end by MEPs and ACP parliamentary representatives (African/Caribbean/Pacific) to reach a compromise on the situation in Chad have been in vain. The Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) in Ljubljana on 20 March failed to adopt the proposed compromise albeit negotiated at length by both parties as the subject of an urgent resolution.
The reason for this was that there were too few ACP deputies willing to formally set out in an ACP/EU resolution on urgent matters their point of view on the situation in a country for which no representative was present in Ljubljana and could therefore not state his views. At the request of the ACP representatives, the vote by show of hands took place in separate rooms. Whilst the draft text was approved unanimously by MEPs, it did not win the majority of ACP votes (14 votes for, 24 against and 3 abstentions). This failure, which is in contrast to the adoption, of the urgent resolution on the situation in Kenya (EUROPE 9626) and all other resolutions (on food safety, on relevant experience gained from the regional integration process relevant for ACP countries and on the social and environmental consequences of structural adjustment programmes) gave rise to indignation on the part of many MEPs.
All the more as the draft resolution resulting from the compromise took up the main lines of the consensual debate held by the parliamentarians on 19 March, namely: - firm condemnation of the attempted but failed coup d'état by the Chadian revolutionary army; - the need, in addition to the non-aggression agreement sealed in Dakar on 13 March 2008 between Chadian President Idris Déby and Sudanese President Ouar El Béchir, for inclusive dialogue involving all parties, including the rebels; - firmer condemnation of attempts to kidnap children by the Arche de Zoé NGO, which was severely detrimental to human dignity and to fundamental human rights, and the hope that this operation will not have a lasting negative impact on the credibility and efficacy of humanitarian aid in the region; - the request of Chadian authorities to lift displacement restrictions imposed on humanitarian workers; - the invitation made to the EU to respect the strict neutrality and impartiality of the EUFOR force, which must reflect diversity of European Union member states, and establish a clear distinction between the deployment of forces in the context of the European security and defence policy and the French “Epervier” mission; - and the deep concern regarding the situation of Mahamed Saleh, spokesman for the opposition coalition of whom no news has been received since his arrest on 3 February 2008. The Joint Parliamentary Assembly holds the Chadian authorities directly responsible for his state of health, the draft text reads. The JPA stated its deep concern at United Nations reports on the recruitment of child soldiers in Chad.
These broad lines correspond to the point of view expressed by the European Commission represented during the debate by Stefano Manservisi, Director General for Development.
After the vote, Glenys Kinnock (British Labour member) and co-president of the JPA, spoke of her disappointment and expressed the hope that this result would not be detrimental to ACP/EU relations. “Our strength lies in our ability to do things together”, she pointed out. Speaking to the press, she said, on the subject of ACP parliamentarians, that it was not such an easy thing to raise one's hand to object to a vote. In the way it works, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly has no regulations on how one should act when the representative of a country is not represented during debates on the situation of his/her country, she stated.
“You are shooting yourself in the foot. We shall remember it”, exclaimed Michael Gahler (EPP-ED, Germany) addressing ACP parliamentarians, expressing the hope that such an incident will not happen again. Assarid Imbarcaouane, Vice-President of the National Assembly of Mali, who, on behalf of the ACP Group, had submitted the draft compromise resolution, retorted that Mr Gahler should not take offence. This is a parliamentary assembly and democratic procedures have been respected, he stressed, adding that “no-one is here to give lessons to the others”.
Marie-Hélène Aubert (Greens/EFA, France) nonetheless expressed regret that so much time had been spent drafting a compromise resolution which came to this result. “Concessions had been made on both sides. I feel disappointed and betrayed”, she said. Ana Maria Gomes (PES, Portugal) who had also taken part in the conciliation process, said she did not understand the argument put forward by the ACPs (centred round the absence of the only Chadian representative) given that the “resolution was important for the region as a whole”. Convinced that the resolution would have been adopted if the vote had taken place by secret ballot, she praised those who had the “courage” to vote. Although admitting his “disappointment”, Jürgen Schroeder (EPP-ED, Germany) “blamed no-one”. He went on to say: “everyone has their own opinion and no-one has any lesson to be learnt from the others, but when one says yes in writing and acts as spokesman for those who voted against, it is illogical”, he told the press, with reference to the Mali representative. According to Mr Schroeder, “a rule that would prevent any resolution on a country that is not represented would open the door to the possibility, each time such a problem arises, of preventing the JPA continue its work through the voluntary non-attendance of the country concerned”.
Answering reporters who asked whether the credibility of the ACP Group had not been jeopardised by this failure, Wilkie Rasmussen, who represents the Cook Islands and co-presides the JPA, played for time, saying: “It seemed as though an agreement were possible. My feeling was that the resolution would go through, but the ACPs were divided. The right to vote is a sovereign right. ACP parliamentarians exercised this right individually. The group's credibility is intact but this incident is an opportunity that should be seized to look more closely at the rules of procedure”. (A.N.)