Photo courtesy of the press service of the AK Pushkov
The head of the Duma committee on international affairs, the first deputy head of the Russian delegation to PACE, Alexei Pushkov, told “Izvestia” how far can go disagreements Russia and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council Europe, and that may serve as the resumption of cooperation with the European parliamentarians.
– Alexey why it was made a decision – to refuse to go to the January session, but at the same time to pay one third of the contribution the Council of Europe?
– The decision was taken due to the fact that in our opinion, the PACE did not create the conditions for lifting the sanctions against our delegation, and in a continuation of sanctions we are not prepared to work in this organization . We believe that dialogue can only wear equal nature and not the nature of the dictates of one country, in this case the PACE, in relation to another, in this case Russia. And this is the “dialogue”, to which we are pushing an anti-Russian part of the PACE. For this dialogue, we are not ready.
We have reliable information that a number of delegations, particularly from the Nordic countries – Sweden, Poland, Baltic States – were preparing to put the issue of further restrictions on the powers of the Russian delegation. If we took part in this session, the authority, as well as in 2014-2015, have been confirmed, but with the same restrictions of sanctions that have been taken against us.
We also know that the delegations of the leading continental EU countries not intended to be the initiators of new sanctions against Russia. However, some of these delegations could support the initiative to extend the sanctions. This situation does not give a guarantee that the sanctions against our delegation will be removed. And we are ready to return to PACE only if its rejection of these sanctions.
In addition to this session, most actively preparing Ukrainian side. Ukrainian ambassador was instructed to visit the Parliament of the Council of Europe and to achieve the consent of parliamentary delegations to support the Ukrainian position on the need to resume the sanctions against the Russian delegation. This activity was conducted in November-December last year. In these circumstances, we would not allow our opponents to turn the PACE January session to another exercise in Russophobia. We believe that we have more important things to do than attend the meaningless for us Russophobian carnivals, which enable the delegations that have little impact on European politics, show themselves almost as arbiters of the fate of Europe. Now that we have refused to participate in the January session, all this preparation will come to nothing, and all of these delegations will only have to shake the air.
– Is it possible to extend the sanctions to Russian delegation without our participation?
– to limit our authority is impossible because we have not asked. How can I limit what is not, and you do not ask? Impossible. Therefore, even those anti-Russian resolution to be adopted at this session, will leave in the sand. Without our participation of all this is meaningless. Well, there will be another anti-Russian text. But from it will not have any consequences, because, firstly, all the decisions of PACE are advisory in nature, and secondly, without our involvement with these resolutions lose much of its meaning. The main event of the January session was supposed to be an attack on Russia, but now it will not.
With regard to the financial contribution, it is today a decision before the end of February to pay his third of the Council of Europe, because individual contributions to PACE not, and then observe how the situation will develop within the organization. So it decided to pay one-third – Russia simply demonstrates that it does not welcome the steady anti-Russian tendencies in PACE and makes it clear that Russophobia of the PACE may have financial implications.
– This part of the financial contribution – of the two-year or is it an annual payment?
– This is a third of the annual fee, which we have to pay until the end of February. This amount of – € 10 million. Statute of the Council of Europe stipulates that countries have the right to pay an annual fee or a two-year fee. When was relatively normal situation, many countries, including Russia, have listed just a few years. It was such a demonstration of confidence in the Council of Europe.
– And now it is the confidence of the Russian left? Earlier, including by Sergei Naryshkin, heard the words that Russia could even withdraw from the Council of Europe, if the policy of sanctions will not stop. Do you consider such a scenario today?
– Russia does not intend to leave the Council of Europe. There are political forces which are more or less willing to look objectively at the developments, in particular on the situation of human rights violations in Ukraine. In this regard, revealing the position of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland, who initiated the establishment of a special commission of the Council of Europe to investigate the tragic events in Odessa, May 2, 2014. Recently, a report on the results of the commission, where it was said that the Ukrainian side has not provided a proper investigation, that is all it is not held. In addition, we do not intend to leave the organization, which includes almost all countries of the European space – 47 countries – only because of the PACE formed anti-Russian majority, which is anti-Russian ecstasy takes inadequate solutions contrary to the principles of democracy and the European parliamentary system.
>
We believe that Europe is more than the PACE, and certainly the majority that voted for the sanctions to our delegation. On the European continent and in the European Union there are significant political forces that require the removal of all sanctions against Russia. For example, in France it is the majority of political forces. Besides the party of President Francois Hollande, all in favor of lifting the sanctions.
Through their actions, today we want to say that is not going to turn away from our partners in Europe. Relations with them are stored. Therefore, out of the Council of Europe would present Russophobia such a gift and we are not going to do, but a temporary refusal to work in PACE because of the inadequacy of those sentiments that emerged in the organization – it is a temporary step, but necessary. Perhaps it will contribute to the realization of the same Assembly of the Council of Europe that the importance of this organization in the absence of Russia has been steadily declining because of the PACE in fact excluded from the discussion of the Ukrainian crisis. It is impossible to discuss the crisis with only one party – the Ukraine. By its actions, the PACE itself isolated itself from us and thus the active participation in finding solutions to the crisis in Ukraine.
– Now if we pay the third installment, we still expect that some dialogue and cooperation is possible. In your opinion, when will we see it in reality – in February and March and it will be much later.
– I think that the logic of anti-Russian sanctions in the EU, and within the framework of the PACE itself is gradually becoming obsolete. I say this for two reasons. Firstly, it is clear that the subject of sanctions by the summer will be re-considered in the framework of the European Union. As you know, in the EU on this issue there is complete unity. It is no accident in the EU, it was decided to extend the sanctions for six months without further discussion. This was done just because such a discussion sanctions policy could lead to a large crack in the position of the EU on Russia.
By the summer is automatic renewal of sanctions against Russia will hardly be, because the sanctions negative about a group of countries – EU members. Rather, the EU will begin the process that may lead to the fact that in the summer or during the second half of 2016 will begin revision of the sanctions. And this will inevitably affect the PACE, because the majority of national delegations composed of deputies of the ruling parties in the EU and, of course, they can not take into account the position of the leadership of their party and government. How else?
We also know that the leaders of a number of governments often give direct installation of their delegates to the PACE – how to vote on a particular issue, what position to occupy which candidate to support. So naturally, while the EU has not begun the process of reviewing the sanctions against Russia, PACE will not change its position on the issue. But when the EU will mature decision on the revision of the sanctions policy in relation to Russia, and this will affect the position of PACE.
Finally, it should be noted that January session of the PACE leadership will be re-elected. And instead of Anne Brasseur, which has done little to overcome the crisis in relations with Russia, will elect a new President of the Assembly. Presumably, they will be the Spaniard Pedro Agramunt. We hope that Mr Agramunt, who always had a more balanced approach to Russia will be able to begin to restore dialogue with Russia. If the new leadership of the PACE will offer meaningful dialogue with us, I do not rule out that we may reconsider our current position on the failure of contacts with the leadership of the PACE.
– Now, those contacts do not have?
– Yes, the Russian delegation rejected such contacts in early 2015 after the extension of sanctions against Russia.
– We know that at the recent sessions of the main requirements for Russia are returning Crimea to Ukraine, the release of Hope Savchenko, withdrawal of Russian troops from the south-east of Ukraine. Will PACE go for the lifting of sanctions when these requirements?
– These requirements are unrealistic or even utopian, especially in regard to the Crimea. You can not seriously apply to the request for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the south-east of Ukraine, as there is no internationally recognized the existence of our troops in the territory. The ability to get out of this impasse will be if the PACE will refuse to support the proposals on the further limitation of our powers. If such proposals are not supported, then we will return to full operation in the Assembly. And all of these resolutions will be part of its history – no more than that.
->
No comments:
Post a Comment