Council of Europe: Why Russia Should Stay | Europe | '
After a five-year break, Russia is allowed to vote again in the PACE Parliamentary Assembly, despite opposition from Ukraine, Georgia and other countries. In 2014, Russia was deprived of voting rights due to the annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea. In June 2017, Moscow then stopped paying its membership fees of around 33 million euros a year – around nine percent of the Council of Europe's annual budget. ‘ spoke to Dr. Andreas Nick (CDU), Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Head of the Delegation of the German Bundestag.
Deutsche Welle: Dr. Ing. Nick, at the moment we are discussing the return of the Russian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg. What is the German position on this?
Dr. Andreas Nick: We have an unchanged position on material issues, such as the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine and the Sea of Azov. But we believe that Russia, with all its rights and responsibilities, should remain a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In particular, we are concerned with ensuring access to the European Court of Human Rights for the 140 million citizens of the Russian Federation, but also that the Council of Europe can fulfill its role as a forum for dialogue and exchange, including on difficult issues between the Member States. And there the Russian Federation is an indispensable partner.
In 2014, Russia was sanctioned for invasion and annexation of parts of Ukraine and its voting rights suspended in the PACE. Is the return of the Russian delegation right, although Russia has made no effort to improve the situation?
Our assessment of these issues – Crimea, Donbas, Sea of Azov, but also the human rights situation in the Russian Federation – remains unchanged. Just last week in the European Union, we once again unanimously extended the sanctions on these issues.
To distinguish from this is the question of whether one can achieve any progress with the exclusion of a country from the Council of Europe. I believe that the Council of Europe has a mandate that focuses primarily on the protection of human rights and the rule of law in pluralist democracy. Access to the Human Rights Court is a crucial date for Russia's citizens. Access by the Council of Europe's bodies, such as the Commissioner for Human Rights, to the territory of Russia is also one of the demands in the room.
Andreas Nick, Head of the German Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
The colleagues from the Russian Federation will have to face difficult debates here, even this week. We have a debate on the investigation of the murder of Boris Nemtsov (Russian opposition politician shot dead in Moscow in 2015 – d., There will be a debate on the state of the investigation into the launch of the MH17 aircraft. In this respect, this is an important forum to be able to exert a positive influence on Russian society in particular.
In German media, the opinion is voiced that Europe's decision to allow the return of the Russian delegation sends a wrong sign to the autocracy. What do you think?
I always tend to make politics not from a symbolic point of view, but from concrete results. No-one has yet been able to explain to me what would be better in the situation in Donbass, in the Crimea or in the Russian Federation if we had forced the withdrawal of Russia from the Council of Europe.
Ukraine threatens to suspend its participation in PACE if the Russian delegation is to get back the voting rights. How would you comment that?
I think the last word has not been spoken yet. We have parliamentary elections in Ukraine later this month, after which the Rada in Kiev will have a new delegation anyway. After all, what one can suspect today, the probably personnel and politically will be very differently composed.
Ukraine threatens to suspend its participation in the Parliamentary Assembly
I think that would be a big mistake in leaving the Council of Europe. I think it would be a missed opportunity and would certainly hurt Ukraine in the overall picture.
Could the financial question be one of the reasons for the return of the Russian delegation? On your website you write that the payment of outstanding contributions from Russia could avoid a financial crisis in the Council of Europe.
I have never spoken of the financial crisis but of the institutional crisis. The financial question is a subordinate one. It is about the retention of a country in the organization, the access of its citizens to the Court of Human Rights and the opportunity for an intensive dialogue in the public forum of the Parliamentary Assembly, also on the critical issues concerning the Russian Federation.
On your side is, however, I quote: "It is expected that Russia then pays its outstanding contributions and thus a financial crisis in the Council of Europe can be avoided."
That was just a description of the situation. The moment the Russian Federation pays its contributions, of course, the financial crisis is gone. I've just defended myself against the assumption that the financial issue is the key motivation behind yesterday's decision. She certainly is not. And for that you will find no evidence in my remarks.
The interview was conducted by Kateryna Ivanova
ليست هناك تعليقات