STANDING COMMITTEE 253 SC 04 E Original: English NAT O   Pa rl ia me n ta ry  As s e mb l y SUMMARY of the meeting of the Standing Committee Palazzo del Casino, Lido, Venice, Italy Monday 15 November 2004 International Secretariat November 2004

253 SC 04 E i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Attendance List ................................................................................................................................ii 1. Opening of the meeting  ......................................................................................................... 1 2. Adoption of the draft Agenda [205 SC 04 E]........................................................................... 1 3. Adoption of the Summary of the meeting of the Standing Committee held in Bratislava, Slovak Republic, on Monday, 31 May 2004 [110 SC 04 E] ................................... 1 4. Organization of the Plenary Sitting to be held on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 ..................... 1 5. The Secretary General’s Report on Priorities and Activities [206 SC 04 E] ............................ 1 6 The Status of Non-Member Parliaments: a Review [207 SC 04 E] ......................................... 4 7. Follow-up on the Standing Committee’s Statement on the Presidential Election in Ukraine on 31 October 2004 [108 SC 04 E bis]  .................................................................................. 6 8. Draft amendments to the Rules of Procedure [208 SC 04 E].................................................. 7 9. Finance  ................................................................................................................................. 8 - Report of the NATO Board of Auditors on the Financial Audit of the Accounts of the NATO PA [178 FIN 04 E] - Audited Financial Statements for 2003 [146 FIN 04 E and appendices] plus abbreviated version for the Plenary Sitting [177 FIN 04 E] - Audited Provident Fund Financial Statements for 2003 [35 FIN 04 E] - Draft Report by the Treasurer to the Plenary Assembly [148 FIN 04 E] - Approval of the draft budget for 2005 [77 FIN 04 E] - Description of the Financial Controls of the NATO PA [AV164 SC (02) 28] 10. Approval of new Officers of Committees, Sub-Committees, Working Groups and Special Groups [209 SC 04 E]................................................................................................ 8 11.    Future sessions and meetings:............................................................................................... 9 - February Joint Committee meetings, Brussels, Belgium, February 2005 - Standing Committee meeting, Reykjavik, Iceland, 1-3 April 2005 - Spring Session, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 27 to 31 May 2005 [197 SESP 04 E] - Annual Study Visit 2005 - Annual Session, Copenhagen,  Denmark, 11 - 15 November 2005 - Guidelines for setting session dates (including letter from Mr Markus Meckel, - Head of the German Delegation) [210 SC 04 E] - Sessions and meetings from 2005 [190 GEN 04 E] 12.    Consideration of proposed candidatures for the Bureau of the Assembly............................. 10 13. Miscellaneous  ..................................................................................................................... 11

253 SC 04 E ii ATTENDANCE LIST President Doug Bereuter (United States) Vice-Presidents Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri (Italy) Pierre Lellouche (France) John Tanner (United States) Treasurer Lothar Ibrügger (Germany) Secretary General Simon Lunn NATO Auditors Pierre Kommes Terry DeJong MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS Belgium Jacques Devolder Bulgaria Tchetin Kazak Assen Agov Canada Jane Cordy Charles Hubbard Czech Republic Pavel Severa Denmark Helge Adam Møller Ulrik Kragh Estonia Sven Mikser Germany Markus Meckel Karl A. Lamers Greece Vassililos Maghinas Georgios Kalantzis Italy Mario Palombo Latvia Aleksandrs Kirsteins Luxembourg Marc Angel Netherlands Jos van Gennip Norway Jon Lilletun Trond Helleland Poland Marian Pilka Portugal Jaime Gama Romania Mihail Lupoi Slovakia Jozef Banaš Slovenia Andrej Vizjak Spain Federico Trillo-Figueroa Turkey Vahit Erdem Egemen Ba i United Kingdom Lord Clark of Windermere Sir Menzies Campbell United States Michael Bilirakis  

253 SC 04 E iii Committees Civil Dimension of Security Alice Mahon (United Kingdom), Chairperson Defence and Security Committee Franco Angioni (Italy), Vice-Chairman Economics and Security Paul E. Gillmor (United States), Chairman Political Peter Viggers (United Kingdom), Chairman Science and Technology Pierre Claude Nolin (Canada), Chairman Mediterranean Special Group Jean-Michel Boucheron (France), Chairman SECRETARIES OF DELEGATION Member Delegations Belgium Frans Van Melkebeke Bulgaria Borislav Penchev Canada Denis Robert Czech Republic Olga Bendikova Denmark Morten Roland Hansen Estonia Tanja Espe France Frédéric Taillet Etienne Sallenave Germany Rainer Büscher Greece Roxani Xeplati Hungary Károly Tüzes Italy Alessandra Lai Latvia Sandra Paura Lithuania Snieguole Ziukaite Luxembourg Isabelle Barra Netherlands Leo van Waasbergen Norway Allon Groth Poland Mikolaj Karlowski Portugal Luisa Pinto Basto Romania Ioan Ilie Slovakia Iva Stenová Slovenia Tamara Gruden-Pecan Spain Mercedes Araújo Turkey Cazibe Yapici United Kingdom Tracey Garratty   United  States Susan Olson Accompanying the member delegations Belgium Patrick Delodder France Sylvie Bizzozzero Germany Johannes von Ahlefeldt Andrea Bou-Said Britta Hanke Giesers Waltraud Anna Weiland Italy Pia Califano Elena di Pancrazio Stefania Perozzi Netherlands Wilma Kooijman Spain Mariano Daranas Araceli Quintano

253 SC 04 E iv Turkey Yesim Uslu United States John Lis International Secretariat Sébastien Botella Roberta Calorio Andrea Cellino Paul Cook Alex Dowling Leslie Fields Filippo Gamba Dwight Griswold Christine Heffinck Helena Hradilova David Hobbs Andrew Kennon Raphaëlle Mathey Susan Millar Ruxandra Popa Jacqueline Pforr Gabriel Reyes-Leguen Steffen Sachs Zachary Selden Debbie van der Merwe Minute Writers Chris Shaw Steven Mark

253 SC 04 E 1 The meeting opened on Monday 15 November 2004 at 9.14 am with the Hon Doug Bereuter, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, in the Chair. 1. Opening of the meeting The  President  declared  the  meeting  open  and  thanked  the  Italian  staff  for  their  hard  work  in preparing the 50^th Annual Session. He welcomed Mr Bilirakis as the new Acting Head of the US Congress delegation. Apologies for absence had been received from Mr Hefley (US), Mr Ilchev (BG), Mr Pastusiak (PL), Mr Petrescu (RO), Mr Sanner (NO), Mr Spautz (LU) and Mr Steffanson (IS). 2. Adoption of the draft Agenda [205 SC 04 E] The draft Agenda [205 SC 04 E] was adopted. 3. Adoption of the Summary of the meeting of the Standing Committee held in Bratislava, Slovak Republic, on Monday, 31 May 2004 [110 SC 04 E] The Summary [110 SC 04 E] was adopted. 4. Organisation of the Plenary Sitting to be held on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 The President confirmed the speakers for the Plenary sitting. 5. The Secretary General’s Report on Priorities and Activities [206 SC 04 E] The Secretary General said that his report laid out the Assembly’s work in functional areas which reflected the regional emphasis that was being increasingly adopted.  He first drew attention to the continuing  focus  on  South  Eastern  Europe,  including  the  three  Adriatic  countries  next  in  line  for NATO membership.  He also noted that the Assembly was trying to help Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that it would have to continue to monitor developments in Kosovo.  The Assembly’s Committee and seminar programmes would include events in the region in 2005. Increasing  attention  would  be  paid  to  the  Caucasus,  largely  through  the  Committee  on  the  Civil Dimension  on  Security.    A  Rose-Roth  seminar  would  take  place  in  Azerbaijan  shortly  after  the Venice Session, and a similar seminar was scheduled to take place in Armenia in 2005. He  noted  that  contacts  with  Central  Asia  had  been  very  limited,  but  interest  in  the  region  was growing,   not   least   because   of   the   proximity   to   Afghanistan.   Kazakhstan   had   applied   for parliamentary  observer  status,  and  this  featured  on  the  next  item  on  the  agenda.    There  was obvious  interest  in  Afghanistan  with  mounting  concern  about  the  drugs  problem.    Visits  to Afghanistan were being considered for 2005. With respect to the “greater” or “broa der” Middle East – there was no wholly satisfactory term – the Assembly  had  augmented  the  work  of  the  Mediterranean  Special  Group  in  2004  by  holding  an additional meeting in Naples, and this should be an annual feature in the future.  At the Istanbul Summit,  NATO  had  adopted  the  Istanbul  Co-operation Initiative,  and  Ambassador  Minuto  Rizzo, NATO’s  Deputy  Secretary  General,  would  be  briefing  the  plenary  sitting  about  his  contacts  with nations of the Gulf Co-operation Council.  The Assembly would have to decide how to reflect this new area of interest at the parliamentary level.

253 SC 04 E 2 He noted that Morocco had requested associate status, and that Algeria was expressing interest in becoming a parliamentary observer.  This matter featured on the next agenda item concerning the status of non-member parliaments. The Secretary General continued by inviting comments on how best to develop the Assembly’s dialogue with Russia following mixed reactions to the existing joint committee meetings in Russia and the meeting of the NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee.  The quality of dialogue had been criticized, and better results might be achieved by having individual Committee or Sub-Committee visits which would be more flexible, but less symbolic. He noted that Ukraine would be addressed later on the agenda, and that this remained a priority.   The situation with Belarus seemed frozen and there were no obvious ways for the Assembly to do more. He then turned to the meeting with the North Atlantic Council which seemed to have been a great success and invited delegates to consider how to build upon that meeting. Finally, he mentioned that he had circulated the outline for a book celebrating the Assembly’s 50^th anniversary, and invited comments on that. The President asked for comments from the floor. Mr  van  Gennip  (NL)  shared  the  Secretary  General’s  analysis  of  the  situation  with  regard  to Russia.  He  was  uneasy  with  the  current  formula  through  which  one  delegation  appeared  to  be interrogated by all the others. Thought needed to be given to how the Assembly implemented the content of its dialogue with the Russians. What was their real contribution? Mr Kirsteins (LV) asked why the Assembly had not made contact with Turkmenistan which was an important nation and a large exporter of natural gas. The Secretary General replied that the Assembly did not have serious contact with any of the five “Stans”.  Kazakhstan  had  requested  parliamentary  observer  status.  He  needed  to  know  whether members were in favour of moving towards closer contact with the States of Central Asia.  Issues of  democratic  legitimacy  and  human  rights  could  cause  concern  among  members.  He  would appreciate clear directions on this. Regarding the NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee, this had been created with the aim of eliminating the distinction between Russia and the Alliance members under the old “26 plus 1” format.  However, discussions always seemed to develop on those lines. Alice  Mahon  (UK)  wanted  to  continue  the  dialogue  with  Russia.  Russian  delegates  had  made good  contributions  to  the  Committee  she  chaired.    Her  Committee  might  visit  Astrakhan  during 2005, and she felt that for visits to Russia, it might be more useful to have smaller groups. Mr Meckel (DE) agreed on the need to maintain dialogue with Russia. The question was how this communication should be carried out. It was important that the Assembly’s programmes were not dictated  by  countries  without  a  tradition  of  democracy.  It  was  also  necessary  to  realise  that sometimes  important  opposition  opinions  were  not  covered  by  discussion  with  the  Russian Parliament.    Members  of  the  Assembly  needed  to  meet  such  people  who  held  these  opposition views. Mr  Erdem  (TR)  asked  whether  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  could  be  added  to  Section  (b)  of  the Secretary  General’s  report  on NATO  operations.    He  also felt that  a  more  rational  dialogue  with Russia was needed. Proper relations should be established with all five countries of Central Asia, given their strategic importance from the points of view of security, terrorism and energy.  Dialogue with them would help create understanding.

253 SC 04 E 3 Mr Forcieri (IT) agreed that relations with Russia needed to be made more productive. He was not certain that fragmentation of the Assembly’s work with Russia via individual committees and sub- committees   was   the   answer.      He   thought   that   the   present  formula   needed   fuller   Russian engagement.  Regarding the NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee, he was not sure about the value of having Russian delegates produce reports for discussion, but the meetings should focus on  a  single,  clear  issue.  He  also  felt  that  the  Mediterranean  was  a  key  issue,  and  the  Naples meeting  should  be  an  annual  fixture.    Finally,  he  felt  that  the  meeting  with  the  North  Atlantic Council  had  been  a great  success,  in  large  part  thanks  to  the  organisation  of the  President  and Secretary General. This meeting should be followed up. The President noted that the use of a timer had been a great assistance to the Chair during its session, as it allowed more members to participate. Mr  Agov  (BG)  agreed that  the  Special  Joint  Meeting  of the  NATO  PA  and  the  NAChad  been  a success.  He suggested that the NATO Secretary General should be approached to see if relevant ambassadors would be prepared to be the guests of the Assembly’s committees in future.  There should be more constant contact between the members of the NAC and the Assembly.  On Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, he supported Mr Meckel’s comments, noting that Russian political views as expressed on the Internet were much more diverse than those expressed by Russian delegates to the Assembly. He had serious doubts about the democratic process in Ukraine and he asked why members of the opposition from Belarus no longer attended the Assembly. Lord Clark (UK) emphasised the need to be patient with the relationship with Russia and thought that it was worth pursuing the existing framework of joint meetings.  The large participation in such meetings helped to indicate the Assembly’s commitment to the relationship with Russia.  He noted that  Mrs  Sliska  had  agreed  to  prepare  a  report  for  the  next  meeting  of  the  NATO-Russia Parliamentary  Committee.    He  expressed  support  for  repeating  what  he  judged  to  be  a  superb meeting with the NATO Ambassadors. Mr Lilletun (NO) supported the points made by Lord Clark and agreed with Mr Meckel that it was important to engage in a dialogue with other bodies in Russia.  He noted that the Committee on the Civil  Dimension  of  Security  would  pay  attention  to  the  South  Caucasus  and  he  agreed  that  the Assembly should continue to address the Balkans, and in particular should work more closely with Serbia and Montenegro. The Secretary General thanked the Committee for a clear message on relations with Russia and said that he would seek to engage a broader spectrum of Russian opinion in future joint meetings in Russia. Alice Mahon (UK) reported that the Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security would focus on Central  Asian  Republics  and  hoped  to  visit  Kazakhstan.    The  Sub-Committee  on  Democratic Governance would look at stability in the South Caucasus and would visit Azerbaijan. Mr Zhukov would present a parallel report on the humanitarian situation in this region.  There would also be report  by  a  Special  Rapporteur,  Lord  Jopling,  on  civil  protection  in  response  to  the  increased terrorist threat. Mr Gillmor (US) said that the Economic and Security Committee’s next report would explore the security  risks  posed  by  commodity  and  resource  shortages.    The  Sub-Committee  on  East-West Economic Co-operation and Convergence would look at how the lessons of the economic situation in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  could  be  applied  in  North  Africa  and  the  Middle  East.    The Sub-Committee  would  visit  Latvia  in  the  summer  of  2005  and  possibly  North  Africa  later  in  the year.      The   Sub-Committee   on   Transatlantic   Economic   Relations   would   look   at   economic convergence with China and, in this context, a visit to Beijing and Shanghai was being organised.

253 SC 04 E 4 The  Committee  was  also  planning  to  visit  Paris  and  London  to  explore  their  views  of  trade  with China. Mr Viggers (UK) reported that the Political Committee, as usual, planned to participate in the joint meetings in Brussels in February. The Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Relations planned to visit New York and Canada in 2005 and also Spain, in order to consider the growing Hispanic influence in  the  United  States.  The  current  plan  was  for  this  Sub-Committee  to  examine  NATO-EU co-operation,  but  his  personal  preference  for  the  Sub-Committee’s  report  for  the  following  year would  be  NATO:  a  coalition  of  the  willing  in  response  to  current  problems.  The  visit  to  Canada might  be  co-ordinated  with  that  of  the  Defence  and  Security  Committee’s  Sub-Committee  on Transatlantic  Defence  and  Security  Co-operation.  The  Sub-Committee  on  NATO  Partnerships would  shift  its  focus  in  the  following  year  to  cooperation  with  members  of  the  Gulf  Cooperation Council and would also seek to visit the United Arab Emirates, and possibly Iran where there was obvious interest in nuclear issues. Mr  Angioni  (IT)  said  that  the  Committee  on  Defence  and  Security  would  focus  on  NATO’s out-of-area operations, in particular those in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Sub-Committee on Future Security and Defence Capabilities  would  look at NATO’s role in Balkan  security, and visits  were planned to Kosovo and either the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia^* or Albania, and Serbia and Montenegro. The Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Defence and Security Co-operation would build on its 2004 report on the Prague Capabilities Commitment and planned to visit Norway and Sweden, and Canada in 2005.  The Committee would also visit Washington DC and St. Louis early in 2005. He reported on the election of officers in the Committee. Mr  Nolin  (CA)  thanked  Norway  for  organizing  a  splendid  summer  seminar  for  the  Science  and Technology Committee in Spitzbergen.  The Committee had accepted a mandate to analyse the efficiency  and  coordination  of  assistance  programmes  for  the  disposal  of  weapons  of  mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.  It was important that Russian delegates were fully engaged in  the  fulfilment  of  this  mandate.    This  would  be  the  subject  of  a  general  report,  with  a  special report on climate change, focusing on the Arctic.  The Sub-Committee would report on the security implications of nanotechnology.  The Committee planned visits to Kourou, to Russia and to Berlin. Mr Boucheron (FR) described a meeting held by the Mediterranean Special Group in Mauritania, which had covered links with NATO, democracy and Islam, among other subjects. It was crucial to continue  debates  on  these  themes,  in  order  to  build  peace.    He  appreciated  how  difficult  it  had been   for   some   Muslim   leaders   to   be   seen   attending   meetings   with   a   NATO   body.      The Mediterranean Special Group was trying to set up a meeting in the Middle East. As no reply had been received from Egypt, Jordan had been approached and the response had been positive. A further  meeting  was  planned  for  November  2005  in  Qatar,  aiming  to  involve  the  whole  of  the "Greater Middle East" region. 6. The Status of Non-Member Parliaments: a Review [207 SC 04 E] The President introduced this item, explaining that the Review recommended two possible options for Morocco, either deciding whether to grant Morocco associate membership, or creating a new category  of  associate  for  southern  Mediterranean  countries.    This  was  a  political  decision  for members. The Secretary General explained that the current framework for membership had been elaborated over time and allowed countries to be integrated appropriately and according to their wishes into the  work  of  the  Assembly.    Countries  approached  their  relationships  with  the  Assembly  from  a * Turkey and the United States recognize the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.

253 SC 04 E 5 broad range of standpoints.  When considering applications, democratic legitimacy was always a concern  of  members.    The  Standing  Committee  was  being  asked  to  decide  how  to  approach membership  issues  for  the  countries  involved  in  the  Mediterranean  dialogue.    The  proposal  for special   Mediterranean   associate   membership   would   involve   permitting   their   participation   in seminars  and  staff  training  activities  but  not  including  the  right  to  participate  in  committee  and sub-committee meetings, if for no other reason that the sheer pressure of numbers. So far, only Morocco and more recently Algeria of the relevant countries had indicated an interest in becoming involved more deeply in the work of the Assembly. The President opened discussion to the floor. Sir Menzies Campbell (UK) did not favour creating a separate category of membership. He was uncomfortable with the number of categories that already existed. It was important that the system in  place  should  be  reasonably  consistent  and  predictable.  He  wondered  whether  associate members should be asked to make some kind of financial contribution. The position of Russia was already  inconsistent  given  that  the  European  Parliament  was  in  a  less  favoured  position.  He favoured the first option. Mr Meckel (DE) was reluctant to be generous with regard to status, and would have preferred to look at ways of intensifying cooperation through the Mediterranean Special Group. He suggested that  speakers  should  regularly  come  to  meetings  of  the  Special  Group  from  countries  of  the southern Mediterranean, forming a kind of sub-Assembly. A wave of new memberships could be problematic. He preferred intensive dialogue, rather than inclusion. Mr Kazak (BG) agreed with Mr Meckel on the need to encourage countries such as Morocco which had taken significant steps towards democracy. He also pointed to the desirability of encouraging the three Adriatic candidate countries in their reform process. Mr   Trillo-Figueroa   (ES)  warned  that  option  one  would  set  an  important  precedent  for  the Assembly. He said that the Spanish delegation was in favour of the specific category of associate members envisaged in option two, or of leaving the matter open for further discussion. Mr  Lellouche  (FR) favoured  option  two,  on  the  grounds  that  it  was  important  not  to  be  seen  to close  the  door  on  Southern  Mediterranean  countries.  The  French  delegation  was  in  favour  of inviting Morocco, and possibly others, to be associate members. He also expressed support for the Kazakh parliament’s request for parliamentary observer status but thought that it was too early to reward the limited progress made in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro. Mr Boucheron (FR), Chairman of the Mediterranean Special Group, expressed a preference for option two but, if this could not be agreed, his preference was to establish a group to consider the matter further in order to avoid sending out negative signals. Mr  Forcieri  (IT)  hoped  that  a  consensus  could  be  reached  on  option  two  and  emphasised  that another category of associate members should not be seen as having a second class status. Mr  Gama  (PT)  stressed  that  any  decisions  should  be  reached  on  the  basis  of  the  Assembly’s agenda rather than that of Morocco.  He warned that the granting of associate membership could have negative implications and could jeopardise the Assembly’s current strategy.  It was important to recognise that some countries would never attain full membership of the Alliance but it might be appropriate  to  have  a  different  type  of  associate  membership  for  these  countries.    Granting  full associate   membership   in   this   case   would   pave   the   way   for   other   possibly   less   welcome applications.  The Assembly should adjust its structures in the wake of NATO Istanbul’s Summit, and the second option was an appropriate way of doing that.  

253 SC 04 E 6 Mr Meckel (DE) said that the criteria for associate membership were relatively clear-cut. Even in Morocco,  political  prisoners  and  systematic  torture  remained  issues  of  concern.    He  could  not agree to grant Morocco associate status, especially if this status was not to be granted to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro.  The second option was a possible alternative. Mr Erdem (TR) favoured option one and asked for a vote. Mr  van  Gennip  (NL)  said  that  although  Morocco  was  not  yet  qualified  to  become  an  associate member  on the  basis  of  the  criteria,  associate membership  had  already  been  given  to  countries which  did  not  meet these  criteria.    He favoured option  two.    He favoured  granting  parliamentary observer  status to  Kazakhstan,  but  he  opposed  allowing  the  “Adriatic  three”  states  to  attend  the Standing Committee as observers.  He was also in favour of upgrading the status of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro. The Secretary General said that he had thought long and hard about the membership framework. A very broad range of countries needed to be fitted into it.  He reminded Sir Menzies Campbell that the decision not to give the European Parliament all the rights of an associate had been a specific political decision due to the circumstances of the moment. The President declared that as he was no longer a member of the House, the US votes would be cast by Mr Gillmor and Mr Tanner. Mr Lellouche (FR) raised a point of order. The President asked if there were any objections to granting parliamentary observer status to Kazakhstan.  There being no objections, he said that this decision would be referred to the plenary sitting for approval. Following  a  vote,  the  President  said  that  a  motion  to  grant  Morocco  associate  member status had failed. Following a vote, the President said that it was agreed to create a new category of associate members for southern Mediterranean countries. Following a vote, the President said that it was agreed to accept Morocco into this category. Mr Meckel (DE) raised a point of order. Following   a   vote,   the   President   said  that  a   motion  to   grant   Bosnia   and   Herzegovina associate member status had failed. Following a vote, the President said that a motion to grant Serbia and Montenegro associate member status had failed. 7. Follow-up  on  the  Standing  Committee’s  Statement  on  the  Presidential  Election  in Ukraine on 31 October 2004 [108 SC 04 E bis] The President invited Mrs Cordy to report on the Assembly’s mission to observe the first round of presidential elections in Ukraine which had taken place on 31 October. Mrs  Cordy  (CA)  reported  on  the  high  levels  of  grassroots  support  for  the  election  process  in Ukraine  and  on  the  commitment  and  diligence  of  those  involved  in  the  process.  However,  the long-term observer mission in Ukraine reported a more negative picture of an overwhelming media

253 SC 04 E 7 bias and the disruption of opposition campaign events by the Ukrainian authorities. The leader of the  OSCE  observer  delegation  reported  that  the  2004  presidential  elections  had  not  met  a considerable number of the standards set for democratic elections. This was very disappointing for the  Ukrainian  people  but  she  urged  the  Assembly  to  continue  to  work  for  democracy  in  the Ukraine. She said that the Assembly would be monitoring the run-off election for the presidency to be held the following week. The President regretted that the run-off election was likely to be a negative turning point for the Ukraine and he feared the worst for democracy in that country. 8. Draft amendments to the Rules of Procedure [208 SC 04 E] The President explained the background to the amendments to the rules of procedure before the Committee and invited comments from the floor. Mr  Forcieri  (IT)  agreed  on  the  need  to  update  the  rules  of  procedure  to  reflect  the  expanded membership  of  the  Assembly  and  the  need  to  involve  new  members  in  the  activities  of  the Assembly.   He   argued   that   the   proposal   to   increase   the   mandate   of   the   Chairman   of   the Mediterranean  Special Group, from  two  to four  years,  did  not  correspond  with  this  objective.  He proposed that the Chairman should be eligible for re-election only once, in line with the mandates of  the  President  and  Vice-Presidents  of  the  Assembly.    He  said  that  a  compromise  could  be  to reduce  to  three  years  the  maximum  term  for  the  Chairman  and  to  harmonise  the  mandates  of officers of other committees by limiting them to three years as well.  This would help to broaden participation in the leadership of committees and sub-committees. Mr Viggers (UK) said, with regard to the Ukraine-NATO Interparliamentary Council, the need for continuity in membership had to be balanced by the desirability of fielding a full Assembly team. He proposed an amendment to the draft amendment before the Committee to indicate that attendance at each meeting shall be based on the following priorities: a) nominated members; b) nominated alternate members; c) other members of the Committee. The President, hearing no objection to this proposal, declared that it was accepted. Mr Nolin (CA) expressed concern at the prospect of any reduction in the four-year term of office for  the  committee  officers  because  there  was  not  a  strong  demand for  positions  on  the  Science and Technology Committee. Mr  Forcieri (IT) clarified that his proposal was confined to the Mediterranean Special Group but other mandates might be considered in future. Mr Boucheron (FR) agreed with the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee that the Mediterranean  Special  Group  should  be  like  other  committees.  Strategy  required  planning,  and time  was  needed  for  this.  He  was  not  asking  for  a  special  status,  just  uniformity  amongst  the committees. Mr Forcieri (IT) said that the Special Group was not a committee. It needed its own specific rules. He wanted to find a compromise, and proposed an amendment to replace the reference to “three times” in paragraph 5 of Article A to “twice”. Following   a   vote,   the   President   said   that   Mr   Forcieri's   proposed   amendment   to   the amendment had failed.

253 SC 04 E 8 Following a vote, the President said that the amendment had been passed, as proposed by Mr Viggers. 9. Finance - Report  of the  NATO  Board  of  Auditors  on  the  Financial  Audit  of  the  Accounts  of  the NATO PA [178 FIN 04 E] - Audited Financial Statements for 2004 [146 FIN 04 E and appendices] plus abbreviated version for the Plenary Sitting [177 FIN 04 E] - Audited Provident Fund Financial Statements for 2004 [35 FIN 04 E] - Draft Report by the Treasurer to the Plenary Assembly [148 FIN 04 E] - Approval of the draft budget for 2005 [77 FIN 04 E] - Description of the Financial Controls of the NATO PA [AV164 SC (02) 28] The President introduced the item and asked the Treasurer to address the Committee. Mr Ibrü  gger (DE) invited the auditor, Mr Kommes, to speak to the Committee. Mr Kommes said that the Board had issued unqualified opinions on the two financial statements for 2003. The Board and staff had worked well together to improve the presentation of systems and internal  controls.  He  suggested  that  the  Committee  might  want  to  decide  whether  it  was  still necessary to publish the travel costs of every member of staff. He noted that the cooperation he had received had greatly facilitated the auditing process. Mr Ibrü  gger (DE) said that he was pleased that the auditor’s report reflected a clean bill of health. He  asked  the  Committee  to  agree  that  a  shorter  version  of  the  financial  statements  should  be distributed to the Plenary Assembly,  with the full financial details available on request. He noted that  he  had  agreed  with  the  Secretary  General  that  an  additional  member  of  staff  should  be recruited, and asked the Committee to approve his budget. Although  this  additional  staff  member  would  help  relieve  some  of  the  burden  placed  on  the International Secretariat, he did not feel that it would solve what he felt was still a problem with the staffing level.  In his view, there would still be a need to recruit a further staff member at the policy level, but this could not be achieved without an increase in resources.  He would like to discuss this matter  in  more  detail  with  the  Standing  Committee  at  its  next  meeting  before  he  started  the preparation of the 2006 budget. The President thanked Mr Ibrü gger for his fine work and asked for contributions from the floor. Mr  van  Gennip  (NL)  congratulated  the  Treasurer  and  staff  on  achieving  financial  transparency, especially in the light of past problems. The President said that the draft budget for 2005 had been approved. 10. Approval   of   new   Officers   of   Committees,   Sub-Committees,   Working   Groups   and Special Groups [209 SC 04 E] The President invited the Chairmen of the Committees to report on the elections of officers and noted that Mr Angioni (IT) had already reported on the Defence and Security Committee. Alice Mahon (UK), Mr Gillmor (US), Mr Viggers (UK), Mr Nolin (CA), reported on the election of officers in their respective committees.

253 SC 04 E 9 11. Future sessions and meetings: - February Joint Committee meetings, Brussels, Belgium, February 2005 - Standing Committee meeting, Reykjavik, Iceland, 1– 3 April 2005 - Spring Session, Ljublijana, Slovenia, 27 to 31 May 2005 [197 SESP 04 E] - Annual Study Visit 2005 - Annual Session, Copenhagen, Denmark, 11– 15 November 2005 - Guidelines for setting session dates (including letter from Mr Markus Meckel, Head of the German Delegation) [210 SC 04 E] - Sessions and meetings from 2005 [190 GEN 04 E] The Secretary General reported that the dates and venue of the February joint meetings would be decided in the near future. Mr Lilletun (NO) informed the Committee that a formal invitation to host the Spring Session of 2009 in Norway would be made at the next annual session. Mr  Lamers (DE) asked that in future the Spring Session should be scheduled to avoid clashing with the Whitsun holidays. Mr van Gennip (NL) pressed for a decision of a date on the February joint meetings as soon as possible. The Secretary General replied that a decision was dependent on the wishes of other delegations but he hoped information would be provided shortly. The  President  reported  that  preparations  for  the  Standing  Committee  meeting  in  Reykjavik  for 2005 were well underway. Mr  Vizjak  (SI)  introduced  a  short  video  on  Slovenia  in  preparation  for  the  Spring  Session  in Ljublijana in May 2005. The President thanked delegates for their reports and mentioned that no offers had been made to host the 2005 Annual Study Visit. The Secretary General noted the great success of the Annual Study Visit to Turkey and said that, in absence of any offers for 2005, he would attempt to look for a solution in the New Year. Mr  Mø ller  (DK)  said  that  the  2005  annual  session  would  be  held  in  Parliament  in  the  centre  of Copenhagen, and he looked forward to it. Lord  Clark (UK) noted that it was difficult for British parliamentarians to be away from home  on Remembrance  Sunday  and  he  asked  if  this  could  be  taken  into  account  in  planning  future meetings. Mr  Lamers  (DE)  asked if the  date for  the  spring  2007  session  in  Portugal  could  be  changed  to avoid the Whitsun holiday. Mr  Tanner  (US)  noted  that  if  the  dates  were  changed,  the  US  Delegation  would  be  unable  to participate. Mr Gama (PT) said that Madeira was a possible venue, but that religious holidays were impossible to avoid. Mr  Ba i  (TR)  said  that  most  delegates  came  from  secular  countries  and  noted  that  it  was currently an important Islamic holiday.

253 SC 04 E 10 Mr van Gennip (NL) said that the request was not a religious one, it was just a request to avoid difficult dates. Mr  Mø  ller (DK)  noted that  the  subject  was  discussed  at  every  meeting. Assembly  staff  did  their best to find the most appropriate dates and they should be allowed to sort it out Mr Banáš (SK) said that he would have expected that holidays were the best time for delegates to be away from home. Mr  Lilletun  (NO)  supported  the  request  of  Mr  van  Gennip  and  was  content  to  leave  it  to  the Secretary General to determine the best course of action. Mr Lamers (DE) expressed his confidence in the Secretary General and his appreciation for any flexibility he could offer. Mrs Cordy (CA) said that it was necessary for someone to take a decision, which all delegations would have to work around. Mr Gama (PT) asked for a decision on dates to be taken quickly so that hotel bookings could be made. The  Secretary  General  said  he  hoped  that  delegates  would  understand  that  strong  levels  of participation from Canada and the United States had always been an important consideration for the  Assembly  and  that  any  change  of  the  Lisbon  dates  would  prevent  the  US  delegation  from participating. Lord Clark (UK) said that there was no alternative but to choose dates which would enable the US delegates to participate. Mr Lamers (DE) agreed with Lord Clark if no alternatives could be found. The President outlined the vacancies for future sessions. 12. Consideration of proposed candidatures for the Bureau of the Assembly The  President  announced  the  nominations  for  the  Presidency  and  Vice-Presidencies  of  the Assembly and invited comments. Mr Nolin (CA) proposed that election of the Vice-President from a new member state should be separated from election of other Vice-Presidents. Mr Mikser (EE) seconded the motion. Mr Ba i (TR) supported the motion and suggested that a political solution was needed to ensure that there was only one candidate from a new member country. Mr  Forcieri  (IT)  agreed  with  Mr  Ba i  and  stressed  the  importance  of  adhering  to  political agreements which were required for the smooth running of the Assembly. Mr Ba i (TR) further suggested that the Conservative political group should be asked to provide only one candidate for the Vice-Presidency. Mr Viggers (UK) reiterated his support for Mr Erdem.

253 SC 04 E 11 Mr Gama (PT) clarified that this format would be for this election only. Mr Lellouche (F) said that this proposal from Mr Nolin, which he supported, should be an interim measure for maybe two or three mandates. The President declared that the proposal from Mr Nolin was adopted unanimously. Mr  Forcieri  (IT)  urged  that  this  procedure  should  be  transitional  before  firm  rules  could  be established. The  President  clarified  that  there  would  be  a  separate  vote  for  Vice-Presidents  from  the  new member countries only if there were two candidates. Mr Banáš (SK) and Mr Lupoi (RO) both restated their candidatures. Mr Mikser (EE) urged consensus before the Plenary. 13. Miscellaneous Mr Mø  ller (DK) said that he was disappointed that the letter on Afghanistan agreed in Bratislava had not been put on the agenda and asked that it should be on the agenda of the next session in Reykjavik. The  President  agreed  that  parliamentary  elections  in  Afghanistan  would  require  an  enhanced NATO presence. Mr Forcieri (IT) asked whether it would be possible to hold an election for the presidency of the Mediterranean Special Group in February 2005. The Deputy Secretary General said that every effort would be made to organize this during the February meetings but noted that it depended on the presence of members. The President thanked the staff and members of the Bureau and closed the meeting. The meeting was closed at 1.25 pm. ____________