Англоязычная версия интервью С.Нарышкина газете «Коммерсант» (23 января 2015 года)
Накануне визита делегации РФ в ПАСЕ, где будет решаться вопрос о переподтверждении полномочий России, Председатель Госдумы Сергей Нарышкин
Сергей Евгеньевич
Депутат Государственной Думы избран в составе федерального списка кандидатов, выдвинутого Всероссийской политической партией «ЕДИНАЯ РОССИЯ»
рассказал корреспонденту “Коммерсант„ Софье Самохиной о тактике работы с Парламентской ассамблеей в 2015 году.
They are Looking for a Way out of the Impasse in Which They Have Placed Themselves
The State Duma speaker Sergey Naryshkin about Russia’s prospects in PACE
Shortly before the Russian delegation’s visit to PACE where the issue of Russia’s accreditation is going to be resolved, the State Duma Chair told the Kommersant’s (“Ъ„) reporter Sophya Samokhina about the tactics of work with the Parliamentary Assembly in 2015 and possibilities of leaving the Council of Europe in 2016.
— Why did you say about a possible termination of work of the Russian delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in 2015 if Russia is again debarred from voting?
— We appreciate the Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe first of all as a broad international arena for an open dialogue on urgent issues. But if are further deprived of a possibility to conduct an open dialogue, is there anything for us to appreciate about this organization? Then arises the question of suspension of our work in PACE for minimum a year. And if during this year any other decision is taken, then the question of Russia's membership in the CoE will be raised.
— To which extent is it reasonable?
— This is real.
— Can it lead to Russia's isolation?
— It is impossible to isolate Russia. There are bilateral relations, other pan-European institutions. For example, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and, consequently, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (PA). We worked there and we will, we find the activity of the OSCE PA more practical and based nevertheless on a real analysis of events than it is done in PACE. Anyway, nobody puts obstacles in a dialogue. I have already twice addressed the OSCE PA plenary meetings and feel that our work there gives results. In any case, we have managed to pass our initiative to create a working group on Ukraine. Yes, its activity is still blocked by several countries, which, after joining the group, for some reason refused to participate in its work (I am referring to the USA, Poland, and Ukraine). But for us it was important that our initiative was appreciated and our sincere interest in the end of the inter-Ukrainian murderous crisis was noted.
— If there already are international organizations where we are better heard, is the withdrawal from the CoE possible already this year if our delegation is debarred of its rights once again?
— This is a question of tactics. I think that the tactics we have chosen is the right one. It is more balanced and in line with the policy of a big self-respected country, which sincerely intends to have a dialogue with everybody, including on the European continent.
— Was the tactics elaborated only with the delegation members or with the country's Government and the Ministry of foreign affairs?
— This is common opinion.
— Will Russia refuse to work in PACE during 2015 even if our powers are suspended only partially?
— Of course, our main powers are important for us – voting right and participation in decision-making structures. Deprivation of this right is a major and unlawful discrimination. It has never crossed my mind that one can be an MP and be deprived of a voting right at the same time. It is strange that the rules of a major international parliamentary arena provides for such possibilities. For us this is crucial. If we are deprived of this right, the question will be solved unambiguously. We will suspend our work in the Parliamentary Assembly for a year, and fully.
— Does the suspension of the Russian delegation’s work in PACE mean that Russia as one of five major payers will refuse from its contribution to the CoE (about €30 million)?
— No, we do not raise this question. We are a member of the CoE and being it we fulfill all our obligations, including financial.
— Is the membership contribution paid at the beginning or at the end of the year?
— It is paid two years in advance.
— For 2015 we have already paid in 2014?
— I think yes, but this is a technical question. Besides, the contribution is divided into parts.
— And will the members of the Russian delegation refuse to present reports to commissions, as it was now?
— Yes, it was like this. On our part then (in September 2014 — “Ъ„) it was a gesture of good will, when being deprived of our powers, we still met our PA colleagues halfway and our deputies appointed to prepare reports on a number of questions continued their work and presented their reports to the Assembly: Olga Kazakova — on countering Nazism and Olga Borzova— on social issues. That is, in 2015, in case if we are deprived of our voting rights, the position of the Russian Federation on this issue can be tougher. Though, we will certainly continue personal contacts with those PACE members who understand that Russia's absence on the Assembly's arena damages the organization’s reputation and creates poor prospects for it in general.
— If in 2015 Russia suspends its work in PACE and in 2016 is ready to consider withdrawing from the CoE, won’t it complicate any negotiations with other countries not only at a parliamentary level, but at the level of governments?
— I am sure that all the sides must clearly understand their own responsibility for either positive or negative development of the situation. We, on our part, undertake all steps to regenerate an open and frank dialogue to prevent anybody from sidestepping inconvenient facts and using only facts and events convenient to them. If our colleagues do not accept such our line of conduct — it will be their choice and their responsibility for events' development.
— In April 2014, the Russian delegation was deprived of its voting right in PACE, according to the official line, due to the transferring of Crimea under Russia’s jurisdiction. For the last ten months, have the lists of claims from MEPs to Russia increased or are they still focused on the Crimea issue?
— Your question reminded me of words from one of Ivan Krylov’s fable: «’Tis enough that I have appetite …» The matter, of course, is not only in the Republic of Crimea. Before, it was Chechnya — Russia was accused of the events happening there in the 1990-s. After the constitutional order was re-established in the Caucuses, Europeans invented new pretexts. Russia was accused of unleashing a war in South Ossetia (in August 2008 — “Ъ„), though the shots with heavy artillery firing peaceful Tskhinvali at night under the order of Saakashvili were spread all over the world. Then, there were a lot of other invented causes: Pussy Riot, antigay propaganda. That is why the matter, of course, is not in Crimea, which henceforth is an integral part of Russia.
— Is it so that the claims have been accumulated over the years and the Crimea issue became a bifurcation point after which the relations started to develop along another trajectory?
— This is just another reason.
— But after Russia was deprived of its rights in PACE, do you have to address their claims only about the Crimea issue, or are there other ones?
— We do not address any claims — we prove our case, we contend for truth and justice. In respect of Crimea and in respect of other issues. Besides, we explain that when sanctions are introduced against MPs (deprivation of a voting right — “Ъ„), this is a retreat from democratic principles, from so called European values. It is necessary to actively exploit parliamentary cooperation and not to eliminate a parliamentary delegation of a big country from a dialogue. Doing so, PACE shows that it does not want to listen to a different opinion or is afraid of it.
— You have used “Russia’s case„ as an argument in a dispute. What other points, besides that “the truth is on our side„ as you have recently said, does Russia use to convince its European colleagues?
— Our arguments are based on the rule of law — both ours and international. It concerns the Republic of Crimea and other issues as well.
— Then, how could a misunderstanding concerning legal norms arise?
— Apparently our colleagues opt for a double-standard approach. As far as the reunification of Crimea and Russia is concerned, the European parliamentarians tend to recall that this is the first case in many years. But we could also recall, for example, the annexation of the territory of East Germany by the FRG (in spring 1990 — “Ъ„). Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, its former constituent republics declared their independence: it is just another historical fact. There cannot be two opposite interpretations for the same norms of international law.
— Did the talks help change the situation for the better?
— Certainly they did. The other side takes note of our arguments; some of them are accepted, and some are not. But this must lead to something. We should arrive at some decision which will be taken in the early days of the forthcoming PACE session (opening on January, 26, 2015, — “Ъ„). We are looking forward to a just decision.
— What kind of arguments do the European parliamentarians accept?
— They agree (though not in public, I must say) with our logic that such sanctions against parliamentarians are inacceptable since they run counter to the spirit of parliamentarism and democracy. I think they are looking for a way out of the impasse in which they have placed themselves.
— What do you mean by saying “the impasse„?
— I mean that Russia was deprived of its right to vote, of course. They are looking for a pretext, for some cause to reinstate us while maintaining appearances.
— What steps did Russia take to reach an agreement?
— We have pursued our efforts on a number of reports within committees and maintained dialogue with rapporteurs on Russia in PACE’s country monitoring process (fulfillment of commitments assumed by Russia when joining the CoE is monitored — “Ъ„). Russia came out with the initiative to explore the causes of the Ukrainian internal crisis together, but it gained no support. We also suggested holding a pan-European conference on the ways of overcoming the confidence crisis in Europe (it was held in Moscow in late November — “Ъ„), but for some reason or other the members of the PACE Presidential Committee were unable to come. So we have made a lot of proposals.
For more information, please visit http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2651035
