189454

STANDING COMMITTEE 111 SC 05 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 White Hall, Grand Union Hotel, Ljubljana, Slovenia Monday 30 May 2005 International Secretariat May 2005

111 SC 05 E i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Attendance List ................................................................................................................................ii 1. Opening of the meeting ......................................................................................................... 1 2. Adoption of the draft agenda [087 SC 05 E rev. 2]………………………………………………...1 3. Adoption of the Minutes of the Standing Committee meeting held in Reykjavik, Iceland on Saturday, 2 April 2005 [090 SC 05 E] .................................................. 1 4. Finances ............................................................................................................................... 1 Draft Budget for 2006 [071 FIN 05 E] Signatory threshold for the Assembly's accounts [095 FIN 05 E] The International Secretariat and national delegations: guidelines for organizing meetings [096 GEN 05 E] Financial implications involved with interpretation for Committee, Sub-committee visits and seminars [050 SC 05 E] Remarks by Mr. Pierre Kommes, Member of the International Board of Auditors for NATO Personnel regulations [041 ADM 05 E] 5. The duration of the mandates of Committee Officers [048 SC 05 E]....................................... 4 6. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” in Assembly documents [049 SC 05 E]......................................................................................................................... 6 7. The Status of Non-Member Parliaments [091 SC 05 E rev. 1]................................................ 7 Letter from the Jordanian Parliament Letter from the Israeli Knesset Status of the Palestinian Legislative Council Letter from the Ukrainian Parliament Status of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Status of the European Parliament 8. The Secretary General’s Report on the Priorities and Activities of the Assembly [092 SC 05 E]...................................................................................................................... 12 9. Draft Declaration on Uzbekistan presented by Pierre Lellouche, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, on behalf of the Assembly’s Bureau [113 SC 05 E]....................................................................................................................... 14 10. Draft Declaration on Darfur presented by Pierre Lellouche, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, on behalf of the Assembly’s Bureau [115 SC 05 E]....................................................................................................................... 14 11. Future sessions and meetings ............................................................................................. 15 Hosts for future sessions and meetings [088 SC 05 E] Programme for the 51st Annual Session to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark from 11 to 15 November 2005 [036 SESA 05 E rev.1] The Spring Session to be held in Paris, France from 26 to 30 May 2006 Future sessions and meetings [037 GEN 05 E rev.1] 12. Miscellaneous ..................................................................................................................... 15

111 SC 05 E ii ATTENDANCE LIST President Pierre Lellouche (France) Vice-Presidents Pierre Claude Nolin (Canada) Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri (Italy) Bert Koenders (Netherlands) Jozef Banáš (Slovakia) Vahit Erdem (Turkey) Former Vice-President John Tanner (United States) Treasurer Lothar Ibrügger (Germany) Secretary General Simon Lunn NATO Auditor Pierre Kommes MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS Belgium Daniel Bacquelaine Canada Jane Cordy Leon Benoit Pierre Claude Nolin Czech Republic Pavel Severa Denmark Per Kaalund Estonia Sven Mikser France Pierre Lellouche Loïc Bouvard Germany Markus Meckel Lothar Ibrügger Karl A. Lamers Greece Georgios Kalantzis Nikolaos Legkas Hungary gnès Várdai Iceland Gudmundur Árni Stefánsson Magnús Stefánsson Italy Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri Paolo Ricciotti Latvia Aleksandrs Kirsteins Lithuania Juozas Olekas Rasa Jukneviciene Luxembourg Marc Spautz Netherlands Jos van Gennip Bert Koenders Bert Middel Norway Trond Helleland Per Ove Width Poland Marian Pilka Portugal José Lello Rui Gomes da Silva Romania Tiberiu Barbuletiu Slovakia Jozef Banáš Slovenia Branko Grims Spain Jordi Marsal Alejandro Mu oz-Alonso

111 SC 05 E iii Turkey Vahit Erdem United Kingdom Lord David Clark of Windermere Peter Viggers United States Joel Hefley John Tanner

111 SC 05 E iv Committees Civil Dimension of Security Michael Clapham (United Kingdom), Chairman Defence and Security Committee Joel Hefley (United States), Chairman Economics and Security Paul E. Gillmor (United States), Chairman Political Markus Meckel (Germany), Chairman Science and Technology Michael Mates (United Kingdom), Chairman SECRETARIES OF DELEGATION Member Delegations Belgium Frans Van Melkebeke Canada Denis Robert Czech Republic Olga Bendíková Denmark Morten Roland Hansen Estonia Tanja Espe France Frédéric Taillet Germany Rainer Büscher Annemarie Bürsch Greece Roxani Xeplati Hungary Károly Tüzes Iceland Andri Lúthersson Italy Mario di Napoli 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 Irina Bojin Slovakia JarmilaNovakova Slovenia Tamara Gruden-Pecan Spain Mercedes Araújo United Kingdom Tracey Garratty United States Susan Olson Accompanying the member delegations Denmark Bente Andersen France Bernard Chalet Germany Johannes von Ahlefeldt Andrea Bou-Said Greece Vassiliki Ioannidou Italy Pia Califano Stefania Perozzi Laura Tabladini Netherlands Wilma Kooijman Spain Araceli Quintano Turkey Yesim Uslu United States Col. Tony Steadman

111 SC 05 E v International Secretariat Eva Antunano Isabelle Arcis Andrius Avizius Sebastien Botella Helen Cadwallender Andrea Cellino Salima Chebrek Paul Cook Christine Heffinck Helena Hradilova David Hobbs Susan Millar Jacqueline Pforr Gill Rawling Steffen Sachs Svitlana Svetova Debbie van der Merwe Minute Writers Steven Mark Suzanne Todd

111 SC 05 E 1 The meeting opened on Monday 30 May 2005 at 09.05 with Bert Koenders (Netherlands), Vice-President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, in the Chair. 1. Opening of the proceedings The Vice-President declared the meeting open and welcomed delegates to Ljubljana. He had been asked to chair the meeting in the absence of the President who was returning from France following the Referendum on the Constitutional Treaty. He thanked Branko Grims and his team for organising the meeting. He reported that apologies for absences had been received from Longin Pastusiak, Head of the Polish delegation, who would be replaced by Marian Pilka for this meeting. Apologies had also been received from Rafael Estrella, Head of the Spanish delegation; Stanimir Ilchev, Head of the Bulgarian delegation; Paulette Brisepierre, Head of the French delegation, who would be represented by Loïc Bouvard; and Gyula Vari, Head of the Hungarian Delegation, who would be represented by Agnes Vadai. He also welcomed José Lello who had been appointed Head of the Portuguese delegation. 2. Adoption of the draft agenda [087 SC 05 E rev. 2] The draft agenda [087 SC 05 E rev. 2] was adopted. 3. Adoption of the Minutes of the Standing Committee meeting held in Reykjavik, Iceland, on Saturday 2 April 2005 [090 SC 05 E] The Minutes [090 SC 05 E] were adopted. 4. Finances Draft Budget for 2006 [071 FIN 05 E] Signatory threshold for the Assembly's accounts [095 FIN 05 E] The International Secretariat and national delegations: guidelines for organizing meetings [096 GEN 05 E] Financial implications involved with interpretation for Committee, Sub-committee visits and seminars [050 SC 05 E] Remarks by Pierre Kommes, Member of the International Board of Auditors for NATO Personnel regulations [041 ADM 05 E] Mr Pierre Kommes, Member of the International Board of Auditors for NATO, said that the NATO PA had made very positive financial management progress during the last four years. Every NATO PA and NATO Provident Fund account had been signed off in accordance with the required financial regulations. He commended the NATO PA for improving the efficiency of the financial management. Their approach had improved the content and format of the accounts, increased their financial accountability, standardized contracts, improved internal control of financial management and introduced a financial commitments system which provided an overview of NATO PA’s activity commitments. The 2004 account would be presented at the Autumn Session and there would be a positive signing off of the accounts. In future, a management representation letter and an internal controls

111 SC 05 E 2 statement would be presented with the account. This showed good governance and good practice by NATO PA management. He continued by saying that NATO PA had left previous financial management problems behind. The International Board of Auditors for NATO was very happy with the financial management of the NATO PA accounts and he congratulated NATO PA for their substantial progress. The Treasurer thanked Pierre Kommes and the International Board of Auditors for NATO for their scrutiny of the accounts. He agreed that, in the past, the NATO PA accounts had not been managed effectively but he was pleased that this trend had been reversed. He emphasized the role of the Standing Committee in approving the schedule of all Assembly activities as specified in Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure. The achievement of NATO PA’s political objectives must be compliant with financial Regulations. He also thanked the Norwegian delegation for the additional funds they had provided towards parliamentary staff training programmes and he invited other members to contribute such additional voluntary funds to NATO PA. The Treasurer then asked for the Committee’s approval of the guidelines for organising meetings [096 GEN 05 E] and reminded the Committee that one of the proposals was that where a delegate cancelled attendance at short notice resulting in charges for unused interpretation, that person’s delegation might be charged the cancellation cost. The Assembly’s budget for 2006 would be the first to be divided among the member states according to the new NATO key. This new key would still be amended in the future to better reflect the gross GDP of each member country. Overall the percentage increase in the budget was slight, but changes country by country varied widely. The Treasurer had taken great efforts to minimise budget increases, even though forthcoming sessions in Paris and Quebec required additional expenditure. The budget was the smallest possible sum through which the Assembly could meet its political objectives and respond to the needs of all 26 members. In absolute terms the sums involved in contribution increases were modest. The Assembly gave good value for the taxpayer’s money. Delegations would have the opportunity to comment on the budget between June and September. Currently the Assembly’s resources were just sufficient to meet existing commitments. The Treasurer reminded delegates that each new initiative had consequences in terms of time and financial resources. Some prioritisation was necessary and this should be borne in mind when discussing the Calendar of Activities later in the meeting. An early complaint from the Assembly’s auditors had been that the Personnel regulations were not clear. A previous version of the regulations had been circulated to the Committee two years ago. The new edition included some revisions, following suggestions from staff and revisions to the NATO personnel regulations. He also requested approval to increase the bank signature threshold for Mr Cellino as laid out in document [095 FIN 05 E]. The Treasurer asked that all three items be put to a vote to receive a clear signal of the Committee’s approval. The Vice-President thanked the Treasurer for his report and hard work and invited comment from the floor, asking delegates to pay particular attention in their responses to the Assembly’s existing priorities and activities. Mr van Gennip (NL) noted that he had never in his wide experience encountered such a straightforwardly positive report from an auditor and congratulated the Treasurer and staff on such an achievement. He warned, however, against weakening financial discipline in the light of this praise. He thought that the core business of the Assembly was the planned work of the five

111 SC 05 E 3 Committees, and pleaded for rigidity against taking on other less central activities. The Dutch delegation supported all of the proposals, including that on financial penalties for late cancellation of interpretation. Mr Forcieri (IT) thanked the Treasurer for his work. Two different requirements needed to be accommodated: one political, to enhance the Assembly’s role; another financial - to balance the budget. This balance needed to be struck by the Standing Committee. Countries needed to make their contributions in a timely way, and should see if they could afford to make extra voluntary contributions. Italy co-funded a meeting of the Mediterranean Special Group in Naples, and was looking at finding other additional ways of helping the Assembly financially. But there was a problem with the organisation of the Assembly’s work. The five Committees and the Mediterranean Special Group needed to maintain their independence, but also needed to be better co-ordinated. The work of the Committees often overlapped. Better planning through the Standing Committee might help to avoid this overlap. Work ought to be organised once financial limits had already been determined. Joint visits of sub-committees would help to reduce costs. Mr Forcieri was happy with the other proposals. Lord Clark (UK) regretted the absence of the President, as he had some critical remarks to make which were not meant personally. He thought that the budget was being stretched very thinly in light of the Assembly’s proposed activities. He agreed with Mr van Gennip that the core work of the Assembly was carried out through its Committees and Sub-Committees. Such activities were, importantly, inclusive of the membership. He was concerned about the diversity of activities, which again, meant that the Assembly was being stretched very thinly, which made it difficult to actually achieve anything. There was an opportunity cost to every activity, and he was worried that with so much going on at the Presidential level, however worthy it might be, this could detract from the Assembly’s normal work in the context of Committees and Sub-Committees. Mr Marsal (ES) apologised for the absence of Rafael Estrella due to personal reasons. He congratulated the Treasurer for his excellent work. His comments regarding interpretation costs were sensible overall, however he was concerned by the comments regarding last minute cancellations. National parliamentary activity meant that attendance at NATO PA meetings could not be confirmed until the last minute. This should be recognised when considering what to do with regards to last minute cancellation. Mr Lello (PT) said the Treasurer had done a tremendous job in dealing with the difficult area of NATO PA finances. He was in favour of the rules the Treasurer had proposed because NATO PA had ambitious objectives, which must be fulfilled under budgetary constraints. He was therefore in full support of the Treasurer’s recommendations. Ms Cordy (CA) said the setting of clear financial guidelines was essential. Members should not cancel attendance at the last minute and expect the host country to pay for their interpretation facilities. She agreed with Lord Clark that the budget might not be flexible enough to deal with unanticipated expenditure. She also agreed that the focus of NATO PA should be on committee and sub-committee work rather than high level activity. The Secretary General commented that every initiative, however simple, had consequences for the NATO PA Secretariat. Indeed, NATO PA activity had an administrative as well as financial cost and he was concerned about having adequate staff to cover all the planned activities. He was also conscious of the Assembly’s Calendar making too many demands on members’ time. With regard to duplication of committee work, he reminded the Standing Committee that they had the opportunity to question committee activity, but in the end, the Committees were effectively

111 SC 05 E 4 autonomous. The International Secretariat made every effort to ensure that the Committees coordinated their programmes with the aim of preventing duplication. The Treasurer said that he had received assurances that the outstanding budget contributions would be made very shortly and that 2005 Committee activities would be backed by sufficient funds. He suggested that coordination of committee activities could be improved by the five committee chairmen and the chairman of the Mediterranean Special Group meeting in private to discuss their committee’s activities. He also agreed that holding joint sub-committee meetings would be more efficient. The Treasurer reassured delegates that both official languages were guaranteed. He was looking to avoid unnecessary additional costs, and he noted that the proposal to charge delegations was discretionary. More assistance from embassies should be forthcoming and would save money. The needs and legal rights of staff needed to be borne in mind when increasing the Assembly’s activities. Mr Forcieri (IT) stressed that he was not criticising the secretariat in his earlier comments, but rather asking for greater involvement from the Standing Committee. He shared the views expressed by Lord Clark, and he regretted the absence of the President of the Assembly with whom these matters should be discussed. He also felt that there should be a discussion on the role of the President in representing the Assembly. The Vice-President concluded that there was a tension between the Committee’s financial responsibilities and its political momentum. A stricter limitation was needed on additional activities because of the impact on staff and on cost. This was a fact, which needed to be borne in mind when discussing the Committees’ activities and priorities. The Committee agreed with this conclusion. All three proposals put forward by the Treasurer were agreed unanimously. Pierre Lellouche (FR), President of the Assembly, took the Chair. 5. The duration of the mandates of Committee Officers [048 SC 05 E] The President noted that he had just returned from France where the people had decisively rejected the proposed Constitutional Treaty for the European Union. However, it was important to distinguish between what the vote said about opposition to the Constitution and what it said about opposition to the current situation in France. The outcome was largely a result of domestic economic factors, the persistence of a generous social model, and the habit of the French people of turning against whichever party was in Government. International competition, globalisation and liberal economics were being rejected, rather than Europe itself. In general, the working classes had been opposed to the Constitutional Treaty, while the urban educated elite had been in favour. This was a worrying sign of social breakdown. Politically, the referendum result would lead to political competition and fissures within both the right and the left. The consequences for Europe would need discussion within the Assembly at some point. Much would depend on the result of the forthcoming referendum in the Netherlands. Perversely, the referendum result actually threatened the French social model despite this being what the ‘no’ voters wished to defend.France was at a crossroads, as was the future construction of Europe in the post cold war era. He suggested the anxiety expressed by the French people in the Constitutional Treaty referendum might also be found in other European Union countries. The President then turned to the question of the mandates of Committee officers.

111 SC 05 E 5 The President reminded the Committee that the Rules regarding the mandates of Committee officers had been updated and modified in 2004 in order to take account of the enlarged membership of the Assembly. Questions had been raised at that time about the harmonisation of the mandates for Committee officers and the officers of the Mediterranean Special Group. Following this, Mr Forcieri had suggested that the Standing Committee should look at the broader question of mandates. Mr Forcieri (IT) said that following enlargement of the Assembly, the number of Vice-Chair positions had been increased but this still did not permit sufficient rotation of officers in order to allow more members to experience officer posts. There was clear inequality in the current situation because there were different terms for various mandates. He said that in effect, the President and the Bureau officers were elected for two years, the Treasurer for 6 years and the chairmen and vice-chairmen of committees for four years. A better balance was required between the Bureau and the Committees. He suggested that the mandate committee officers could be reduced by one year, or alternatively all mandates could be of the same duration. Either the Bureau mandates could be increased to three years, or the Bureau and Committee terms could be made equal at four years. In all cases, he accepted that the Treasurer’s mandate would remain an exception because more consistency was required in that particular position. His favoured option would be that all Bureau and Committee officers should be elected twice as a maximum. The President clarified for the meeting that the President and Vice-president were elected for two years, renewable for one year; the Treasurer was elected for six years and the chairmen, vice- chairmen and rapporteurs for four years. He asked Mr Forcieri to clarify what amendment he was proposing to the current situation. Mr Forcieri (IT) said his primary solution would be to reduce the mandate for committee officers from four years to three years and to ensure that they were only eligible for re-election twice. There would therefore only be a one year difference between the Bureau and committee officer mandates. Alternatively, every mandate should be for three years except the Treasurer, who should remain for six years. The President said he took a neutral position on this issue and invited comments from colleagues. Mr Lello (PT) said a radical position must be taken by the Assembly. The Chairman and rapporteur mandates should only be for two years in order to allow greater rotation. This would allow more people to enjoy leading positions in the Assembly. He therefore recommended that all positions except that of the Treasurer should be for two year terms and these terms would not be renewable. The President noted that this was yet another proposal, for terms of two years for all officers apart from the Treasurer, who should have a term of six years. This proposal followed the principle of maximum rotation. Mr van Gennip (NL) agreed that rotation was a good thing, but that a degree of continuity was also necessary to allow long-term planning. He had heard few complaints about the current system, and thought that things should be kept as they were. Mr Meckel (DE) noted two lines of argument: the first, that terms of office should be equal; second, that because of the increased membership of the Assembly, greater rotation was needed. In his opinion, different offices needed different turnover rates. The office of Treasurer in particular required continuity. It also seemed perverse to limit the number of times a good officer could be re- elected. The only possibly desirable change might be to limit the President’s term of office to a

111 SC 05 E 6 single year, but he felt that this would not give sufficient time for familiarization with the office. Things should be left as they were. The renewal of committee mandates might be reduced by one year to increase accessibility. But he was opposed to a quick vote on such a matter. Mr Viggers (UK) noted the balance between continuity and opportunity. If there were to be any change, it should be to limit the re-election of Committee officers to three terms of one year. But if it were to be argued, he would argue against it. The President noted the Committee’s hesitation and lack of consensus. Mr Forcieri (IT) said that he felt there was a consensus that a four-year term for Committee officers was excessive and asked the Committee to decide on the proposal to reduce this mandate to a maximum of three years, to increase access to these posts to a wider range of Assembly members. The President felt that that there was no consensus on his proposal. The Secretary General said that he had heard the feeling on smaller Committees that the current situation suited them better than the proposed reduced mandates. He would hesitate to take action at this meeting. He also felt that the Assembly’s President required a mandate of at least two years to implement ideas and proposals. Mr Lello (PT) insisted that the views of Standing Committee members were not more or less important because of the length of time spent in a role and reiterated his previous comments. The President noted Mr Lello’s views on rotation but restated his view that there was no consensus on the matter. It was likely that the issue would come before the Standing Committee again in the not too distant future. 6. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”^* in Assembly documents [049 SC 05 E] The President noted that this was a delicate political issue, and reminded the Committee of its decision in Reykjavik to change the abbreviation by which the FYR of Macedonia was referred to in official Assembly documents. He noted Greece’s resistance to change in the designation of the FYR of Macedonia. Mr Legkas (GR) said that NATO’s decisions on this subject had been harmonized with the United Nations, and the United Nations resolutions on the subject were very specific. Negotiations were in progress at the United Nations concerning the naming of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The aim was to reach a commonly accepted name. Greece favoured the recognition of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the interests of regional security and was participating in negotiations to reach agreement on its designation. He was optimistic that the negotiations would produce a solution and felt that the Assembly should defer a decision pending the outcome of negotiations. The President summarised Greece’s position: that there should be no change. Mr Lello (PT) said that while he understood Greek feeling on this matter, based greatly on historical considerations, a country should not be referred to by its former status. While Macedonia designated a region of Greece as well as the nation state to its north, there would be no confusion if the FYR of Macedonia were referred to as “the Republic of Macedonia”. * Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.

111 SC 05 E 7 Mr Hefley (US) noted that his country recognised Macedonia by its constitutional name. Mr Meckel (DE) said the issue should not necessarily be discussed at the current meeting. He suggested instead that it be raised again at a future meeting by which time a resolution to the naming of the FYR of Macedonia might have been agreed by the international community. Mr Koenders (NL) said that the issue should not be discussed at every meeting. He agreed with Mr Meckel that the Assembly should discuss the item again after a name had been agreed at the international level. Lord Clark (UK) also agreed with this point of view as he considered it likely that the international community would resolve the issue within the next twelve months. The President said that the consensus seemed to favour deferring consideration of this question pending further negotiations within the United Nations. The Standing Committee agreed to review the issue at its first meeting 2006. 7. The Status of Non-Member Parliaments [091 SC 05 E rev. 1] Letter from the Jordanian Parliament Letter from the Israeli Knesset Status of the Palestinian Legislative Council Letter from the Ukrainian Parliament Status of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Status of the European Parliament The President reminded colleagues that the Assembly had discussed the implementation of Mediterranean Associate Membership at their meeting in Reykjavik. Requests had now been received for Mediterranean Associate Membership from Jordan and Israel. The Committee would be asked whether they should grant those requests and, if agreed, the decision would be put to the Plenary sitting for approval along with the existing decisions on Algeria and Mauritania. The Committee would also be asked to consider granting the status of Parliamentary Observer to the Palestinian Legislative Council. He informed colleagues that the Ukrainian delegation had requested an increase in the number of representatives that the Rada could send to NATO PA meetings. The leader of the delegation had requested that an eight strong delegation be permitted compared to the current figure of six. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had proposed the setting up of the same of relationship as NATO PA already had in place with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the Assembly of WEU. This would entail the granting of interparliamentary observer status to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It was also proposed that the delegation from the European Parliament should have the same rights as Associate Members and Mediterranean Associate Members. He also suggested that the Assembly should appoint a delegation or special group to meet twice a year with the European Parliament. He invited the Committee’s views on these proposals. Mr Meckel (DE) said although he believed that the creation of Mediterranean Associate status had been a mistake, having created that status it was important to be as inclusive as possible. He was therefore in favour of including Jordan and Israel and suggested that any other country from this region expressing similar interest should also be granted Mediterranean Associate Membership.

111 SC 05 E 8 Mr Lello (PT) said he had been involved in discussions with representatives from Israel and the Fatah in Palestine along with Mr Koenders last week. He had found the open debate very encouraging and was therefore in favour of incorporating Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian Parliamentarians’ views into the Assembly. The President said he also considered it essential that the views of Palestinian and Israeli Parliamentarians be heard in NATO PA especially considering the situation between these territories. Mr Erdem (TR) said that he favoured granting Mediterranean Associate Membership to Israel and Jordan, and he also considered that the Palestinian Legislative Council should be granted some form of formal status within the Assembly. Jordan and Israel were unanimously accepted as Mediterranean Associate Members. The President invited views on the granting of Parliamentary Observer status to the Palestinian Legislative Council, which had made a verbal request for such status. Mr Lello (PT) said it was important for the Palestinian Legislative Council to feel part of the democratic and international community. He was therefore in favour of granting Mediterranean Associate Membership straight away. Mr Hefley (US) agreed that it was important to incorporate the views of the Palestinian Legislative Council into the Assembly. However, the Palestinian Parliament and Government still contained terrorist elements and therefore he recommended a slower and more deliberate approach to their inclusion. He suggested that the Palestinian Legislative Council be granted Observer status with the possibility of extension to Mediterranean Associate Membership in the future. Mr Clapham (UK) supported Mr Lello’s comments, and supported giving the Palestinian Legislative Council an equal status with Israel at the Assembly. Mr Meckel (DE) said that the recently created status of Mediterranean Associate Membership only made sense with the inclusion of the Palestinian Legislative Council at the same level as the other members. Mr Koenders (NL) noted two criteria: the need for dialogue; and democratic credentials. Democratic credentials were important to gain Associate Membership. It would be unwise to give the Palestinian Legislative Council a different status to Israel, and there had also been democratic progress within the Palestinian Authority. If the Palestinian Legislative Council wanted Mediterranean Associate Membership status, they should be given it. Initially they should be given parliamentary observer status, which they had asked for, and it should be made clear to them that a request for Mediterranean Associate Membership would be looked on positively. The President noted that there had been no formal written request from the Palestinian Legislative Council for Mediterranean Associate Membership, only an oral request. Mr Erdem (TR) said that it was clear from discussions with representatives of the Palestinian Legislative Council during the recent Presidential/Bureau visit, the Palestinian Legislative Council was interested in formal status with the Assembly. He agreed that it was important not to discriminate between Israel and the Palestinian Legislative Council.

111 SC 05 E 9 Mr Bacquelaine (BE) noted that Israel began as an observer to the Assembly, and the Palestinian Legislative Council should follow the same path towards Mediterranean Associate Membership. A written request from the Palestinian Legislative Council should come before Mediterranean Associate Membership. Ms Cordy (CA) supported the notion of dialogue but felt that the Assembly’s approach should be deliberate and thoughtful. She therefore favoured a step-by-step approach, bringing in the Palestinian Legislative Council as parliamentary observer members first, with a view to Mediterranean Associate Membership in due course. The President said that the Committee was divided between those who wanted the Palestinian Legislative Council to proceed straight to Mediterranean Associate Membership, and those who believed in a step-by-step approach. No-one appeared to be opposed to granting the Palestinian Legislative Council parliamentary observer status. Mr Meckel (DE) reiterated that the status of Mediterranean Associate Membership only made sense if all the main parties in the region were treated equally. Mr Banáš (SK) said that he did not understand the basis of the discussion, as a formal written application for Mediterranean Associate Membership status had not been made. The Committee voted unanimously in favour of granting the Palestinian Legislative Council parliamentary observer status at the Assembly. The Committee proceeded to a vote on granting Mediterranean Associate Membership to the Palestinian Council. There were 12 votes in favour of the 23 voters present. There being no three-quarters majority in favour, the proposal was not adopted. The President said that he would arrange for the Palestinian Legislative Council to be informed of the possibility of applying for Mediterranean Associate Membership. Lord Clark (UK) asked if it was wise to encourage such a request given that a number of delegates had opposed granting this status at the meeting. The President said that the Palestinian Legislative Council would be told about the procedure for applying. A reply was not expected until after the Palestinian elections in July. Mr Koenders (NL) agreed with Lord Clark’s concerns: it was important to ensure that the Palestinian Legislative Council was not given false hope of being granted Mediterranean Associate Membership. Mr Grims (SI) agreed that it was important to avoid raising expectations, which might then be disappointed. The President agreed that the communication would have to be sensitively managed. He moved to discussion of the request from the Ukrainian Parliament to increase their representation from six to eight delegates. Mr Clapham (UK) asked to know how the size of a delegation corresponded to the country’s population. The Secretary General said that in broad terms there was a link but it was a very approximate guideline. The Ukrainian request was encouraging, and it might be thought helpful to improve their presence at the Assembly.

111 SC 05 E 10 The President noted the need for flexibility and said that he had agreed to permit the Algerian delegation to increase its presence over its formal allocation at the current session to enable that delegation to solve an internal problem with its representation. Mr Banáš (SK) supported the Ukrainian request, in the light of the Orange Revolution and Ukraine’s active engagement in so many NATO operations and missions including Iraq. Mr Bacquelaine (BE) also supported the request. The Ukrainian request to increase the size of its delegation was unanimously agreed to. Mr Mikser (EE) asked whether an increase in the Ukrainian delegation might lead to other requests, such as from the Russian Federation. The President said that no such requests had yet been made and introduced the item on the status of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General noted that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe did not have a formal relationship with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. This proposal would bring them in line with other international assemblies as interparliamentary observers. The proposal on the status of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was unanimously agreed to. The President introduced the proposal on the status of the European Parliament. He noted increasing co-operation between the United States and the European Parliament. It would be helpful for the Assembly to know more about the activities of the European Parliament in strategic affairs. Mr van Gennip (NL) said he fully supported the first proposal. Mr Hefley (US) commented that he had reservations over giving full associate status to the European Parliament because it was an organisation and not a state. Mr Lello (PT) said that if the European Parliament had associate member status their members would be able to submit amendments and this should remain a prerogative of national states. He therefore opposed the proposal. Mr Meckel (DE) remarked that when NATO was founded the world situation was of individual states. Today there were new players such as the European Union and the European Parliament. He thought it unacceptable that the status granted to countries like Mauritania gave them more rights than bodies like the European Parliament. Lord Clark (UK) said he noted that under some circumstances, associate members could be given the right to observe the Standing Committee. He was strongly opposed to opening that door to the European Parliament. A key strength of the Standing Committee was that it was transatlantic. Its frankness relied upon it being a body of member states and therefore it did not think it appropriate for the European Parliament to join the Standing Committee. Mr Viggers (UK) was against the proposal on political and practical grounds. He commented that European Parliament members on the Political Committee were very vociferous and tended to pull discussion away from the focus of the meeting.

111 SC 05 E 11 Mr Bouvard (FR) agreed that European Parliament members on the Political Committee tended to dominate discussions. He was pleased that European Parliament members were able to observe and join discussions however he did not think it appropriate to allow them to table amendments and present reports at NATO PA meetings. The Secretary General clarified that the reference to Associate Members observing the Standing Committee concerned those Associate Members who had signed NATO accession protocols and who were therefore on the final stages of becoming NATO members. This provision could not therefore apply to the European Parliament. Mr Marsal (ES) understood the concern about states such as Mauritania being granted more rights than the European Parliament, but he also saw the argument about the European Parliament not being a state. He therefore suggested that this discussion on the bilateral relationship between the European Parliament and NATO PA should be continued at a later stage. The President said it was a sensitive and political issue which he considered should be discussed at the current meeting. Mr van Gennip (NL) also suggested that the issue be discussed at a later time when there would be more time for serious discussion and reflection. The Secretary General said that it was difficult to achieve reciprocity with the European Parliament due to the structure of its organisation, which was significantly different from that of NATO PA. The original agreement was that members of the European Parliament could participate in NATO PA committee activities. In return representatives of NATO PA were invited to attend high-level European Parliament hearings. However, it had proven difficult to get NATO PA members to attend such meetings. The February meetings in Brussels frequently included a meeting with the European Parliament, but there were differing views on the utility of that meeting. The President said it was important that the NATO PA members should regularly attend meetings at the European Parliament. The Secretary General agreed that it was important, but stressed that NATO PA members would have to commit themselves to attending European Parliament meetings in Brussels which represented an additional call upon their time. The President stressed how important it was for the Assembly to know about the European Parliament’s activities in the areas of defence and security. He suggested that the International Secretariat could look at the practical questions regarding the composition of a bilateral group and the specific nature of bilateral meetings. Mr Lello (PT) said that the key issue was accommodating relations between the European Parliament and the Assembly. The presence of the European Parliament at the Assembly was already difficult for national parliamentarians because of the differences between their respective mandates. It would also be difficult for busy politicians to attend yet more briefings. There was no need to enhance the presence of the European Parliament at the Assembly. Mr van Gennip (NL) said that it was important to recognise that there was no symmetry between the Assembly and the European Parliament. He suggested that the Committees should be the principal mechanism of contact between the institutions. Mr Meckel (DE) said that he favoured strengthening links between the Assembly and the European Parliament. He suggested accepting the proposal on a temporary basis if necessary, and subject to review.

111 SC 05 E 12 Given the lack of consensus, the President suggested bringing the proposal back to the Standing Committee in six months’ time. He asked the Secretariat to prepare a paper for discussion. This would look at issues such as reciprocity and the asymmetric nature of the organizations. Decision on the item was deferred. 8. The Secretary General’s Report on the Priorities and Activities of the Assembly [092 SC 05 E] The President summarised the activities, which had taken place since his election as President. These included election monitoring in Ukraine, and visits to Poland, Afghanistan and the West Bank and Israel. He had also participated in a variety of meetings organized by NATO. Future visits were planned to the South Caucasus, Ukraine, the United States, the Black Sea region, Darfur, Iraq and Central Asia. Other planned activities included the ‘Black Dawn’ simulation at Ljubljana; a high-level dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians at the Copenhagen plenary and a parliamentary dialogue at the Mediterranean Special Group seminar in Naples; a high-level dialogue between the Russian Federation and Georgia at the Copenhagen plenary; and possible monitoring of Palestinian elections in July, Afghan elections in September and a referendum in Nagorno Karabakh. If delegates felt that he was carrying out too many activities, he was happy to scale back. The Secretary General presented his report. Assembly election monitors were normally sent under the umbrella of another organisation, usually the OSCE. The only monitoring mission ever conducted independently by the Assembly had been in the Russian Federation in the early 1990s. Under normal circumstances, there were almost no logistical or financial implications for the secretariat: delegates usually just needed to be put in touch with the relevant umbrella organisation. In the case of the Palestinian elections, this was likely to be the European Union. It would only be practical for Assembly members to participate if they could do so under the “umbrella” of another organization such as the European Union. The Secretariat was hoping to rely on the NATO infrastructure for the Afghan elections, but information on the organisation of these elections was not yet forthcoming. Assembly staff would be sent to Afghanistan, with consequent financial implications. The Secretary General then drew attention to the planned Seminar in Montenegro, which would be very focussed on Kosovo. He also told the Committee that the Lithuanian delegation had taken the initiative to host a seminar on Belarus in September. It was hoped that the Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security would take the lead at this seminar The President said he would not be able to undertake the proposed future activities without the tremendous support provided by Simon Lunn, David Hobbs and the rest of the team. He particularly thanked those members of staff who had escorted him on his trip to Ukraine over Christmas and more recently in the Middle East. He considered all the proposed activities to be very relevant to the work of NATO PA and he thanked the Secretariat for their efforts in organising them Lord Clark (UK) said he admired the energy and effort the President had put into raising the profile of the NATO PA. He informed the President that he had raised concerns over the tightness of the budget during the discussion on the Treasurer’s report. He reiterated that any future expenditure, which had not been anticipated within the budget, could result in a negative impact on the funding available for committee activity. He therefore endorsed the programme but asked the Assembly to bear in mind the budgetary situation. The President said no extra costs had been incurred to date. Any extra work undertaken by the Secretariat had been undertaken voluntarily and he thanked the staff for this. He did not consider

111 SC 05 E 13 there to be any immediate budgetary problems but if there were he would raise them with the Standing Committee. Mr Koenders (NL) summarised, for the President’s benefit, that earlier in the meeting the Committee had agreed on the need for stricter limitations on the extra activities, which the Assembly planned to carry out. The Bureau had not had an opportunity to review all the proposed activities. Members of the Standing Committee had expressed the view that there needed to be a better balance between the work of the committees and that of the special groups, presidential visits and seminars. This meant being more selective about priorities. The President said he would be interested to know what activities would be cut. Mr Koenders (NL) said this was a serious matter and the Assembly would have to agree its future programme based upon its political objectives. Mr Kalantzis (GR) said he did not think that the committee should dwell on this issue. It was important the President attended those events where his presence was required. The President asked for a collective agreement on the future programme. He outlined the activities he had undertaken since his election as President. In December, he had undertaken election monitoring in Ukraine and this had been paid for by himself. He considered the visit to Poland in January to have been essential. His participation in the NATO seminar on the Middle East Seminar in Rome in March had also been at his own expense. He told the Committee that he had broken with tradition in that he did not travel alone but where possible was accompanied by members of the Bureau. The President explained that all of the planned visits and events were relevant and important, and that many could take place at little cost to the Assembly. Several of the visits were open to other delegates. Some would not be attended by the President. Anyone wishing to propose the cancellation of a particular item was welcome to take the floor. Lord Clark (UK) paid tribute again to the President, but stressed the need to meet the budget targets. The Bureau should be asked to keep a watching eye on the expenditure to ensure that this happened. The President said that this was already happening and that all the proposals were supported by the Bureau. Mr Koenders (NL) said that the full list of proposals had not in fact been seen or approved by the Bureau. There was, however, no argument that the Assembly needed to be put on the map. The concern was to ensure a proper balance between different activities. Mr Meckel (DE) said that this was an unfortunate discussion. The distribution of costs and priorities should have been discussed in the Bureau, and should now be taken up by that body. It was not clear how presidential activities were co-ordinated with committee activities. There were human and financial resource limits. There should be some strategic vision and rules regarding presidential activities. It should not be a question of the Standing Committee being asked to cancel activities, which had already been arranged. He pointed to the forthcoming seminar in Yerevan and wondered whether in view of that meeting, there was a need for a Presidential visit to the Caucasus. Mr van Gennip (NL) said that he appreciated the President’s efforts to make the Assembly relevant. He thought that there were ample opportunities to use other organisations as a vehicle to ensure the presence of Assembly delegates, at elections in particular, without needing to create

111 SC 05 E 14 Assembly activities. He also noted that sometimes an over-abundance of observer groups was counter-productive. Ms Cordy (CA) said that the Committee was revisiting its earlier discussion on the budget, and that Mr Koenders had given an excellent summary of the feelings that had been expressed by members of the Standing Committee. Criticism was not of individual planned activities. But it was felt that presidential activities might reduce the priority given to the committees and sub- committees. The Bureau should look at co-ordinating all of these different activities. The Secretary General said that within the overall framework, the visits to Ukraine and the Caucasus were vital, and commitments had been made. A visit to the United States was also appropriate. The other proposed visits to Darfur, Iraq and the Black Sea region could be more easily postponed to the following year. The President clarified that the proposed visits to Darfur and Iraq were open to delegates. Mr Hefley (US) said that the arguments had been made, and a solution, the use of the Bureau, identified. The Committee should make progress. The Committee agreed that the Bureau should consider the matters raised. 9. Draft Declaration on Uzbekistan presented by Pierre Lellouche, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, on behalf of the Assembly’s Bureau [113 SC 05 E] The President asked for comment. Mr Olekas (LT) proposed an amendment to add “and other places” after “Andijan” at the end of paragraph 1. The President made clear that there would be little time for amendments in plenary, and that consensus should be reached in the Committee if possible. Mr Olekas’s amendment was agreed to. It was agreed to present the draft Declaration, as amended, to the Plenary for adoption. 10. Draft Declaration on Darfur presented by Pierre Lellouche, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, on behalf of the Assembly’s Bureau [115 SC 05 E] The President asked for comment. The Secretary General read out an amendment he had received from Mr Meckel: After paragraph 3, insert the following new paragraph: ”The NATO Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the substantial financial assistance provided to the African mission AMIS II by the European Union.” The Amendment was agreed to. It was agreed to present the draft Declaration, as amended, to the Plenary for adoption.

111 SC 05 E 15 11. Future sessions and meetings Hosts for future sessions and meetings [088 SC 05 E] Programme for the 51^st Annual Session to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark from 11 to 15 November 2005 [036 SESA 05 E rev.1] Spring Session to be held in Paris, France, from 26 to 30 May 2006 Future sessions and meetings [037 GEN 05 E rev.1] The President noted that the Assembly still had no host nation for the annual session in 2008, the Standing Committee in 2009, and the Spring session in 2010. A candidate needed to be found soon for the 2008 session in particular, and he urged interested host nations to make contact with the International Secretariat. The President turned to those meetings already planned. Mr Hansen (DK), the Danish Secretary of Delegation, apologised for the necessary absence of his delegation, and presented a brief film in advance of the Annual Session in Copenhagen. The President said that work was already under way on the Spring Session to be held in Paris in 2006. Romania had offered to host the Annual Study Visit in 2006. Mr Barbuletiu (RO) said that the invitation was for July or September, and a schedule would be devised as soon as possible. Ms Cordy (CA) said that plans for the Annual Session in Quebec City in November 2006 were well under way. 12. Miscellaneous The President said that he had received a letter from Mr Forcieri, expressing dissatisfaction at the conduct of the debate on Item 6, stating that the political will of Members had not been expressed, and asking for his proposal to be put to the plenary for formal consideration there. The President offered Mr Forcieri the option of putting the proposal to the vote at once. Mr Forcieri (IT) said that there was little time, whereas in the morning there had been time. A vote should have been taken then. There had been substantial agreement at the morning’s discussion. He was happy with the proposal to put the matter to the Standing Committee again in Copenhagen. The President asked Mr Forcieri to put forward clear proposals for decision at Copenhagen. He thanked Mr Grims and the Slovenian delegation for their hospitality. The President closed the meeting at 1.25 pm. _______________