Англоязычная версия статьи С.Нарышкина в «Российской газете» (4 февраля 2015 года)

Speaker of the State Duma Sergey Naryshkin. «Europe’s stolen voice. PACE’s lack of common sense and cynicism are largely the result of US pressure»

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has just completed its regular session. Of the many issues on the agenda, the voting rights of the Russian delegation was definitely the most salient. It lurked just beneath the surface and came up in all discussions – from the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz–Birkenau concentration camp to the report on the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine – proving once again that not a single major challenge currently facing Europe can be addressed without Russia’s active participation. The Russian delegation worked hard throughout the session, and not only during plenary meetings. On the eve of the start of the session, we attended yet another meeting (the third in the last six months) of PACE’s Presidential Committee.

Most of its members favoured restoring Russia’s voting rights, but they were ultimately unable to get this message across to the Assembly, which remains under the sway of frantic, rabid anti-Russian propaganda disseminated by a group of aggressive Russophobes. This determined the outcome of the vote on the powers of the Russian delegation. Stefan Schennach, Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee, one of PACE’s most influential committees, later openly called the result “stupid„ and the pressure against Russia “senseless.„ However, the grim business had already been taken care of. I should add that I was the only speaker of a national parliament in attendance. During the plenary meetings, I could not help thinking that I was witnessing something genuinely absurd, incompatible with elementary logic and the natural human desire for peace and prosperity for one’s people and family. This lack of common sense and cynicism are largely the result of pressure from the US, which openly acts as an aggressor seeking to repartition the world. But European politicians and parliamentarians have made it easier in recent years for the US to act in such an arrogant manner.

Ten days before the Russian delegation arrived in Strasbourg, a paragraph was added to the resolution of the European Parliament, which read “closer EU-US cooperation in Ukraine-related policies would be beneficial.„ A more candid acknowledgement of this pathological dependency is hard to imagine. The months of criminal silence regarding the humanitarian crisis in the southeast of Ukraine are a vivid example of double standards. The State Duma issued a special declaration back in May 2014, calling on all European parliamentarians to pay attention to the crisis and put an end to it, which apparently fell on deaf ears. In my opinion, the reason is that this would have entailed acknowledging the root cause. Our foreign colleagues eschewed this sensitive issue at the first two meetings of PACE’s Presidential Committee, despite declaring that they are open to dialogue. It was at this January session of the Assembly that speakers started mentioning the horrible figures reported by the UN, and made a big deal of the unprecedented number of refugees. But did all this wailing amount to anything? Of course not. There were no decisions to provide immediate assistance or demands that the Ukrainian authorities hold the real culprits accountable. Human rights-based approaches immediately devolved into empty declarations. Moreover, blatant lies about the developments in Donbas went hand in hand with accusations against Russia, which is not a party to the conflict. Even when PACE learned that 800,000 Ukrainians had fled to Russia in less than a year, they didn’t care enough to acknowledge that these people are seeking refuge in our country from the deadly threat posed by the Ukrainian military. People tend to flee enemies and turn to friends for protection. In another appalling episode, the Russian delegation wasn’t permitted to make a statement during a session on the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, under the pretext that the programme was already set (such worthless references to protocol have become the typical response to any internal issue within PACE). Russia, the direct successor of the state that liberated the camp, was not allowed to speak on the occasion. I didn’t see any signs of shame in the expressions of PACE bureau members. The liberators weren’t even mentioned during the session.

Not a single word! The President of the Assembly couldn’t find space for it in her opening remarks, which were quite lengthy. The other two speakers, a former prisoner of the concentration camp and a representative of a youth organisation, also failed to mention it. It was as if the surviving prisoners were saved from death by some kind of miracle, not the courage and sacrifice of Soviet soldiers. Not a single word of praise was addressed to the country that sacrificed 27 million lives to win the war! In the end, the celebration by PACE of the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz left us with a strange feeling and, to put it bluntly, a bad taste in the mouth. PACE’s reputation as a common European platform for dialogue is rapidly waning. Today members of national delegations are being attacked at its doors (which happened to our colleagues from KPRF); tomorrow the same could happen in the plenary hall. The number of fringe politicians is growing, while the leadership of the Council of Europe is not willing to respond to their actions in an adequate manner. Despite all this, our interactions with the heads of the Assembly’s political groups, within its Presidential Committee and during their increasingly frequent visits to Moscow, have borne some fruit. This could be clearly seen during the roundtable discussion on the crisis of confidence, which we initiated in the Council of Europe.

Most speakers emphasised that dialogue is needed during crises like never before. Such a prominent politician as former PACE President Rene van der Linden forcefully insisted “that all be ensured the right to speak and fully carry out their work without seeking to impress ‘neighbours of our neighbours.’„ Dividing lines have resurfaced, but it will be impossible to ensure European security, including in Ukraine, without Russia, he said. To be honest, the sincere words I heard from many foreign colleagues made me wonder why the Assembly is still dominated by a majority that is at once aggressive and obedient. Why does the majority fail to heed the voices of other colleagues or the voice of reason? Maybe Andreas Gross, the leader of one of the political groups, was right when he said that trust in Europe doesn’t need to be restored, but rather built, because there was never any trust to begin with. I think he’s right, but not entirely, as Russia has been sincere and open about its intentions to meet Europe halfway. And I don’t think that we were alone in this aspiration. Unfortunately, the events of recent months have forced us to rethink many things, including whether many of Russia’s partners – who chose to tether European policy to another continent – are reliable. It was a strange choice, to say the least: Europe is far from a novice in geopolitics, and at various times has strongly asserted its right to independence. Perhaps the turning point came several decades ago, when Europe opened its doors to US military bases, which are only formally affiliated with NATO, as the United States accounts for two thirds of NATO’s budget, according to experts.

Today, European leaders are urged to sign onto illegal anti-Russian sanctions. A year ago, European foreign ministers guaranteed with their signatures an agreement between the legitimate, elected president of Ukraine and the opposition, and then refused to implement it. Essentially, they signed off on the bloodshed on Maidan Square, in Odessa and in eastern Ukraine. To our great regret, they were quick to shelve the project to build a Greater Europe, along with efforts toward visa-free travel and other important arrangements. Were the two decades of sincere cooperation between Russia and Europe no more than a game rigged in one team’s favour? Nevertheless, I remain optimistic. Great achievements are always borne of great challenges. Russia has seen so many that we know all too well that it is impossible to alter history with lies and distortion. I’m confident that security on the continent has not become an empty phrase for responsible European politicians.

The parliamentary systems of these countries date back many centuries, and no procedural manoeuvring, disregard for international law or doublespeak can destroy these age-old values. Even during this extremely difficult PACE session, we clearly saw a growing recognition that there is no alternative to working with Russia, which is a European nation by virtue of geography and culture. Reason will prevail in the end.