International

After five years in the wilderness the Russian Parliament, has at last sent representatives to PACE, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.  SP Senator Tiny Kox served as an important architect of the Russian return to Europe's oldest treaty-based organisation. “The growing tension threatens everyone in Europe,” he says.

As special rapporteur on the issue, Kox was able to convince most of his colleagues in Strasbourg, as well as a majority of European governments. He offered Russia the choice: return to the Assembly, or quit the Council of Europe in its entirety. He was  interviewed for the SP monthly magazine, Tribue. Below is a translation.

Can you explain what was involved here?

In 2014, following the Russian annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea, Russia had its voting rights in PACE  removed. In response, the Russian Parliament withdrew and blocked all human right investigations on its soil. The country also ceased paying its contributions, which provoked an enormous financial crisis for the organisation. Attempts at mediation came to nothing. Human rights groups across Europe, but mainly from Russia itself, called for this to be brought to an end. They wanted Russian citizens to continue to enjoy the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which monitors compliance.  Russian withdrawal could also influence other member states, such as Turkey, where so much is going wrong when it comes to human rights. In short: a load of trouble.

Which it was then your job to sort out? Why you?

I'm an old hand. I've been a representative of the Dutch Parliament on the Assembly since 2003, and I've been president of the left group in Strasbourg, in whose name I am the longest serving member of the praesidium, since 2007.  I've often participated on the Assembly's behalf in delegations to Russia and Ukraine, and know the relevant politicians there. I was asked before by my fellow group presidents to take a look where there might be space for a solution acceptable to all sides. Not everyone was happy that I was elected special rapporteur. Some hoped I would fail, and ugly things were said about me in Ukraine by politicians who didn't want the Russians to come back. Some British Conservatives said that I was surely being paid by the Russians. But in Russia too there were those who didn't look kindly at my proposal and some who felt they'd been stitched up.

Why did this develop into such a lengthy, major conflict with Russia in the Council of Europe?

When Russia annexed the Crimea, many countries and international organisations such as the European Union reacted by imposing harsh sanctions. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe could simply not come to an agreement on what measures to take, if any, so they did nothing. In PACE a majority wanted something done. From Ukraine, from the Baltic states, but certainly also from the British, we heard persistent demands that the Russians must be punished for their wrongdoing in the Crimea. What was decided was that the Russians would lose their voting rights. That sounded tough but turned out to be counterproductive.

It's hardly strange to refuse to accept the invasion of a country, is it?

Of course not, but you need to look carefully into which measures might work and which won't. Symbolic politics never achieves anything and often creates new problems. In relation to international conflicts the pressure is often great to do 'something'. But take a false step and it can be extremely difficult to get back on the right path. Russia took the opportunity provided by the sanctions to remain outside the Assembly and therefore avoid the debate on international law. We also gave them an excuse to block our important delegations, such as election monitoring, investigations into human rights abuses and so forth. If Russia couldn't participate in PACE, rapporteurs from the Assembly would no longer be allowed onto Russian territory. We also gave the Russians the opportunity to cease paying their contributions, forcing the entire organisation to make drastic spending cuts, not only PACE, but also the European Court of Human Rights. Many Russian politicians have a mortal dread of binding verdicts from the ECHR. Less money meant that the Court could hear fewer cases, which was a fine thing in their eyes. Anyway, they couldn't have cared less about the Council of Europe's parliamentary dimension, preferring to handle everything on a government to government basis. Minister Lavrov still had his vote in the Committee of Ministers.

Was a shortage of funds the decisive reason why it was important to find a solution, come what may?

No, there was a much bigger problem. The Council of Europe is meant to be a platform for interparliamentary diplomacy, even in the event of major conflicts and opposing interests. But now it wasn't possible any longer to speak with members of the Russian Parliament. Add to that the fact that the governments of many other member states don't see much value in the Council of Europe, and even less in the European Court of Human Rights with its binding rulings. Think of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Poland, Hungary, Italy and even the UK. So the other member states weren't prepared to shell out when the Russians stopped paying their dues. There was a threat of draconian spending cuts, with at least 250 employees losing their jobs, the scaling down of many activities, and a greatly weakened Court of Human Rights.

Nobody wants to pay up, yet everyone wants to remain a member. Why's that?

For the countries of eastern Europe, following the fall of the Wall, membership of the Council of Europe was a precondition of their having the chance to join the EU. Membership also had financial end economic significance. A country which places itself under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights is seen by investors and lenders in a better light than a country which does not. Erdogan knows that, Putin knows it, and Orban knows it. That's why no country has ever withdrawn from the Council of Europe. Leave and it will cost you, it's that simple.

Your proposal is that member states must participate in both the Committee of Ministers and PACE. Why?

Because in both bodies debates take place but in addition, binding decisions are taken. A country shouldn't be able any longer to avoid that. We're not a cafeteria where you can pick and choose what you feel like. We're a European treaty-based organisation in which every member state has equal rights and duties. Fortunately there is now broad support for my reasoning, in governments as well as parliaments. And the Russians have understood that they have to return to the Assembly if they  want to remain in the Committee of Ministers. And most members of the Assembly have understood, fortunately, that if they want the Russians back, they will have to be granted equal rights, including the right to vote.

You've also thought up a new way of reacting more effectively if a country makes a mess of things. How would that work?

As I've said, the Committee of Ministers took no action against the Russians after the annexation of the Crimea, while the Assembly simply threw them out. In the end that produced nothing but turmoil and vexation and gained not a millimetre of territory, neither in Ukraine nor anywhere else in Europe. My proposal is that in the future the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly should react as one, following an established procedure aimed at resolving the problem, but also proposed is that a country that fails to fulfil its obligations can be excluded from the entire organisation.  Such a possibility hasn't existed before but will now do so.

I expect that in October, President Macron will be speaking to the Assembly in Strasbourg about what progress has been made. France is currently chairing the Committee of Ministers. Along with Chancellor Merkel and President Putin, Macron was decidedly helpful in recruiting support for my proposal, both in PACE and amongst other governments. Our Foreign Minister, Stef Blok, as well as our ambassador in Strasbourg, also helped me, as did President Niniistö of Finland, who last semester was also president of the Council of Europe, and Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission. In the end three-quarters of the Assembly voted in favour of my plan, and 39 of the 47 member state governments. Not bad, eh?

Those who were opposed were primarily Russia's neighbours, who don't trust the Russians.

Of course, a great power like Russia is often untrustworthy and often fails to fulfil its international responsibilities, just as is the case with that other great power, the USA. But that means that smaller countries have to try to find smarter ways to tackle their problems and resolve them.  International diplomacy in the framework of the Council of Europe can be very helpful in this respect.

Were Russian human rights groups also happy to see their country return?

Human rights organisations in Russia are brave people. If you work for a human rights group in the Netherlands, you can go home safely at night and chat over a beer about everything you've been doing. In Russia you run the risk of being beaten up on your doorstep, of your partner being threatened or your children dragged out of school.  I've worked hard to get them to agree that their country should return to the Assembly. Not because we find the Russian government at all sympathetic. If you find Trump and his right-wing government repugnant, then you need also to take a look at Russia, where you also have extremely right-wing, conservative leaders in an environment which is corrupt through and through. Oh yes, you can write that, because that's what I say when I'm in Russia. So the message was that if these human rights defenders – Putin's victims – support my plans, then you'd better listen more closely to what they say. They are also keen to be able in the future to come to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The families and friends of the victims of the MH17 atrocity objected at first, didn't they?

They wrote to me asking how I could want to see the sanctions against the Russians lifted, when they repeatedly refused to cooperate. I turned that around. Because these people were absolutely right that Russia should cooperate. Two days after they returned to the Assembly, I was able to ensure that there should be an investigation into whether the Russians, on the basis of the rules of the Council of Europe, should have to increase their cooperation. Now that the Russians are back in Strasbourg, they are obliged to allow our rapporteurs, including on this issue, back onto their territory. That's certainly a gain, though of course it doesn't mean for certain that there will be a solution.

NRC (a Dutch newspaper) drew a link between your adopted proposal and further détente between Russia and the West.

It was clear that my proposals regarding a possible Russian return to Strasbourg gained the attention of many heads of government in Europe, not because they see the Council of Europe as so important, but because they're all looking for ways to get beyond the rising tensions on the continent, which are often seen as a new Cold War. Arms spending across Europe is rising enormously. The Americans are sending ever more troops to the East, the Russians to the West. From the Cold War we know that something can happen in a flash, even when nobody wants it. So a lot of government leaders are looking for ways to turn the tide. They see the Russian return to the Council of Europe as a first step and are now looking at how to take further steps. It speaks for itself that I'm extremely pleased about that.  

Isn't such an enormous organisation frustrating?

Changing anything is often exasperatingly slow. You've got to take account of people from forty-seven countries, from all sorts of different political parties and with very different interests. It's nevertheless worth the trouble, in my view. Growing tension in Europe threatens all of us. In addition, if the protection of human rights by the Council of Europe were to disappear, then the international protection of the civil and social rights of some 800 million people would vanish along with it. A socialist has to stand up in defence of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter. Read these treaties as a socialist and they bring tears to your eyes. To defend these rights in the whole of Europe, I'm happy to put in the effort. Every little helps.

Senator Tiny Kox was interviewed by Diederik Olders, editor of SP monthly Tribune, where the text first appeared, in the original Dutch.