Click to see full-size image
The Ukrainian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) officially refused to participate in the October 4th Autumn Session to boycott Russia’s return to the organization.
“We declare our refusal to submit the credentials of the new Ukrainian delegation for approval during the autumn part of the PACE session from September 30 to October 4, 2019,” head of the Ukrainian delegation to the PACE, MP from the Servant of the People parliamentary faction Lisa Yasko said on Facebook on September 23rd.
The decision was also published on the website of the Ukrainian Parliament.
“Reaffirming the commitment to the principles and values of the Council of Europe (CoE) and recognizing the significant historical achievements of its statutory body, the Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), in promoting and monitoring the observance of human rights;
Taking into account the crisis in the Assembly, which has resulted in a significant weakening of the PACE’s ability to counteract the breach of the Council of Europe’s Statute and to monitor Member States’ compliance with their obligations and obligations through the amendments made to the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure on 25 June 2019;
Noting at the same time the importance of maintaining the human rights protection mechanisms guaranteed by the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the territories of the member states of the Council of Europe, including in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.
…
The abovementioned [measure] will be Ukraine’s response to the return of the Russian Federation to the PACE session hall without having fulfilled the conditions of the Assembly’s resolutions adopted in response to Russian aggression against Ukraine,” the official statement said.
It also urged France, which currently chairs pace to rethink the position and return the Council of Europe back to “morality” by removing Russia from the ranks once again.
Lisa Yasko furthermore said that Ukraine would sit down with partners from PACE and attempt to identify common approaches and solutions “that would restore the Assembly’s reputation as an important model of democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights and freedoms in Europe.”
So far, Ukraine is supported by Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia in boycotting the October 4th PACE Session by not attending. The Georgian delegation is also likely to not participate in the PACE session, according to representative of Georgia in the PACE, Member of Georgia’s Parliament from the European Georgia Party Giorgi Kandelaki.
Kandelaki told Ukrainian news outlet LB.ua that he was in support of the boycott.
“I support this boycott. I advocated for this from the very beginning. Despite the fact that in July this vote [to reinstate the delegation of the Russian Federation] wasn’t in our favor,” he said.
The final decision on Georgia’s participation in the autumn session will be confirmed by the delegation’s head. According to Kandelaki, the fact that in the PACE there will be no representatives of the countries that were against the return of Russia, namely Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, will put the organization in a difficult position.
Back when Russia was reinstated in PACE, following a June 26th decision, this is how the vote went:
Countries that supported by an absolute majority of the delegates:
Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Switzerland, Cyprus, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, San Marino, Turkey.
Countries that mostly abstained or had an equal number of votes for and against:
Andorra, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Croatia, Lichtenstein, the Netherlands, Sweden.
Countries that were mostly against or completely against:
Albania, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom.
It is plain to see that Ukraine’s decision is barely supported, since the countries that voted against are mostly ones which have just 1 delegate, excluding the UK which is one of the “big players.”
It is more than apparent that the Council of Europe bureaucrats care less about Ukraine’s mostly imaginary issues with Russia than receiving Russia’s funding to the organization.
Russia, before discontinuing payments of its contributions to the Council of Europe paid approximately €33 million per year to the body. Out of a budget that is almost €440 million for 2019.
In a declaration made on June 25 by PACE, the assembly says it “regrets that a contingency plan has had to be drawn up to absorb the size of the debt left voluntarily by a member State” [Russia]. It is concerned about the human cost that this will represent: the loss of jobs for 250 people, or 10% of the Council of Europe’s staff.
According to reports, after the return of Russia to the PACE, the organization’s bureaucracy immidiately achieved bonuses for this success.
Russia’s financial contribution “is one of the strongest factors”, says Kastouéva-Jean. “This is where the Russians can say, “Money can fix everything (…) It gives Russia a very real argument about the possibility of buying European loyalty.”
The other major contributors are: France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. Out of them only the UK voted against. Turkey was a former major contributor, but reduced its commitment a while back.
Essentially, Russia, in addition to France, Germany and Italy accounts for approximately 40% of the CoE’s budget, and this is further reinforced by the many countries that voted in favor. To put it simply, the countries that voted in favor of returning Russia to PACE account for more than 50% of the budget.
The ones that are boycotting it are essentially contributing close to nothing, but are attempting to use it further their political agenda.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Why would Russia wish to return? It just gives the another layer to the 5th Column, already operating in Russia. Did laugh at the nations supporting Ukraine? How many of them are debtor nations of the EU and how many pay at least 2% of their GDP to their NATO contract? Just do not understand why they have so much power.
It appears that the boycotting nations are all from the select band EU baggage.
No great loss there. :)
Unfortunately I agree with you there. Why would Russia even want to rejoin, just to be insulted and accused of things, over and over again ?.
If I as American could get my part of the 33 million Euro, I would also welcome Russia into the game. But as it do not benefit me (nor Oklahoma) in any way, Im against it.
Ukraine must be pitied
Talking of the EU, I wonder if Boris Johnson, will go with Theresa May’s agreement, and hand over all UK Forces, weapons and systems to Brussels, from 1 November 2019 or if he will cancel her agreement?
””””””’
Article in full, from the UK Column:https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/hero-brexit-lord-james-blackheath-threatened-over-eu-defence-union
‘Hero of Brexit’ Lord James of Blackheath Threatened over EU Defence Union Secret Party Political Pact of Silence on Defence Reveals Itself by UK COLUMN REPORTERS | Monday, 9th September 2019 Lord James of Blackheath has been threatened with the police, told to retract the comments he made in the House of Lords on EU Defence Union, and is facing demands to resign and remain silent on the issue from now on. On Monday last week, Lord James of Blackheath attended a conference held at the Royal United Services Institute entitled ‘EU Defence Union – the threat to democracy, industry and alliances’. The conference was also attended by, amongst others, NATO and Ministry of Defence advisor Professor Gwythian Prins and a number of former senior military officers.
The briefing covered the consequences for the UK if the defence and security sections of Theresa May’s Brexit ‘deal’ and its associated ‘Political Declaration on the Future Relationship’ are approved.
At that meeting it was agreed that Lord James would raise the issue in the House of Lords, which he did four days later.
Video footage of that intervention has received wide public distribution on Twitter.
We have this wonderful paper called Yellowhammer, which tells us all the dreadful things that will happen if we do go no-go. My secretary has an alternative list that I have complied called the Black Vulture, which is my list of the things that people do not know about which will happen if we do not go no deal.
The first is the hazard it creates for the Crown. The second is: will somebody please tell us the truth about the European defence union? This is by far the biggest issue facing the British public and they know nothing about it officially. Can we please have a proper account of what it entails? Is it really true that the Government have entered into private agreements with the European Community that they will, on completion of remain or whatever it is to be, transfer to the European Union in Brussels the entire control of our entire fighting forces, including all their equipment?
Noble Lords may jest, but it has been done and they should check it out. It is too important to ignore.
We must know the truth of this.
We must have it clear for the whole public to know. I believe it is true, and I think we should be told. I understand that it is intended that the oath of every serving member of our forces will be cancelled and they will be required to undertake a new oath of loyalty to Brussels.
I understand that in recent months, we have had a series of people sent from our Armed Forces to create and install the command and control centres to be used for the control of our troops once we have ceased to have any control over their use, application or deployment.
It goes beyond this. They are to take control of our intelligence services, the whole core of Five Eyes. They will have MI6 and the Cheltenham monitoring centre, and we will be completely excluded from it under the new arrangements and have no access either to the—
At this point, Lord Blunkett, former Home Secretary in Tony Blair’s cabinet intervened with what could be perceived to be a threat:
I wonder whether the noble Lord would be prepared to give way just for one moment. I appeal to him to conclude, because it is not in either his interests or the interests of the Committee for him to continue.
Why would it not be in Lord James’ interests to continue?
In the lobby following the Lords’ session, Lord James was approached by former Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, who, incandescent with rage, demanded to know Lord James’ sources for the statements he made in the House.
Shut Up Or Else! Lord James’ sources should be clear to everyone who has been following the UK Column’s coverage of this developing issue. He said nothing in his speech which is not already in the public domain, and which has not already been reported by UK Column amongst others. The only addition from Lord James was the demand for the government to come clean on their intentions so that the public can make an informed choice.
Consider James’ main question, what does EU Defence Union entail?
This is a good question. It is one which the entire British political establishment has steadfastly either refused to answer at all, or has given diversionary responses about the EU having no plans for an ‘EU Army’.
To find an answer to this question we have to look to the EU itself, Tony Blair and RUSI.
For the EU, Ursula von der Leyen, former German Defence Minister, has been absolutely open about her plans for what Defence Union entails:
“I want to talk about four components … which I believe are important for setting up a European Defence Union,” she said. “First of all, just two or three weeks ago, for the first time, we were able to give the green light for a European command capacity in Brussels. That is the first time that military and civil instruments would be commanded together, where these commands would actually come from one single command office.
“This is a major step forward. It was unthinkable a short while ago, but it’s precisely the right approach to have if we want a European flavour to our defence policy.”
In a previous statement, she made it clear that the EU would wish to pursue interventionist policies in Africa, a continent, she said, where NATO has no real interest.
Strangely enough, her comments were echoed by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
So the EU and British Europhile former Prime Ministers are absolutely on the same page about where Defence Union will go.
It doesn’t end there, though. The Royal United Services Institute has hosted many briefings on the subject, which garner no mainstream media coverage. One such example is a conference called ‘Defence Implications of Brexit’, held in March 2017.
At that event, the European Council on Foreign Relations’ Nick Witney called for a joint Anglo-French nuclear deterrent, “if Trump cannot be impeached or house trained.”
So if the evidence of Defence Union and its implications are out there, why the vitriolic attack on Lord James?
We suggest the reason is that this is the first time the question has been asked in such a direct way in such a public political forum (the debate on one of the most controversial bills ever submitted to Parliament) in breach of the pact to remain totally silent on EU Defence Union, made between the Tory and Labour Parties, as reported to us by a former Trident Admiral in 2015.
The Threats Ramp Up The abusive responses Lord James received from Lord Blunkett and Lord Robertson in the House of Lords were mild compared to more recent communications.
Since then, other Lordly colleagues have begun demanding he resign immediately and have advised him he can expect a visit from the police for breach of the Official Secrets Act.
Lord James has had the bravery to lift the lid on a policy no-one else in the political establishment wants to discuss. He needs widespread public support.
See the EU Defence Union timeline for more.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/hero-brexit-lord-james-blackheath-threatened-over-eu-defence-union
…………….
Video version: Thanks Snowglobe
The Full English – Warrant Officer Simon Bean MBE confirms Lord James… https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/hero-brexit-lord-james-blackheath-threatened-over-eu-defence-union
We are indeed on the cusp of a new Dark Age that will be a mirror image of the Bolshevik rape of Russia in 1917 in my opinion, AM.
Can I share a cell with you:)
No problem, sharing a cell. The same crowd that was behind the Bolshevik rape of Russia, are the same crowd behind what we are experiencing today. Common Purpose, one of the branches of the Tavistock Institute. Funny, how they are based in The Temple, part of the City of London.
Yes, funny that. :)