POLITICAL 248 PC 04 E rev 1 Original: English NAT O   Pa rl i a me n t a ry  As s e mb l y SUMMARY of the meeting of the Political Committee Palazzo del Cinema, Lido, Venice, Italy Saturday 13 and Sunday 14 November 2004 International Secretariat November 2004

248 PC 04 E rev 1 i ATTENDANCE LIST Chairman Peter Viggers (United Kingdom) Vice-Chairmen Karl A. Lamers (Germany) George Voinovich (United States) General Rapporteur Bert Koenders (Netherlands) Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Relations Ruprecht Polenz (Germany) Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on NATO Partnerships Marco Minniti (Italy) President of the NATO PA Douglas Bereuter (United States) Secretary General Simon Lunn Member Delegations Belgium Theo Kelchtermans François Roelants du Vivier Bulgaria Assen Agov Ralitsa Againe Canada Raynell Andreychuk Joseph A.Day Denmark Helge Adam Møller Estonia Tiit Matsulevits Toomas Tein France Martine Aurillac Didier Boulaud Loïc Bouvard Paul Quilès Germany Wolfgang Boernsen Monika Heubaum Robert Hochbaum Gerd Höfer Klaus-Jürgen Jeziorsky Karl A. Lamers Erwin Marschewski Markus Meckel Marianne Tritz Greece Nikolaos Legas Vassilios Maghinas Antonis Skillakos Iceland Einar Oddur Kristjánsson Italy Lamberto Dini Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri Luigi Marino Sergio Matarella Latvia Aleksandrs Kirsteins Dzintars Rasnacs

248 PC 04 E rev 1 ii Lithuania Algirdas Gricius Luxembourg Colette Flesch Jean-Pierre Koepp Lydia Mutsch Netherlands Bart van Winsen Norway Thorbjoern Jagland Poland Longin Pastusiak Marian Pilka Portugal Alberto Costa Jaime Gama Romania Mihail Lupoi Attila Verestoy Slovakia Jozef Banás Spain Rafael Estrella Federico Trillo-Figueroa Josep Maldonado Turkey Egeman Bagis Inal Batu United Kingdom Donald Anderson Michael Gapes Bruce George Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale United States Michael Bilirikas Mike Dewine Joann Emerson Charles E. Grassley Dennis Moore David Price Gordon Smith Tom Tancredo John Tanner Ellen Tauscher Tom Udall Associate delegations Albania Dashamir Shehi Ilir Zela Armenia Aleksan Karapetyan Austria Werner Amon Walter Murauer Katharina Pfeffer Azerbaijan Ziyafat Asgarov Siyavush Novruzov Croatia Kresimir Cosic Marin Jurjevic Velimir Plesa Finland Ilkka Kanerva Suvi-Anne Siimes Georgia David Gamkrelidze Russian Federation Yuliy Kvitsinskiy Victor A. Ozerov Sweden Carl B. Hamilton Switzerland Theo Maissen

248 PC 04 E rev 1 iii the former Yugoslav Republic of Slobodan Casule Macedonia^* Esad Rahic Ukraine Volodymyr Zaplatynskyi Oleg Zarubinskyi European Parliament Angelika Beer Paolo Casaca Pawel Piskorski Karl von Wogau Parliamentary Observers Japan Masataka Suzuki Serbia and Montenegro Zvonko Obradovic Aleksandar Pravdic Aleksandar Zuric Interparliamentary Assembly Assembly of the Western European Union Elsa Papadimitriou Parliamentary Guests Algeria Mahdjoub Bedda Jordan Audeh Qawas Ali Saidat Speakers Ambassador Maurizio Moreno, Permanent Representative of Italy to NATO Claire Spencer, Associate Fellow of the Middle East Programme at Chatham House and Senior Advocacy & Policy Manager for the Middle East & Asia at Christian Aid, United Kingdom Ambassador Ferdinando Salleo, former Ambassador to the United States, Italy Stefano Silvestri, President of Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), Italy Committee Secretary Steven Mark International Secretariat Steffen Sachs, Committee Director Claire Watkins, Committee Co-ordinator Ruxandra Popa, Research Assistant Gabriel Reyes Leguen, Research Assistant * Turkey and the USA recognise the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name

248 PC 04 E rev 1 1 I. Introductory Remarks 1. Iraq,  the  "Broader  Middle  East"  and  NATO’s  developing  partnerships,  particularly  the  one with the European Union, were at the centre of the meeting of the Political Committee during the 2004 Autumn Session of the NATO PA in Venice.  Moreover, the Political Committee addressed the Iranian nuclear programme and how the international community could deal with this challenge to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).   2. Among other things, the Committee discussed NATO’s Istanbul Co-operation Initiative (ICI), new  developments  concerning  the  rules  on  the use of force following the Iraq war, NATO’s role and  partnerships  in  South  Eastern  Europe  and  the  Caucasus,  as  well  as  perspectives  for NATO-EU relations. II. Presentation  by  Ambassador  Maurizio  Moreno,  Permanent  Representative  of  Italy  to NATO,  on  NATO  Perspectives  on  the  Mediterranean  Dialogue  and  the  Istanbul  Co- operation Initiative 3. Following  the  opening  by  Chairman  Peter  Viggers  (UK)  and  the  adoption  of  the  draft agenda and the minutes of the Bratislava meeting  Ambassador Moreno  gave an overview of NATO’s Mediterranean dialogue.  Commenting on its evolution in the ten years since its inception, the  speaker  emphasised  the  importance  of  the  programme,  particularly  for  building  confidence between   NATO   and   its   Mediterranean   partners.      NATO’s   recently   established   Istanbul Cooperation   Initiative   reflected   the   Allies   continued   and   increasing   interest   in   the   region, Ambassador Moreno said.  Relating the ICI to the G8’s "Broader Middle East" Initiative, he argued that  both  programmes  formed  part  of  a  wide-ranging  strategy  to  stabilise  the  region  through initiatives   aimed   at   consolidating   security,   preventing   crises   and   promoting   democracy, development  and  prosperity.    NATO  programmes  should  not  be  perceived  as  duplications  of efforts  by  the  EU,  the  G8,  the  OSCE  and  the  UN,  but  as  complementary.    He  concluded  his presentation  by  pointing  out  the  need  for  a  coherent  and  comprehensive  strategy  to  establish mutual trust, dialogue and consensus, which were the key to counter, isolate and defeat terrorism. III. Presentation by Dr Claire Spencer, Associate Fellow of the Middle East Programme at Chatham  House  and  Senior  Advocacy  and  Policy  Manager  for  the  Middle  East  and Asia at Christian Aid, on The Broader Middle East 4. Following   the   remarks   made   by   the   Italian   representative   at   NATO   Headquarters, Dr Claire Spencer identified conditions for successful policies of co-operation and development in the  Middle  East  and  the  Mediterranean.    She  cautioned  against  global  and  undifferentiated approaches to the region, which tended to create unfulfilled expectations and distorted patterns of development, which in turn bred anti-Western sentiments.  Therefore, the international community and   Western   countries   in   particular,   should   identify   the   specific   needs   of   each   society.   Diversification  and  specialisation  of  international  efforts  according  to  the  requirements  were necessary.  Moreover, Dr Spencer suggested promoting "ownership of reforms" using a "people- centred" approach.  Viewing relations with Muslim countries, especially those in the Mediterranean and  the  Middle  East,  primarily  in  the  context  of  tackling  terrorism.    Although  combating  terrorist groups  was  an  important  area  of  co-operation,  it  must  not  overshadow  other  aspects.  Western countries  have  to  become  aware  of  their  own  share  of  responsibility  in  the  development  of terrorism within their societies. 5. In the discussion that followed, the chairman, Donald Anderson (UK) and other members raised how the West can assist Mediterranean countries without appearing patronising and what

248 PC 04 E rev 1 2 the Mediterranean countries themselves need to do to advance development and democratisation.   How the Mediterranean dialogue can be further developed was raised by Rafael Estrella (ES) and Paul  Quilès  (FR)  while  Bruce  George  (UK)  argued  for  an  effective  division  of  labour  among NATO,  the  EU,  and  the  OSCE.    Noting  that  terrorists’  motivations  differ,  Thorbjoern  Jagland (NO) bemoaned the lack of a clear concept to tackle terrorist groups.  In this context he criticised that  the  Russian  government  appeared  to  have  received  a  carte  blanche  for  its  operations  in Chechnya.  Jaime Gama (PT) pointed to the lack of detail of the so-called "Greater Middle East" concept while Raynell Andreychuk (CA) inquired about the possible role of regional organisations and Gert Höfer  (DE) suggested a parliamentary initiative for the Mediterranean.  The compatibility of Islam and democracy was emphasised by Ziyafat Asgarov (AZ) and Mr Estrella (ES).  But as Assen Agov (BG) stressed, economic development and democracy were conditional for improved security.  Commenting on the questions by Committee members, Ambassador Moreno anticipated that intelligence sharing, a plan of action against terrorism, maritime security, and environmental issues will be on the top of the agenda for NATO’s Mediterranean dialogue Returning to the issue of Western assistance to oil and gas exporting countries that are weak on democratic and human rights, Dr Spencer noted that the income from energy exports had decreased the leverage of the international  community  on  some  regimes.    In  this  context  she  pointed  to  an  earlier  report produced  by  Christian  Aid  titled  Fueling  Poverty.    In  this  context,  she  stressed  that  the  outside world should not stand by and watch states oppress population in the name of war against terror.   She and others agreed that the recent death of Yasser Arafat also presented an opportunity for the Middle East peace process. IV. Consideration   of   the   draft   General   Report   on   NATO   and   the   Use   of   Force   by Bert Koenders (Netherlands), General Rapporteur 6. Introducing   his   General   Report   NATO    and    the    Use    of    Force   to   the   Committee, Bert Koenders  (NL)  submitted  that  NATO  needed  a  real  debate  on  the  key  issues  that  were raised  by  the  Iraq  war.    Among  the  main  topics  that  needed  to  be  addressed,  the  Rapporteur identified the role of the United Nations for international security, the legitimacy of the use of force either   for   humanitarian   interventions   or   self-defence,   and   the   question   of   using   force pre-emptively.  While he praised NATO for designating terrorism, WMD proliferation and mending failed/failing  states  as  key  priorities,  the  General  Rapporteur  added  that  it  was  crucial  that  the Alliance set realistic levels of ambition.  Taking into account the current over-commitment of NATO troops and the imbalance between demand for and supply of security, NATO should specialise in those   issues   where   it   has   a   comparative   advantage   over   other   institutions   and   increase co-operation  with  those.    He  cited  issues  where  NATO  should  do  more,  such  as  stability  in Afghanistan and the Balkans and noted that stabilising Iraq was in the interest of all Allies.  The General Rapporteur concluded his remarks by expressing concern about the future of international arms control regimes, particularly the NPT.   7. The   General   Report   was   received   very   positively   by   the   Committee,   with   members commenting particularly on the issue of legitimacy of the use of force.  The Kosovo air campaign was  considered  as  legally  justified  by  a  majority  of  participants.    But  members,  including  Paul Quilès (FR) generally expressed strong concerns about the prospect of legitimising the preventive use of force without prior UNSC authorisation.  Longin Pastusiak (PL) was worried about the lack of dialogue on the containment of rogue states and on a concept for combating terrorist groups.   Rafael Estrella (ES) suggested a declassification of NATO’s concept to combat terrorist groups, while  Markus  Meckel  (DE)  welcomed  that  the  report  suggests  a  possible,  but  limited,  role  for NATO  in  Africa.    On  this,  Donald  Anderson  (UK)  warned  against  going  beyond  NATO  training assistance  to  the  African  Union  as  there  was  no  direct  threat  to  NATO  member  countries.  The complementary role of national parliaments and governments in fostering political dialogue within the Alliance was highlighted by Bart van Winsen (NL).  Replying to the comments by Committee

248 PC 04 E rev 1 3 members,   the   General   Rapporteur   stressed   that   the   goal   of   the   report   was   not   to   reach overarching general conclusions, but rather to promote a debate on issues crucial to the future of the  Alliance.    In  his  view,  the  current  situation  was  not  satisfying  and  would  encourage  more unilateral actions unless the rules were adapted.  NATO can and should contribute to the debate and  strive  to  agree  on  an  interpretation  of  Article  51  of  the  UN  Charter  in  the  new  security environment.   The draft General Report [165 PC 04 E] was adopted. V. Consideration  of  the  draft  Report  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  NATO  Partnerships  on South East European Security and the Role of NATO-EU Partnership by Marco Minniti (Italy), Rapporteur 8. Marco Minniti (IT) started his brief introduction of the draft Report on South East European Security  and  the  Role  of  NATO-EU  Partnership  with  a  snapshot  of  the  security  challenges  in South-East  Europe  and  the  South  Caucasus.    In  the  Balkans,  these  were  primarily  domestic  in origin,  including  ethnic  strife,  organised  crime,  corruption  and  poverty.    In  addition  to  similar domestic  security  challenges,  the  three  countries  of  the  South  Caucasus  also  faced  frozen conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia that involve core issues of national sovereignty.  The Rapporteur then underlined NATO and the EU’s contribution to fostering peace and stability in these regions.  He described the engagement of NATO and the EU in the Balkans as   successful,   but   added   that   further   commitment   remained   important.      In   contrast,   both organisations  had  only  recently  put  the  Caucasus  on  their  agenda.    The  Rapporteur  therefore argued for increased activities of the EU and NATO and for developing co-operation between the two, possibly similar to the one that has been established in the Balkans.   9. Markus  Meckel (DE) stood in for the Rapporteur, who could not participate in the debate.   Mr  Meckel  welcomed  that  the  recent  elections  in  Kosovo  were  peaceful  but  regretted  the  low turnout of the Serbian minority.  He also praised the results of the referendum held in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.  Mr Meckel also remarked that he would have preferred if the Alliance   offered   Serbia   and   Montenegro   membership   of   the   Partnership   for   Peace   (PfP) programme at the Istanbul Summit. 10. Representatives of Western Balkan countries were particularly active in commenting on the report.  Esad Rahic (MK) commented on the situation in his country whilst praising the results of the  November  7  referendum  as  did  Slobodan  Casule  (MK).    The  latter  also  stressed  that  his country   already   contributed   to   Euro-Atlantic   security   through   its   participation   in   NATO-led peacekeeping  operations.    Mr  Casule  also  referred  to  his  country's  continuing  preparations towards NATO membership.  Aleksandar Pravdic (YU) raised the issue of the Kosovo elections and the failure of the Serbian government to encourage Serbs living in the province to participate in the elections.  However, Mr Pravdic stressed that Serbia and Montenegro was ready to actively take part in solving the Kosovo problem.   The  chairman  then  moved to voting on the report, which was unanimously adopted by the Committee.   VI. Presentation by the former Italian Ambassador Ferdinando Salleo on The Threat and the Challenge 11. In  his  contribution  to  the  Committee,  Ambassador  Ferdinando  Salleo  examined  NATO’s changing role in the post Cold-War era, putting a particular focus on newly emerged threats such as  international  terrorism.    He  emphasised  the  different  threats  posed  by  non-state  actors  that required substantial adaptations by NATO and the international community.  Member states were

248 PC 04 E rev 1 4 already  fully  engaged  in  confronting  terrorism,  the  speaker  said  and  praised  the  importance  of NATO’s  present  and  future  contribution  in  tackling  this  threat.    He  underlined  the  need  for  the Allies to muster the political will within the alliance over a longer period.  He also advocated the creation of a legal framework within the Alliance, aimed at empowering governments with effective instruments.  However, he stressed that this must be done without disrupting the democratic fabric of  our  societies  and  the  rule  of  law  on  which  it  relies.    He  suggested  revising  NATO’s  military posture  and  its  doctrine,  adding  that  improved  intelligence  sharing  amongst  Allies  was  urgently required.    The  speaker  concluded  his  remarks  by  noting  that  the  Alliance  enjoyed  strong  public support  in  member  countries  and  submitted  that  a  strengthened  joint  decision  making  process among the Allies would advance more effective co-operation among governments and parliaments and thus counter a "sense of drifting apart". 12. Commenting  on  the  Ambassador’s  introductory  remarks,  the  idea  of  NATO’s  role  as  a catalyser of the peacekeeping concept and the need for greater consensus in that field was raised by the chairman and further developed by the speaker who advocated an increase in consensus through greater collaboration with the OSCE and the G8.  Longin Pastusiak (PL) bemoaned that international   relations   were   currently   in   "disorder"   and   wondered   who   could   re-establish international order.   VII. Presentation by Mr Stefano Silvestri, President of the Istituto Afari Internazionali (IAI) 13. In his speech, Stefano Silvestri explored the conceptual, strategic and political reality of the "Greater  Middle  East"  region.    He  described  the  reform  of  the  region,  as  suggested  by  the  US administration, as an important strategic choice.  Unfortunately, the difficulties in Iraq did not bode well for the future of this huge project.  In this context, the speaker noted that if elections in Iraq had to be postponed it would be necessary to launch a "political initiative" that would make it clear that  postponement  is  not  a  victory  of  the  insurgents.    More  generally,  Mr  Silvestri  stressed  that Western and international support for reforms must avoid any action that could be misconstrued as a "Holy Alliance".  Hence, the West and the international community as a whole must devise a "strategy  that  helps  the  modernisers  rather  than  the  terrorists".    Referring  to  Iraq,  the  speaker considered  it  unlikely  that  any  plan  would  work  without  including  Iran.    He  suggested  that  the United  States re-establish diplomatic relations with this country.  An agreement between Israelis and Palestinians was crucial to find a solution and the recent death of the PLO leader provided a "window of opportunity".  Fixing Iraq and ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were vital to further democratisation  in  the  region,  including  Saudi  Arabia.    With  regard  to  the  former,  Mr  Silvestri argued for a more active role by the EU.   14. Other steps that would be necessary to stabilise the region included, in his view, devising a global  strategy  on  energy  and  energy  consumption,  reassuring  Turkey  against  any  negative backlash in the Middle East.  Concluding his remarks, Mr Silvestri said that NATO could play an important role in the stabilisation of the region by, among other things, training military forces and creating  new  international  norms  for  private  armies.    However,  the  Alliance  could  not  solve  the problem by itself, thus it should establish a co-operation with the EU. 15. During  the  debate,  Committee  members  agreed  on  the  key  role  of  the  Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the region.  Noting that the West had a double interest in the region, namely stability and peace as well as energy, Markus Meckel (DE) said that the United States and the EU held different perceptions of the possible means to solve the challenges.  He and others welcomed an active involvement of the United States in the EU-3 (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) talks  with  Iran  on  the  nuclear  issue.    Donald  Anderson  (UK)  added  that  it  was  in  everyone’s interest that Iraq was a success.  He reminded that NATO member countries must improve their military capabilities.  Helge Adam Møller  (DK) acknowledged that no WMD were found in Iraq, but that the military intervention in Iraq removed Saddam Hussein who had tortured his own people.  

248 PC 04 E rev 1 5 Thorbjoern Jagland (NO), and Lamberto Dini (IT) agreed with the speaker on the importance of Iran,  adding  that  the  population  is  more  Western-oriented  than  in  most  other  countries  of  the region, but that the political leadership was different.   16. Mr  Jagland  (NO)  considered  it  "imperative"  to  involve  Muslim  countries  in  Iraq.    On  the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he disagreed with Mr Anderson on whether peace initiatives should wait until  after  the  Palestinians  elected  their  new  leadership.    The  former  Norwegian  Prime  Minister also  remarked  that  the  international  community  should  insist  on  the  fact  that  East  Jerusalem belongs to the occupied territories.  In addition, he considered Iraq’s "Kurdish issue" important and overlooked, and cautioned that ignoring the aspirations of the Kurdish people would create a big problem.   17. Mr Silvestri advocated to change the strategy towards Iran, which should be less focused on the  WMD  question  and  more  based  on  co-operation  and  non-nuclear  alternative  proposals.   Mr Meckel  and  Mr  Jagland  raised  questions  concerning  NATO’s  present  and  future  role  in  Iraq and the possible impact on the Alliance’s image in the Arab world, especially if NATO considered taking on a stronger, more visible role or establishing a divided command as Mr Dini mentioned.   Failure  to  organise  elections  in  Iraq  would  be  disastrous,  stressed  Mr  Anderson  and  others.   Several  participants  noted  that  the  death  of  PLO  leader  Yasser Arafat  opened  a  "window  of opportunity", but different views were expressed on whether Israel, supported by the members of the  Road  Map,  should  wait  until  a  new  Palestinian  leadership  was  in  place  as  Mr  Anderson suggested, or that the ball was now in Israel’s court, as Mr Jagland submitted. VIII.    Consideration  of  the  draft  Report  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  Transatlantic  Relations, The  EU  Security  Concept  -  Implications  for  NATO  and  the  EU  [167  PCTR  04 E]  by Ruprecht Polenz (Germany), Rapporteur 18. Presenting his draft report on The EU Security Concept –  Implications for NATO and the EU, Ruprecht  Polenz  (DE)  briefly  summarised  the  EU’s  European  Security  Strategy  (ESS)  with  the Strategic Concept of NATO and the US National Security Strategy (NSS).  Highlighting common themes  as  well  as  differences  among  the  three,  he  considered  the  ESS  a  good basis to further develop  the  EU’s  Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  (CFSP).   The Rapporteur concluded his introduction by identifying Iran's nuclear enrichment programme as a litmus test for the ESS.  The Rapporteur  argued  that  the  Allies  needed  to  devise  a  policy  that  supported  Iran's  political development,  but  explicitly  avoided  the  rhetoric  of  "regime  change".    As  the  immediate  goal  he identified making Iran fulfil its promise made in the autumn 2003 to the EU-3, namely to verifiably terminate  all  work  on  enrichment  and  reprocessing.    In  the  longer  term,  an  agreement  must  be reached  on  the  permanent  abandonment  of  uranium  enrichment  and  other  capacities  of  the nuclear fuel cycle. 19. The  Iranian  nuclear  programme  instigated  an  active exchange of views among Committee members.    Donald  Anderson  (UK)  and  others  agreed  with  the  Rapporteur  that  transferring  the issue  to  the  UN  Security  Council  would  not  solve  the  problem  because  Russia  and  China  were likely to veto possible sanctions.  The British member, the Rapporteur and David Price (US) also agreed that the EU and the United States should work together more closely.  Mr Price expressed the  view  that  differences  among  the  Allies  were  sometimes  over-emphasised.  In  this  context  he pointed   out   to   the   very   positive   co-operation   on   counter-terrorism   and   law   enforcement.   Regarding Iran, the Rapporteur said he found it important that the United States signaled that it could also offer incentives and not only threaten sanctions. However, he advised against signaling that  the  West  would  acquiesce  to  human  rights  violations  if  Iran  would  renounce  its  nuclear programme.  The  Rapporteur  reminded  participants  that  the  addressee  for  negotiations  was  the Iranian  government  and  that  it  was  necessary  to  promote  dialogue  with  moderates  within  the

248 PC 04 E rev 1 6 regime.  Critical views on US policy were expressed by Paolo Casaca (EP), who called the Iraq war  a  "mistake"  and  inquired  about  possible  plans  for  a  future  NATO  involvement  in  Iraq.    The Rapporteur responded by saying that he regretted that Germany had opted to train police officers outside  Iraq  and  emphasised  the  need  to  create  local  ownership  of  the  development  in  Iraq.   Angelika Beer (EP) criticised US considerations to develop new small nuclear bombs (so-called "bunker  busters").    Bart van Winsen  (NL)  underlined  the  need  for  a  better  division  of  labour between NATO and the EU and highlighted the need to strengthen the "parliamentary dimension" of security.  Paul  Quilès (FR) warned of the possible dangers of unilateralism and stressed the importance  of  improving  intelligence  co-operation  among  Allies,  whereas  Rafael  Estrella  (ES) suggested reassessing the nature of the terrorist threat in Europe. The draft Report [167 PCTR 04 E] was adopted unanimously. IX. Consideration of amendments and vote on the draft Resolution on Reinvigorating  the Transatlantic   Security   Dialogue   [192   PC   04   E]   by   Bert Koenders   (Netherlands), General Rapporteur 20. 26  amendments  were  submitted  to  the Draft Resolution by several delegations.  Of these, the following amendments were 21. accepted:  Amendment 6 (Mrs Sliska); amendment 24 (Mr Meckel, Mr Minniti, Mr Bouvard, Mrs  Aurillac);  amendment  8  (Mrs  Sliska),  orally  amended  to  substitute  “crucial”  by  ‘”important”; amendment   15   (Mr   Meckel,   Mr   Lellouche,   Mr   Severa,   Mr   Vavrousek,   Mr   Gricius   and Mr Pastusiak);   amendment   1   (Mr   Erdem,   Mr   Ba i ,   Mr   Batu,   Mr   Celik);   amendment   5 (Mr Kanerva);   amendment   9   (Ms   Sliska),   orally   amended   to   allow   inclusion   in   replaced paragraph 6;  amendment  23  (Mr  Bilirakis),  orally  amended  to  allow  it  as  an  addition  following paragraph 8 (not as a replacement of it); amendment 3 (Mr Erdem, Mr Ba i , Mr Batu, Mr Celik); amendment  22  (Mr  Jagland,  Mr  Pilka,  Mr  Batu);  amendment  17  (Mr  Pastusiak,  Mr  Lellouche, Mr Meckel, Mr Gricius, and Mr Forcieri); amendment 20 (Mr Estrella); amendment 21 (Mr Jagland, Mr Pilka, Mr Batu); amendment 11 (Mrs Sliska), orally amended by the Rapporteur; amendment 4 (Mr Erdem, Mr Ba i , Mr Batu, Mr Celik). 22. defeated:      Amendment   7   (Mrs   Sliska);   amendment   16   (Mr   Pastusiak   Mr   Lellouche, Mr Meckel, and Mr Anderson); amendment 10 (Mrs Sliska); amendment 2 (Mr Erdem, Mr Bagis, Mr Batu, Mr Celik); amendments 12, 13, and 14 (Mrs Sliska). 23. withdrawn:        Amendment    25    (Mr   Meckel,   Mr   Minniti,   Mr   Bouvard,   Mrs   Aurillac); amendment 19  (Mr  Minniti,  Mr  George,  Mr  Meckel,  Mr  Lamers);  amendment  18  (Mr  Pastusiak, Mr Lellouche, Mr Meckel, Mr Gricius, and Mr Forcieri); amendment 26 (Mr Meckel, Mr Minniti).   Following the votes on individual amendments, the Committee unanimously adopted the Draft Resolution on Reinvigorating the Transatlantic Security Dialogue [192 PC 04 E]. X. Election of new Committee officers   24. Turning   to   the   election   of   Committee   and   Sub-Committee's   officers,   the   Committee members  unanimously  followed  outgoing  chairman  Peter  Viggers’  suggestion  to  re-elect  the officers who were eligible for re-election.

248 PC 04 E rev 1 7 Succeeding   Mr   Viggers,   Markus   Meckel   (DE)   was   elected   chairman    of   the   Political Committee.  Longin Pastusiak (PL) and Jan Tore Sanner (NO) were elected Vice-Chairmen of the full Committee.   25. In  the  Sub-Committee  on  Transatlantic  Relations  (PCTR):    Egeman  Ba i  (TR)  was elected  chairman  of  the  Sub-Committee.    Assen  Agov  (BG)  was  elected  Vice-Chairman  of the Committee. With  regard  to  the  Sub-Committee  on  NATO  Partnerships  (PCNP),  Karl  Lamers  (DE)  was elected chairman of the Sub-Committee, Martine Aurillac (FR), Bart van Winsen (NL) and Inal Batu (TR) were elected as Vice-Chairpersons.   26. Moreover,   Bart   van   Winsen   (NL)   was   elected   alternate   member   for   the   Political Committee on the Ukraine-NATO Interparliamentary Council (UNIC).   XI. Activities in 2004 27. At  the  end  of  the  meeting  of  the  Political  Committee,  the  outgoing  chairmen  of  the  full Committee,  Peter  Viggers,  and  of  the  two  Sub-Committees  briefly  informed  about  the  visits  in 2004.    Longin  Pastusiak  (PL)  reported  on  the  visits  of  the  PCTR  to  the  United  States  and Germany,   while   Markus   Meckel   (DE)   spoke   about   the   fact-finding  missions  to  Serbia  and Montenegro as well as to Armenia and Georgia.  Mr Viggers also provided a general overview of the  planned  activities  next  year  which  include,  among  others,  visits  to  Iran  and  the  United  Arab Emirates.    Thanking  the  Italian  delegation  again  for  hosting  the  50^th  Anniversary  Session  of  the NATO PA, Mr Viggers closed the meeting of the Political Committee.