CHECHNYA LINKS LIBRARY

Situation in Georgia and the consequences for the stability of the Caucasus region

A provisional version of the verbatim of the debate on the situation in Georgia at PACE on 25 September 2002.

Situation in Georgia and the consequences for the stability of the Caucasus region

            THE PRESIDENT. – The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report on the situation in Georgia and the consequences for the stability of the Caucasus region presented by Ms Lörcher on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, Document 9564.

            The list of speakers closed at 7 p.m. yesterday. Nineteen names are on the list and eight amendments have been tabled.

            I remind you that we agreed earlier that, in order to conclude the debate by 1 p.m., we shall interrupt the list of speakers at 12.35 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the votes. I call Ms Lörcher, the rapporteur, who has eight minutes.

            Ms LÖRCHER (Germany) said that Georgia was a land of immense cultural heritage. There had always been tensions in the Caucasus. When Georgia had acceded to the Council of Europe in 1999 there had been great expectations about its economic development and growing stability but the situation, which had been discussed by the Assembly, was not so good. The economy was deteriorating and the GDP was the lowest in the Southern Caucasus. The population, which had been more than 5 million in 1990 but was now just 3.9 million due to emigration and a decreasing birth rate. There was also political pressure and a solution was needed to the problems in Abkhazia.

            The Assembly had discussed the conflict in 2001. Since then, relations with Russia had worsened. Although there had been talks, tensions between the countries had worsened and a number of incidents had been reported. The presence of the United States military had reassured some but worried others.

            The report described the crisis areas and the draft had been discussed three times. She thanked the committee and Secretary General. The report demanded that there be no military interference, especially for members of the Council of Europe. All members had agreed to this except Russia. Constructive dialogue was necessary and the visit of the special representative of the Secretary General to Tbilisi was welcome. The report had already had positive results in that Russia and Georgia had agreed to permit a Council of Europe fact-finding mission. It was essential that this should not be a time wasting exercise as greater stability was urgently required in the region. The poverty in the region should be tackled as a matter of urgency.

            She thanked those involved in the preparation of the report and paid tribute to the unarmed OSCE observers in the border area.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. In the debate, I call first Mr Eörsi on behalf of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Group.

            Mr EÖRSI (Hungary). – First, I congratulate our rapporteur. She presented a brilliant summary of the situation in Georgia. We all remember that when Georgia was accepted as a member of our Organisation, it had a troubled history but was a country full of hopes. We believed that with accession there would be huge developments and enhancement of democracy.

            I know Georgia relatively well. The people are great and the politicians are smart. However, we must face the truth and recognise that the situation is devastating. The economy is down. Unfortunately, as in many countries, when the economy is bad, corruption is high. One of the greatest problems, which is unique to a member state of the Council of Europe, is how the state itself has been destabilised. I shall touch on that, as I did when I spoke on the progress report.

            Members of happier countries in Europe may criticise the television series called Big Brother. However, the imminent threat for Georgia is that of big brother. The big brother, Russia, is still, partly at least, responsible for what is happening in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Passports are being provided for people living in those areas. There is hidden political support for politicians in those regions who would like to see them become separate countries from Georgia.

            We all know that there was a military conflict between Georgia and Russia, with one country bombing the other. I do not want to cast all the blame on Russia. It is clear, especially after 11 September 2001, that Georgia is responsible for keeping the borders clear and not allowing Chechen terrorists on its territory. The Council of Europe, together with international communities, should help to prevent terrorists coming over the border. We must provide for a secure border. However, even if Georgia is also responsible for the situation, it cannot be accepted by any member country that aeroplanes should be used to bomb another member country in trying to find a military solution for the problem.

            We can do much in assisting reconciliation between Russia, the big brother, and Georgia. I hope that the fact-finding mission will help. We must discuss the issue and provide forums to enable the two sides to continue a dialogue. I am glad that Mr Rogozin and Mr Zhvania have suggested that the two parliaments should start to investigate the issues together. That is the way to overcome the problems that are being experienced.

            The difficulties are enormous but the Council of Europe has been successful in solving similar conflicts. I am optimistic – I take a positive view – that Georgia will have the life that it deserves. I finish by saying madlobt, which in Georgian means thank you very much.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gross on behalf of the Socialist Group.

            Mr GROSS (Switzerland) said he was pleased that the publication of the report allowed the Assembly to discuss this important subject, because, if not, an emergency debate would have been required.

            Georgia had been referred to in a poor light and compared to Iraq. Threatening member states with the use of force was not compatible with membership of the Council of Europe and he noted that such threats had been made by Russia.

            While the standards of the United Nations were high, those of the Council of Europe were better. The Assembly should do everything possible to make clear that there was no justification for any military action.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kelemen, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

            Mr András KELEMEN (Hungary). – As the Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights at the time, I supported the invitation extended to Georgia to become a member of the Council of Europe. For Georgians, membership was seen as recognition of the fact that Georgians are undeniably Europeans. For the Council of Europe, it was important to emphasise that our common values – democracy, human rights and the protection of minorities – were also applicable in the Caucasus region.

            At that time, observers found a strong determination and willingness to take on board European legislation. However, it was difficult, because of the problem of separatism and Moscow’s attitude to the region, to escape from the mentality left over from the Communist era and to build a western-type democracy.

            In this report, Ms Lörcher provides a clear insight into a process that could lead to the destabilisation of Georgia. On the one hand, problems are caused by Georgia’s geopolitical position and by the situation that is arising from the international fight against terrorism. As a partner in that fight, Russia has been emboldened increasingly to intervene in conflicts involving Georgia by supporting Abkhaz and Ossetian separatism while fighting against Chechen separatism on the other side of the border. That leads one to the conclusion that Russia has felt authorised to send armed forces into Georgian territory or to conduct air strikes against it. On the other hand, internal events in Georgia, such as the lack of a minority law on the basis of our Recommendation 1201, the recent loss of a parliamentary majority and the abuse of authority during the local elections, have weakened the democratic process and endangered solutions to existing conflicts.

            In the light of recent events, it is clear that stability in Georgia is threatened. Despite the fact that Georgia has maintained a friendly neutrality towards Russia throughout the entire Chechen conflict, the authorities of the Russian Federation have accused Georgia of sheltering Chechen fighters. As the rapporteur highlighted, “no major groups were spotted crossing the border” and “it does not seem likely that the Pankissi valley serves in any meaningful manner as an active base for the Chechen fighters”. Russian military intervention would clearly be a threat, not just to the Chechens but to the country’s stability, and that could impede continued democratisation in Georgia.

            On behalf of the EPP, I ask the Parliamentary Assembly, the President and the Secretary General to recommend that the Committee of Ministers supports dialogue between the Georgian and Russian authorities on unilateral Russian measures affecting Georgian citizens, and also promotes Georgian efforts to avoid conflict and to find a peaceful political solution to the tensions created by the Russian plan to intervene in the Pankissi gorge.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mrs Vermot-Mangold.

            Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD (Switzerland) described the situation in Georgia as hopeless. It was connected to problems of corruption and military intervention by Russia. The displaced Ossetians lived in dreadful conditions and their children had no opportunity for education nor integration into Georgian society at large.

            The situation in the Southern Caucasus was worsening. It was unacceptable that two Council of Europe member states should be engaged in armed conflict. It was imperative that they engaged in talks. If it did not agree to this, Russia would be open to the criticism that it was profiteering, since wars were good business for arms dealers.

            It must be made clear that Russia could not have a blank cheque as a result of the fight against terrorism.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Klich.

            Mr KLICH (Poland). – One of the most disturbing consequences of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon has been the increased use of force in international politics. The anti-terrorist campaign launched by the United States and its allies has created a favourable climate for the use of military solutions in situations that until recently were dealt with through negotiation and by diplomatic means. That campaign justifies the use of force in other cases in which it was previously unjustified. What is more, it provides an excuse for stronger countries to impose their will on weaker ones under the pretext of combating terrorism.

            That is certainly true of the conflict between Russia and Georgia. President Putin delivered an ultimatum to the Georgian authorities on the anniversary of the events of 11 September by ordering the military commanders of the Russian Federation to plan an operation against Chechen fighters in Georgian territory. A day later, in a letter to the UN and the OSCE, he accused Georgia of not complying with the UN’s anti-terrorist resolution. The threat of resorting to force was expressed clearly in that letter.

            The pressure on Tbilisi to give its consent for Russian intervention has increased since Russia joined the anti-terrorist coalition led by the United States, and was reinforced by several cross-border incidents, such as the landing of Russian troops in the Kodori valley or the bombing of the Pankissi valley by unmarked Russian aircraft. Those incidents are intended to demonstrate that the authorities in Tbilisi have lost control of Georgian territory. Observers conclude that by destabilising Georgia, Russia wants to discourage the west from any involvement in the region and to force Georgia to reshape its foreign policy.

            The Russian accusations that Tbilisi supports terrorists are strange to say the least. Remember that Georgia was one of the first states of the Commonwealth of Independent States to join the anti‑terrorist campaign by opening its airspace to aircraft headed for Afghanistan. Secondly, it responded to the information about the presence of al-Qaeda terrorists in the Pankissi valley by inviting 200 American military instructors to train Georgian security forces in combating terrorism. Finally, Georgia launched a large-scale search for terrorists among Chechen refugees in the Pankissi valley. Are the Russian accusations credible in the light of those facts?

            The Council of Europe cannot remain passive when one of its members threatens another with the use of force to achieve its own goals, especially if military dominance is used on the pretext of defending a righteous cause. The conflict might lead to another war in the Caucasus, so the recommendations in the report should be recognised as fully justified and quickly implemented.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

            It is now nearly 12.30 p.m. Does any member still wish to vote in the election of a member of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain?

            I call Mr Zhvania.

            Mr ZHVANIA (Georgia). – At any other time, I would speak about the problems facing Georgia today, but today I have four minutes in which to explain the issue that has become the main concern of most of Georgia’s citizens.

            On 11 September, President Putin declared that Russia would draw up plans for military action against Georgia and ordered his general staff to draft a special military action plan. That was followed two days later by a statement by the chief of the Russian general staff that such a plan had already been drawn up. Two days after that, Russian Defence Minister Ivanov declared that the Russian army – one of the world’s largest armies – was at ten-minute alert status; that is, within ten minutes of receiving the President’s order, military action against Georgia could be launched. Simultaneously, the Russian Duma adopted a resolution stating that Russian citizens living in Abkhazia and South Ossetia – people who were freely given Russian passports despite criticism uttered in this very Hemicycle only three to five months ago – were under threat of terrorist action on Georgian territory.

            The Assembly should understand how citizens of Georgia – a small country – have been feeling over the past two weeks. We will hear our Russian counterparts trying to justify and legitimise Russia’s violation of the most basic principles of international law and the Council of Europe by starting military action against Georgia. From the Georgian perspective, none of those arguments will come close to the reality that we are witnessing in our country today. We welcome the creation of a fact-finding mission that will enable the Council of Europe to obtain first-hand information, free from partial interpretation.

            Russia is cynically accusing Georgia of having created the problem of terrorism in Russia. We Georgians know very well that the Chechen terrorists who blew up houses in Moscow and other Russian cities were trained only seven or eight years ago on special Russian military bases to take part in the war against Georgia in Abkhazia, and that afterwards they started their terrorist actions against Russia. Our understanding is clear: Russia is using the current international anti-terrorist campaign to solve its political problems in the Southern Caucasus.

            We seek the Council of Europe’s support. I am grateful to all those who have spoken today. We must ensure that all of us remain faithful to the principles on which this institution is founded. We believe in one Europe united by values and freedom, not divided into spheres of influence as it was during the cold war.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The ballot for electing a member of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain is now closed.

            The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Ms Lībane and Mr Olekas. I invite them to go at once to Room 1087.

            The results of the election will be announced by the President at the beginning of this afternoon’s sitting.

            I call Mr Akhvlediani.

            Mr AKHVLEDIANI (Georgia). – First, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Ms Lörcher for the important and useful work that she carried out in preparing the report. I am happy that the Parliament Assembly of the Council of Europe, and its Secretary General, Mr Schwimmer, are paying so much attention to Georgia. The report perfectly reflects current developments in my country and the difficulties accompanying the evolution of new democracies. To be honest, I might not need four minutes – I can probably say what I want to say in a minute or so.

            Georgia is massively concerned by the burden of violated territorial integrity. It has hundreds of thousands of refugees and serious social problems, and is now faced by the threat of imminent military aggression. The recent obviously aggressive statements by the Russian authorities proved that. Regrettably, it appears that Russia has no regard for the sovereignty of a neighbouring country. It seeks in Georgia the reason why the policy pursued on its own territory, in Chechnya, failed.

            Georgia is a good neighbour, always advocating equal relations with Russia, whereas the Russian authorities do not refrain from treating with contempt both in words and in action our country’s statehood. Russia openly supports Abkhaz separatists, has conducted an unprecedented propaganda campaign against Georgia, violates international norms and roughly interferes in Georgia’s affairs.

            I appeal once again to Russian colleagues and to the Russian authorities to give up such actions and try to solve the current problems via negotiation and the demonstration of mutual respect. Georgia’s whole society and political forces, whatever their orientation, unanimously support the President of Georgia’s consistent policy aimed at avoiding the threat from the Russian side. I am convinced that the Council of Europe and other international organisations will use all their influence on Russia to prevent Georgia becoming involved in a new conflict.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Rogozin.

            Mr ROGOZIN (Russia Federation) thanked the President for the chance to speak and said it was a shame that he could not take his Georgian colleagues to court for insulting the dignity of the leadership of Russia. He wished to analyse the situation. Were there terrorists in Georgia? He thought there were and noted the recent kidnap of OSCE observers who were released on condition that they remained silent on their ordeal. Georgia said that it had searched for terrorists on its territory but had found none. This was because Georgia was in cahoots with the terrorists. He could prove that there were terrorist bases in Georgia and that there was co-operation between Georgian special forces and terrorists. There were links between Mr Shevardnadze and terrorists.

            Russia’s only demand on Georgia was that it stop helping terrorists. It held thirteen terrorists and had not handed them over. In fact, it was sponsoring terrorism. Georgia was an evil state. Only the Security Council of the United Nations could authorise the use of force and it recognised the need for self‑protection. Surely Russia should not be the only state that did not have the right to defend itself.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I must now interrupt the list of speakers. I remind members whose names are on the list and who are present in the Chamber but who have not been called that they may submit their speeches in typescript to the Table Office in Room 1083 within twenty-four hours of the end of the debate for publication in the official report.

            I call Ms Lörcher, the rapporteur. She has four minutes.

            Ms LÖRCHER (Germany) said, in response to comments by Mr Rogozin, that there were terrorists in almost all countries but this was no justification for military action. There was a difference between military and police operations. The police authorities should co-operate more closely in the drive against terrorism and other crimes such as trafficking. There was no such thing as purely good or evil as both were everywhere. There were some positive aspects to this situation such as support from international organisations and NGOs but this had not been effective enough. Georgia must ensure that terrorists are legally prosecuted and that corruption is brought to an end. All members agreed that the Council of Europe had standards and these did not include recourse to military operations. Displaced persons were living in impossible conditions. The efforts of the Council of Europe, Russia and Georgia to find a peaceful solution had to continue.

            (Mr Schieder, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Gürkan.)

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the Chairperson of the Political Affairs Committee, Mr Jakič. He has two minutes.

            Mr JAKIČ (Slovenia). – The committee discussed Georgia intensely. Concern was expressed about the conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is affected by the conflict in the Chechen Republic.

            We are also concerned about something radical happening between Russia and Georgia, which would have broader consequences for stability in the region. I thank Ms Lörcher for taking responsibility for preparing the report. She formulated the recommendations, which aim to find a political solution to the conflict and to reinforce the climate of confidence in the Caucasus.

            The Political Affairs Committee fully supports that approach, and as its chairman I warmly welcome the agreement and joint amendment proposed by Mr Zhvania and Mr Rogozin to send a fact‑finding mission of the Assembly to Moscow, Tbilisi and the conflict area. Ms Lörcher and her committee advocate a political and not a military solution.

            I apologise for the fact that the committee was unable to examine the amendments, but it was involved in seven debates.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

            The debate is closed.

            The Political Affairs Committee has presented a draft recommendation in Document 9564, to which eight amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the notice paper: 1, 3, 2, 8 and 4 to 7. I advise the Assembly that if Amendment No. 3 is adopted, Amendment No. 2 will fall. I remind the Assembly that speeches on amendments are limited to one minute.

            We come now to Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Rogozin, Mr Slutsky, Mr Margelov, Mr Tulaev, Mr Bakulin, Mr Popov, Mr Khripel, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Nessa, Mr Neguta and Mr Christodoulides, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 2, add a new paragraph as follows:

            “The presence of terrorists on the territory of Georgia, as recognised by the international community, creates a threat to the security not only of Georgia but of its neighbouring states, and to regional stability as a whole. In the fight against terrorism, all the means provided for by the UN Statute, by the appropriate UN Security Council resolutions and the international practice, should be used.”

            I call Mr Rogozin to support Amendment No. 1.

            Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that the text should recognise international law which allowed action to be taken. He supported the amendment.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

            I call Mr Landsbergis.

            Mr LANDSBERGIS (Lithuania). – The terrorists who killed border guards in July 1991 have been identified but given safe havens in Russia. An agreement has been reached to ensure co-operation with Lithuanian law and order bodies. The top terrorist who organised attempts to kill President Shevardnadze, Igor Gorgadze, is being sheltered in Moscow, but an agreement has been reached to extradite him to Georgia. Neither Lithuania nor Georgia intends to use all the means provided by the United Nations statute, so we must be reasonable and reject the proposed precedent.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

            The voting is open.

            Amendment No. 1 is rejected.

            We come now to Amendment No. 3, tabled by the following members: Mr Rogozin, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Nessa, Mr Neguta and Mr Christodoulides, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 5.

            I remind the Assembly that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, Amendment No. 2 will fall.

            I call Mr Rogozin to support Amendment No. 3.

            Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that international law permitted a country to defend itself. Those who supported paragraph 5 were mistaken or did not understand the situation, which was why he supported the amendment to delete it.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

            I call Ms Lörcher to speak against the amendment.

            Ms LÖRCHER (Germany) opposed the amendment, saying that self-defence did not allow a country to invade another country’s territory unilaterally.

            THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

            Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

            We come now to Amendment No. 2, tabled by the following members: Mr Slutsky, Mr Margelov, Mr Tulaev, Mr Bakulin, Mr Popov, Mr Khripel, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Nessa, Mr Neguta and Mr Christodoulides, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 5, delete the words “do not”.

            I call Mr Slutsky to support Amendment No. 2.

            Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) supported the amendment on the grounds that the UN Charter provided the right of self-defence in the event of an armed attack.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

            I call Mr Gross to speak against the amendment.

            Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I have the impression that Mr Slutsky and Mr Rogozin are playing with us. First, they wished to delete the whole paragraph, and now they want to remove only the phrase “do not”, which would completely turn around the overall meaning. That is neither formally nor substantially correct, as the United Nations did not give any authorisation in respect of Russia. Statements about the United States and the fight against terrorism do not legitimise the use of force by Russia.

            THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

            Amendment No. 2 is rejected.

            We come now to Amendment No. 8, tabled by the following members: Mr Zhvania, Mr Rogozin, Mr Atkinson, Mr Van der Linden and Mr Laakso, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 6, add a paragraph as follows:

            “The Assembly welcomes an agreement between the delegations of the Russian Federal Assembly and of the Parliament of Georgia on the need to send a joint fact-finding mission of the PACE, with participation by the Russian and Georgian sides, to Moscow, Tbilisi and the conflict area, to report to the Bureau of the Assembly.”

            I call Mr Zhvania to support Amendment No. 8.

            Mr ZHVANIA (Georgia). – In meetings between Georgian and Russian delegations conducted in your presence, Mr President, we agreed with Mr Margelov’s excellent suggestion that we call in the Assembly for the creation of a fact-finding mission. Despite our having discussed the issues for a very long time in the Assembly and in committees, we need more information from impartial parties to the dispute between Georgians and Russians. The creation of that fact-finding mission is timely and important, and will help to clarify the situation for all members of the Assembly and the Council of Europe. I hope that the amendment will be adopted. It represents agreement between me and Mr Rogozin – a pretty unique event in this Assembly.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

            That is not the case.

            The voting is open.

            Amendment No. 8 is adopted.

            We come now to Amendment No. 4, tabled by the following members: Mr Rogozin, Mr Slutsky, Mr Margelov, Mr Tulaev, Mr Bakulin, Mr Popov, Mr Khripel, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Nessa, Mr Prisŕcaru, Mr Neguta and Mr Christodoulides, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 8.iv, add a new sub-paragraph as follows:

            “to extradite to Russia its citizens detained in Georgia who are suspected to finance, organise, conduct or support terrorist acts in Russia;”.

            I call Mr Rogozin to support Amendment No. 4.

            Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that if Georgia had detained persons for terrorist acts, and if a request had been made from Russia for them to be handed over, Georgia had to comply.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

            I call Mr Landsbergis.

            Mr LANDSBERGIS (Lithuania). – I move an oral sub-amendment. The amendment should be completed by adding the words, “as well as to extradite to Georgia, on a basis of reciprocity, the top terrorist, Igor Gorgadze”, whom I have already mentioned. If those words are not added, we should reject the amendment.

            THE PRESIDENT. – I remind the Assembly of Rule 34 which enables the President to accept an oral sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if it is not opposed by ten or members. This oral sub-amendment does not qualify on those grounds and I am not allowing it.

            The voting is open.

            Amendment No. 4 is rejected.

            THE PRESIDENT. – We come now to Amendment No. 5, tabled by the following members: Mr Rogozin, Mr Slutsky, Mr Margelov, Mr Tulaev, Mr Bakulin, Mr Popov, Mr Khripel, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Nessa, Mr Prisŕcaru, Mr Neguta and Mr Christodoulides, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 8.iv, add a new sub-paragraph as follows:

            “to take, in co-operation with Russian authorities, all necessary measures to prevent penetration of terrorist groups from Georgia into Russia and to disarm them;”.

            I call Mr Rogozin to support Amendment No. 5.

            Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that Georgia had to agree to this suggestion, as it was concerned with co-operation against terrorism.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

            I call Ms Lörcher.

            Ms LÖRCHER (Germany) said that the amendment did not define what the necessary measures were. For instance, President Shevardnadze had recently invited Russian observers to visit the Pankissi Valley, but it was not clear if that would be sufficient.

            THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

            Amendment No. 5 is rejected.

            We come now to Amendment No. 6, tabled by the following members: Mr Rogozin, Mr Slutsky, Mr Margelov, Mr Tulaev, Mr Popov, Mr Khripel, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Nessa, Mr Neguta and Mr Christodoulides, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 10.i.

            I call Mr Rogozin to support Amendment No. 6.

            Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that the rapporteur should quote Mr Putin correctly. He had not threatened to attack Georgia, but had said that Russia had the right of self defence and that if Georgia co-operated that right would not be exercised.

            THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

            I call Mr Vakilov.

            Mr VAKILOV (Azerbaijan) said that the Chechen problem should be resolved first and then the Pankissi problem would resolve itself.

            THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

            Amendment No. 6 is rejected.

            We come now to Amendment No. 7, tabled by the following members: Mr Rogozin, Mr Slutsky, Mr Margelov, Mr Tulaev, Mr Popov, Mr Khripel, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Nessa, Mr Neguta and Mr Christodoulides, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 10.ii.

            I call Mr Rogozin to support Amendment No. 7.

            Mr ROGOZIN (Russian Federation) said that it was paradoxical that Russia was being urged to protect its citizens in Kaliningrad but was told it should not protect the South Ossetians. As successor state to the Soviet Union, Russia had the right to issue passports to such people. 

            THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

            I call Mr Landsbergis.

            Mr LANDSBERGIS (Lithuania). – Deletion of the call to refrain from something would mean encouragement to proceed with unilateral measures. We cannot support it.

            THE PRESIDENT. – The voting is open.

            Amendment No. 7 is rejected.

            We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 9564, as amended.

            The voting is open.

            The draft recommendation in Document 9564, as amended, is adopted.

(A)