NPA, Alm.del - 2010-11 (1. samling) - Bilag 22: Optegnelser fra Standing Committee-mødet på Azorerne i april 2011

Agenda ItemAttendance listOpening of the proceedingsAdoption of the draft Agenda [059 SC 11 E rev. 3]Adoption of the summary of the Standing Committee meeting held inWarsaw, Poland, on Monday, 15 November 2010 [281 SC 10 E]Presentation by Professor Pedro Gomes Barbosa, Professor at the Universityof Lisbon, on the developing situation in the Middle East and North Africafollowed by a Question and Answer periodFuture Assembly ActivitiesUpdate by Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Canada), Chairman of the WorkingGroup on Assembly Reform, following the meeting of the Group in Brussels,Belgium on Saturday, 19 February 2011 [065 SC 11 E]Proposals for Assembly Involvement in the Provision of DemocraticAssistance to the Middle East and North Africa [066 SC 11 E]Relations with Belarus [067 SC 11 E]Participation of the Delegation of the Russian Federation in AssemblyActivities [061 SC 11 E]Enhancing the Assembly's profile and public outreach [068 SC 11 E]Comments of the Secretary General of NATO and Chairman of the NorthAtlantic Council [026 SESP 11 E] on the Policy Recommendations adoptedin 2010 by the NATO Parliamentary AssemblyFinanceFuture sessions and meetingsMiscellaneous

SECRETARIES OF DELEGATIONAlbaniaBelgiumBulgariaCanadaCroatiaCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited StatesNot representedFrans van MELKEBEKEDessislava NAKOVA(acting)Jim LATIMERMaroje KATALINICIva MASARIKOVAFlemming Kordt HANSENTania ESPEFrédéric TAILLET (Assemblée nationale)Etienne SALLENAVE (Sénat)Claudia RATHJEN (Bundestag)Annemarie BÜRSCH (Bundesrat)Not representedNot representedArna Gerdur BANGAlessandra LAISandra PAURASnieguole ZIUKAITEIsabelle BARRAArjen WESTERHOFFHenrik MALVIKNot representedPatricia GRAVENot representedNot representedTamara GRUDEN-PECANMercedes ARAUJOYesim USLUJyoti CHANDOLANot represented

The President,Dr Karl A. Lamers (DE), opened the meeting at 09.05. He asked members of theStanding Committee to observe a minute’s silence in honour of the victims of the devastatingearthquake and tsunami which struck Japan on 11 March 2011.The President then thanked the Head of the Portuguese delegation, José Lello, and the RegionalGovernment of The Azores, for their hosting of the Standing Committee meeting and for theprevious evening's reception.José Lello(PT) thanked the President.The President welcomed Carlos César, President of the Regional Government of The Azores.Carlos Césarwelcomed participants. He emphasized the centrality of The Azores, in the middle ofthe Atlantic, and at the heart of the Atlantic Alliance between Europe and North America. Recallingthat NATO’s new Strategic Concept reaffirmed that “the transatlantic link remains as strong, and asimportant to the preservation of Euro-Atlantic peace and security, as ever”, and that the Alliance isbased on a common commitment to preserve the freedom and security of all members, and on theprinciple of indivisibility of security, Mr César argued that these very principles have made NATOthe most long-standing and efficient military alliance in recent history, and must to continue toguide its action in the world.The President thanked Mr César for his remarks, and for welcoming the Assembly to The Azores.This meeting brought together members of parliament from both sides of the Atlantic to exchangeviews and ideas on some of the key issues facing the Alliance, including challenging operations inAfghanistan, Libya and elsewhere, ongoing developments in North Africa and the Middle East, andimplementation of the important decisions taken by Alliance Heads of State and Government at theLisbon Summit in November 2010.The Secretary General,David Hobbs, welcomed new heads of delegation to the meeting.Apologies had been received from the following members of the Standing Committee:2.Leonard DEMI (AL)Eftychios DAMIANAKIS (GR)Mihaly BALLA (HU)Jadwiga ZAKRZEWSKA (PL)Juraj DROBA (SK)Mike TURNER (US)Adoption of the draft Agenda [059 SC 11 E rev. 3]

The President welcomed Professor Barbosa.Professor Barbosastressed that it was important to understand the historical and religiouscontext in which recent popular movements in North Africa and the Middle East had taken place,as well as the substantial differences between these movements.Tunisia’s history sets it apart from other countries in the region, Professor Barbosa emphasized.Corruption and unemployment – in a country which lacks natural resources – were the maindrivers of the “Jasmine Revolution”. Although there was always a risk that dissatisfaction wasmanipulated, Professor Barbosa argued that Islamist movements would find it difficult to spread ina context where young people aspiring for a better life, and women, had been key actors in thepopular uprisings.This contrasted with the situation in Egypt, Professor Barbosa stressed, where Islamist groups andideas were much more influential. Assessing the exact strength of these movements was difficult,however. Thus, while the Muslim Brotherhood officially pursued a non-violent agenda, dissidentmembers of the Brotherhood – including young people from Egypt’s educated middle class – hadestablished or joined terrorist movements. One prominent member of the Brotherhood was evenamong Al Qaeda’s senior leadership. Nevertheless, an important element in developments inEgypt was that power had fallen to the military rather than the street. Professor Barbosa insistedthat, in the current context, what Egypt needed most was economic assistance, and called onWestern governments to focus on this aspect as a matter of priority.Developments in Libya were even more confusing, Professor Barbosa explained. Few observersexpected a popular revolt there, and it was still difficult to predict who would emerge as the leadingforce in the country. While it was now clear that the conflict involved two armed groups, it was stillunclear who the rebels really were, Professor Barbosa noted. According to him, the jihadistmovement also continued to pose a threat in Libya. Professor Barbosa thus argued that thesituation was likely to remain unstable in the near future, although he did not believe that thecountry seriously risked breaking apart.The President thanked Professor Barbosa and opened the debate to the Assembly’s members.Professor Barbosa agreed withJesus Cuadrado(ES) andJean-Michel Boucheron(FR) thatdevelopments in Egypt and Tunisia should be seen with a certain degree of optimism, andsupportedVahit Erdem’s(TK) view that popular movements in the region were not driven byreligion. However, he warned against turning a blind eye to the threat posed by jihadistmovements, insisting that these retained a strong presence in the region and could take advantageof the current turmoil.Responding to a question byHugh Bayley(UK) on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, he notedthat the movement had undergone a generational shift, and that the new elite had a more liberaland open agenda, even challenging some of the legacy from the “old guard”. However, theBrotherhood should not be seen as a unified block, he warned. Professor Barbosa also argued thatthe Egyptian army would likely resist any attempt by Islamist forces to take over power.Responding to comments and questions byErna Solberg(NO) and SenatorSergio de Gregorio(IT), Professor Barbosa repeated his call for Western governments to focustheir assistance towards social and economic development as the best way to break down theinfluence of Islamist fundamentalism. He also challenged the idea that the Turkish model would beeasily applicable to the region.

Asked bySever Voinescu-Cotoi(RO) and Mr Lello about the prospects for solving the currentcrisis in Libya, and the danger of Al Qaeda infiltration, Professor Barbosa repeated that the currentsituation in Libya was very fluid, unclear and uncertain, which provided fertile ground forinfiltrations by extremist movements. He noted that there had, so far, been little reaction in thepublic opinion of the region to NATO’s Libyan intervention.Finally, Professor Barbosa agreed withPetras Austrevicius(LT) that current events in NorthAfrica and the Middle East could not be compared to the wave of democratisation in Central andEastern Europe in the 1990s.The President thanked Professor Barbosa on behalf of the Assembly. Responding to a question byHendrik Jan Ormel(NL) about the planned activities of the Assembly’s Mediterranean and MiddleEast Special Group (GSM) in relation to developments in the region, the President invitedmembers to discuss this matter under items 5 and 7 of the agenda.5.Future Assembly Activities:Assembly Consideration of Security and Gender in 2011 [060 SC 11 E]

Sir Menzies Campbell(UK), Mr Ormel,Marit Nybakk(NO), Mr Lello andJane Cordy(CA) all feltthat the proposed programme of activities was insufficient, and that the issue of gender andsecurity needed to feature more prominently and more regularly on the Assembly’s agenda,including at plenary sittings during sessions. Topics of particular relevance and interest, theysuggested, included the role of women in emerging democracies in North Africa and the MiddleEast, particularly with regard to the democratic control of the armed forces, and the experience ofwomen in the military in theatres of operation.Raynell Andreychuk(CA) also stressed that UNSCR 1325 was only one of four resolutionsadopted by the United Nations on this issue, and regretted that these resolutions were not yet fullyoperational within NATO. This issue cut across the areas of responsibility of all the Assembly’sCommittees, and therefore needed to be dealt more broadly.Ulla Schmidt(DE) pointed out that consideration of the issue within the Assembly needed to becomplemented by discussions at the national level as well.The Committee agreed that the issue of gender and security was an important priority forthe Assembly, that it should feature prominently on the agenda of the Annual Session inBucharest, and that all Committees should be seeking to contribute to the Assembly’scoverage of the issue.

The President explained that planned activities for 2011 had been adjusted mainly as a result ofongoing developments in North Africa and the Middle East and of the outcomes of the NATOSummit in Lisbon in November 2010.The Secretary General presented the proposed changes in greater detail, and reviewed theupdated list of priorities. A further addition was a suggestion to organise a meeting of theGeorgia-NATO Interparliamentary Council at NATO Headquarters some time after the AnnualSession. The President also suggested organising fact-finding visits to Egypt and Tunisia in thecourse of 2011.John Dyrby Paulsen(DK) presented the argument made in his letter to the Secretary Generalthat the Assembly should pay closer attention to the growing threat of maritime piracy. Ms Solberg,Joseph A. Day(CA), SenatorJosselin de Rohan(FR), Mr Bayley, Ms Cordy andAntonioCabras(IT) all supported this proposal. It was pointed out that the Defence and SecurityCommittee would address piracy as part of its report on NATO operations and that it wouldcontinue to follow the issue in 2012. A specific proposal was made to invite Jack Lang, who hadacted as Special Adviser to the UN Secretary General on legal issues related to piracy off thecoast of Somalia, to address the Committee.Lord Jopling(UK) suggested that migration and refugee flows was another timely and relevanttopic for the Assembly. This issue had taken even greater prominence as a result of the instabilityconnected with popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. Senator de Gregoriosupported this proposal.Mr Ormel, Mr Erdem, Mr Cabras, Mr Voinescu-Cotoi andPhilippe Mahoux(BE) all supported thePresident’s proposal of fact-finding visits to Egypt and Tunisia. Mr Cabras argued that links alsoneeded to be established with regional organisations, including in particular the Arab League.Mr Voinescu-Cotoi proposed to focus on those countries in the region with which NATO alreadyhas established partnerships. He also noted that developments in MENA provide a welcomeopportunity for strengthening links to the European Parliament, and suggested that the Assemblyshould enquire with the European Parliament about possible avenues for cooperation in the region.Mr Mahoux mentioned the newly established Contact Group on Libya as another importantinterlocutor.Finally, Mr Austrevicius said that, in the light of the dramatic nuclear incidents in Japan, theAssembly should hold a discussion on nuclear security.The Committee agreed the following proposed changes to the Assembly activities for 2011:A shift in priorities to reflect events in the MENA region and the outcomes of the NATOLisbon Summit;The revised list of report subjects for 2011;The revised list of activities for 2011, including the following specific points:oThe two Brussels-based seminars to be organised with the European Parliamentand/or DCAF;oAdjustments to the programmes for the CDS (joint meeting in Ukraine with theUkraine-NATO Interparliamentary Council) and the STC (visit to Spain instead ofthe United Kingdom);oA special meeting in Brussels with the Georgian delegation towards the end of2011, which would involve members of the Bureau and Committee chairpersons;

The Committee also agreed the following further adjustments:To put the issue of refugees on the agenda of the Annual Session in Bucharest, mostlikely in the Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security;To enhance the Assembly’s coverage of piracy, with the Defence and SecurityCommittee taking the lead on this issue; if possible, include a discussion ofJack Lang’s report on the agenda for the Spring Session in Varna;To organise fact-finding visits to Egypt and Tunisia in 2011, possibly in cooperationwith the European Parliament;To invite a speaker in the Science and Technology Committee in Varna to discuss theaftermath and lessons learned of the nuclear crisis in Japan, and follow up on thisissue;To invite the Japanese delegation to the Assembly exceptionally to attend the SpringSession in Varna.

The Secretary General also asked the Standing Committee for advance authorisation for theAssembly to send a delegation to observe the forthcoming parliamentary elections in the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia*on 5 June, if invited. He reminded members that the Assemblyonly engaged in election monitoring in exceptional circumstances, mostly in NATO candidatecountries. The Assembly had not yet received an invitation to observe the elections in the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but an advance authorisation by the Standing Committee wouldallow necessary planning to be made ahead of time should such an invitation be received.Mr Lello argued that election monitoring was not a core task for the Assembly and that otherbodies were better suited to perform this function.The Standing Committee approved the Assembly’s participation in the monitoring ofparliamentary elections in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with 14 votes infavour and 7 against, provided that the Assembly received an invitation from the nationalauthorities.Structure of the Joint Committee Meetings held in Brussels, Belgium, each February[064 SC 11 E]The President explained that a new structure had been tried for the Joint Committee Meetings inBrussels in February 2011, and asked for members’ comments on their preferred formula.Sir Menzies regretted that the SHAPE briefings had not been up to the level one could haveexpected. In contrast,Branko Grims(SI) andJan Hamacek(CZ) both appreciated theopportunity to go to SHAPE and meet with the military leaders of the Alliance.Both Mr Erdem and Mr Bayley supported going back to the previous arrangement, as it had proveddifficult to set up meetings with high-level EU officials for a greatly reduced group of members.Mr Bayley also supported the idea of condensing all meetings over two days, instead of two and ahalf days.

The Treasurer and Chair of the Working GroupPierre Claude Nolin(CA) introduced the latestreport of the Working Group.Lord Jopling asked for a clarification on the Working Group’s proposals regarding accompanyingpersons.The Standing Committee supported all proposals of the Working Group, namely:Contributions from non-member delegations: no action should be taken in seekingmandatory or voluntary contributions to the Assembly’s budget from non-memberdelegations, but the contribution from non-member delegations in terms of hostingmeetings and seminars should be monitored;Consideration of the work of the GSM at the Assembly’s Annual Session: the reportand work of the GSM should be considered by one of the Committees during theAssembly’s annual session;Observers and accompanying persons at sessions: each delegate in the Assembly’ssessions should be limited to one designated and officially accredited accompanyingperson; the Accompanying Persons’ Programme should be closed tonon-parliamentary observers, with a degree of flexibility for senior NATO and SHAPEofficials;A policy on side events at sessions: side events should only take place in exceptionalcircumstances and exclusively upon an initiative generated by the host nation or amember delegation; they should be agreed by the host nation and the StandingCommittee or the Bureau in the interval between meetings of the Standing Committee;side events should cover an issue of relevance to NATO or the Assembly, and shouldnot time-conflict with any of the official session meetings.Guidelines on the circulation of non-official documents at sessions: requests for thecirculation of non-official documents at sessions needed to be approved by theCommittee Chair on the basis of the document’s relevance to the Committee’s work;exceptions were made for NATO documents and publications by the Geneva Centrefor Democratic Control of the Armed Forces;Use of non-official languages at sessions, on visits and seminars: delegations shouldbe encouraged to appoint members with a working knowledge of one of the twoofficial languages of the Assembly; whispering interpretation should be avoidedwhenever possible, and delegations should be encouraged to use portableinterpretation equipment of the highest standard on Committee visits; the guidelinesfor Committee Chairs should be reviewed to include the question of the use of non-official languages on Committee visits.

The President outlined his view that the Assembly was already addressing the issue of the ongoingchanges in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and described the solid framework forcooperation with the countries in the region through the GSM, and their attendance at variousAssembly events. Besides this political engagement, the President argued that the Assemblyshould also be prepared to provide assistance in the field of security sector reform and democraticcontrol of the armed forces, if requested - as it had done in Central and Eastern Europe in the1990s.The Secretary General explained that the purpose of this discussion was to collect members’ inputon what they thought the Assembly could provide as a body in this respect. He noted hisdiscussion with the head of the Turkish delegation on a possible seminar in 2012 in Turkey. Healso reported on informal contacts at staff level with other potential partners.Ms Solberg and Mr Voinescu-Cotoi both commended the document and its proposals, but theycalled for a more pro-active stance than simply waiting for a request for assistance.Mr Voinescu-Cotoi proposed reaching out to those partner organisations, such as the OSCE andthe European Parliament, which were likely to receive requests of assistance, and seeking ways tocooperate. Mr Erdem also suggested prioritising the Assembly’s proposals for assistance, andinforming countries of the region that the Assembly stands ready to help, in particular through thepreviously-discussed idea of a fact-finding mission to the region.Should he be in a position to do so following the parliamentary elections, Mr Erdem suggested thathe would be pleased to host the proposed seminar in Turkey next year. Mr Voinescu-Cotoi alsosupported this proposal of a Rose-Roth Seminar in 2012 dedicated to events in the region, aninitiative which, in his view, should be made permanent.Mr Ormel, Mr Cabras, and Mr Erdem stressed the central role that the GSM should play incoordinating the Assembly’s efforts.Ms Solberg suggested focusing on the younger generation of parliamentarians and future leaders,and networking them to young leaders in NATO countries. She also called for looking into the roleof women, and their contribution to democracy-building.Mr Ormel stated that the Assembly not only had an interest in assistance as such, but also inconnection with other key interests. He agreed that the Assembly’s contribution should be limitedto its core business in security and defence. Israel should be involved as soon as possible, heargued, and the relation to the Middle East peace process must also be weighed.Mr Cabras and Mr Voinescu-Cotoi underlined the differences between what happened in theformer Soviet Union 20 years’ ago and recent events in the MENA region. The Assembly shouldbe prepared to provide assistance, Mr Cabras stated, but he called for humility, and for acting aspeers wishing to exchange experiences rather than as teachers.Ms Schmidt stressed the importance of developing a political strategy to support the democraticforces in the region now, as well as in the long term, when the hostilities end. The Assembly’sCommittees should be engaged in discussing all relevant aspects of developments in the region.

Ms Andreychuk stated that member states had been working in these areas already; the newelement would be a NATO-specific strategy. She added that the paper could acknowledge theprofound differences between the countries involved, and that the Assembly should focus oncomplementarity with other organisations working in this field, on the basis of a full assessment ofthe capacities they already possessed. It was also important to take into account new players inthe region, including Brazil, China, and India.Mr Cuadrado stressed the importance of the principle of multilateralism, and called for thestrengthening of links with regional organisations in the region, including the Arab League and theOrganisation of the Islamic Conference. He strongly supported the recognition of the responsibilityto protect.The President thanked members for the productive debate and summarised the key points made,namely:developments in the region were a key priority for the Assembly;the opportunity should be used to work together with other organisations in a common effort;contacts should also be established with regional institutions;assistance efforts should also involve a broader spectrum of partners from civil society, with aparticular emphasis on young people;the Assembly’s commitment to its values was important, but it should recognise that thenations concerned were masters of their own destiny, and deliver its assistance in full respectof their history and culture, acknowledging the specificities of each;the fact-finding mission should be prepared carefully, and humility should be a key attributewhen approaching counterparts in the region.8.Relations with Belarus [067 SC 11 E]

The President explained that when the situation in Belarus was last discussed a year previously,the Standing Committee agreed not to make any changes in the terms of the Assembly’s relationswith the country, to keep the developing political situation in the country under review, and todiscuss the evolving situation periodically. Since then, the situation had deteriorated following theflawed presidential election in December 2010 and the intensified repression of the opposition. ThePresident asked for the Standing Committee’s view on the suggestion made in the document that,given recent developments, the Assembly’s coverage of Belarus could be considered sufficient,and that the Standing Committee could review the situation again at a later stage, on the basis ofthe report currently being prepared by the Political Committee on the situation in BelarusBoth Lord Jopling andDaniel Bacquelaine(BE) noted that recent events had confirmed that theAssembly had been right to adopt a cautious approach. Both therefore favoured maintaining thecurrent status quo in relations with Belarusian authorities. However, Mr Bacquelaine stated that hisreport for the Political Committee would also call for greater support to civil society and theBelarusian opposition.Mr Boucheron agreed that it would be wrong to restore Belarus’ previous status with the Assembly,but he also felt that ways should be explored to develop some form of dialogue, including with theauthorities in Minsk.Mr Austrevicius agreed that isolation was never a good solution, but argued that bridges needed tobe built with the population rather than the leadership of the country. He also suggested that theAssembly should publicise its position on developments in Belarus.The Standing Committee agreed that these suggestions should be incorporated into thePolitical Committee’s report, and that the situation should be reviewed at a later stage.

The President explained the background and chronology of the restrictions imposed by theStanding Committee on the participation of the Russian delegation in certain Assembly activities.He recalled that since the Standing Committee’s decision in Memphis in March 2010 to reopenRose Roth seminars to Russian participation, the only remaining restrictions related to Committeeand Sub-Committee visits and GSM activities. While noting that the reasons for which therestrictions were adopted in the first place had not disappeared and that Russia remained achallenging partner, the President argued that the Assembly could not ignore the fact that theLisbon NATO Summit had marked a “reset” of NATO-Russia relations, and that, on many keysecurity challenges, cooperation with Russia was essential.Taking these considerations into account, he put forward a proposal which, he hoped, couldreconcile all viewpoints within the Assembly. He proposed a step-by-step pragmatic approach,whereby a decision would be made on a case-by-case basis as to whether Russian participation inany given Committee or Sub-Committee visit would be beneficial. The decision of whether to opena particular visit to Russian participation would be left to the relevant Chairperson and to the hostdelegation. If necessary, a Sub-committee Chairperson could consult the Chairperson of the fullCommittee. Guidance from the Standing Committee (or the Bureau, if time did not allow forconsultation with the Standing Committee) could also be sought if need be. The Presidentsuggested that this arrangement would be reviewed after a year, and said that he would discussthe possibility of organising a Bureau visit to Russia in the second half of 2011 with the Russiandelegation. As for participation at sessions, the President favoured maintaining the size of theRussian delegation at its current level of 10 delegates.Senator de Gregorio, Mr Lello,Helge Adam Moller(DK), Mr Ormel, Ms Nybakk, Ms Schmidt,Mr Erdem,Norbert Haupert(LU) all agreed with the President’s proposal.Loïc Bouvard(FR)also supported the proposed arrangement, but wished it had come sooner and went further.Senator de Gregorio suggested that the Russian delegation should also be invited to participate inmeetings of the GSM, as well as the Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum.The Secretary General told delegates that the Head of the American delegation had informed himthat he supported the President’s proposal, provided that the default position remained that theRussian delegation could not participate in Committee and Sub-Committee visits unless explicitlyinvited at the initiative of the Sub-Committee Chair and the host delegation. Senator Cordyendorsed this description of the arrangement, and emphasized that the decision had to be takenjointly with the host country.Sir Menzies disagreed with the President’s proposal, noting that there had been no progress inresolving the conflicts over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, that the proposal made no mention of thesteps which were expected from Russia in return, that the Assembly needed a clear policy ratherthan individual decisions which risked being perceived as inconsistent, and that Sessions providedample opportunity for dialogue with the Russian delegation. He was also concerned that this stepwould later lead to full reengagement, which he opposed, warning that it would be difficult to thenreturn to a more restrictive formula.Imants Liegis(LV) also opposed the President’s proposal, arguing that the Assembly should baseits decision on the reciprocal steps taken by Russia rather than on the wider context.

Mr Austrevicius asked on what criteria the reassessment of the proposed arrangement would bebased on in a year’s time. Both he and Mr Voinescu-Cotoi suggested the postponement of thedecision until the meeting of the NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee (NRPC) in Varna inMay 2011.Mr Voinescu-Cotoi also argued that the Assembly’s decision to re-open Rose-Roth seminars toRussian participation had not led to any reciprocal step from the Russian delegation, and warnedagainst the Assembly being perceived as inconsistent and divided. Lord Jopling echoed this fearthat leaving the decision to Sub-Committee Chairs could give the impression that the StandingCommittee was too divided to decide itself. He also recalled recent occasions at which the Russiandelegation had had the opportunity to engage in dialogue, but had chosen not to.Mr Bayley supported a graduated and reciprocal approach. He agreed that the Assembly neededto make clear what was expected of the Russian delegation, and proposed seeking some form ofcommitment from the Heads of the Russian delegation in Varna. He suggested for instance thatRussian delegates should be expected to remain in the room when the topic of Georgia was beingdiscussed, and to consistently attend all meetings on Sub-Committee and Committee visits. Tolimit the risk of inconsistency, Mr Bayley also suggested that the Standing Committee review thevisits that could be opened to Russian participation in Varna. Finally, he opposed openingparticipation in the Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum to the Russian delegation.On the question of the Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum, the Secretary General remindedmembers that the Standing Committee had taken the decision to limit participation in the Forum tomember delegations and associate delegations from EU countries only.Senator Day expressed concern about possible complications implicit in the proposedarrangement, particularly in the case of joint Committee visits, as well as about past experiences ofthe disruptive behaviour by Russian delegates on past Committee visits.Senator Nolin insisted that the Standing Committee could not keep postponing a decision on thisissue, and urged the Committee to take a stance.Sir Menzies called for a roll-call vote, which the Standing Committee agreed to.The following delegations voted in favour of the President’s proposal: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada,Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands,Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Turkey. The following delegations voted against thePresident’s proposal: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the United Kingdom.The President’s proposal was adopted by the Committee with 17 votes in favour and 5against. It was thus agreed that:the leader of a visiting delegation (normally the Sub-Committee Chairperson, or in thecase of a joint visit, the two respective Sub-Committee Chairpersons) and the Head ofthe host country delegation may decide to open participation in that visit to thedelegation of the Russian Federation, in cases where they believed that Russianparticipation would contribute to the substance of the meeting;should he/she deem it necessary, the respective Sub-Committee Chairperson mayseek guidance from the Committee Chairperson. If needed, further guidance could besought from the Standing Committee, or, during the intervals between StandingCommittee meetings, the Bureau of the Assembly;a similar procedure should be followed for GSM activities;this arrangement would be reviewed after one year;the President would seek the Russian delegation’s agreement on a Bureau visit toRussia in the second half of 2011;the size of the Russian delegation at sessions would remain at 10 delegates.

The Treasurer explained that the 2010 Financial Year had closed with a surplus, and suggestedtwo ways of allocating this surplus. One was to update the 2011 budget to adjust some budgetarticles which required additional funding due to unforeseen circumstances following the initial draftof the 2011 budget. He proposed increases to: Chapter 1 (Personnel Costs) to take into accountseveral personnel changes within the International Secretariat which had financial implications forthe 2011 Financial Year only; Chapter 2 article 8 (Computer Equipment) to finance a redesign ofthe Assembly’s website; and Chapter 4 (Missions and External Relations) to cover the additionalexpense generated by the organisation of a Rose-Roth seminar on Afghanistan in London.Secondly, the Treasurer proposed allocating part of the surplus to augment the Emergency Fund.Mr Arnaut asked why the proposed seminar on Afghanistan had to be held in London if the UKdelegation was unable to offer a venue. The Secretary General explained that London had beenchosen because the city offered easy access to a large pool of experts on Afghanistan. He alsoclarified that, although the UK Parliament did not have a suitable conference room, the UKdelegation was planning to contribute to the costs for the seminar. However, a reasonable share ofthe financial burden would have to be covered through the Assembly’s budget in order to cover thecosts of the Afghan delegation participation, including the necessary interpretation.The Standing Committee adopted the financial documents.

explained that Luxembourg’s offer to host the 2013 Spring Session would mean that their earlieroffer to host the early spring Standing Committee in 2012 would need to be withdrawn. A hosttherefore needed to be found for that meeting, and Albania would be consulted first. The Presidentalso informed the Committee that an offer had been received from Croatia to host the AnnualSession in 2013.Marija Pejcinovic Buric(HR) expressed her satisfaction that the Croatian Parliament would behosting the Annual Session in 2013.The President further informed the Committee about the offer received from Lithuania to host theSpring Session in 2014 and the tentative offer from The Netherlands to host the Annual Session in2014.Lord Jopling strongly urged future hosts to choose venues near major airports in order to reducetravel and transfer costs for delegations.Mr Boucheron informed the Committee that the French Parliament would be willing to host a futuremeeting of the Standing Committee in Caen.Dobroslav Dimitrov(BG) and Mr Voinescu-Cotoi briefed the Standing Committee on preparationsfor the forthcoming Spring Session in Varna in May 2011 and Annual Session in Bucharest inOctober 2011 respectively.Mr Lello informed the Standing Committee that due to the forthcoming parliamentary election inPortugal, most members of the delegation would likely not be present in Varna.The President thanked all delegations for their offers to host meetings, and agreed withLord Jopling that it was important to make every effort to reduce the cost of meetings.14.Miscellaneous

The President asked the Standing Committee for comments on the proposed draft statement onNATO operations in Libya [101 SC 11 E].Senator Day fully supported the proposed draft.Mr Grims suggested replacing the words “we hope” with a phrase that would more clearly expressthe Alliance’s determination to achieve the operation’s objectives.Mr Lello regretted that the resolution did not emphasize enough that the reason for NATO’sengagement in Libya is to defend human lives and that the priority is a diplomatic resolution of thecrisis.Sir Menzies suggested adding the word “legal” to the reference to the mandate given by UNSecurity Council Resolution 1973. This would emphasize even more strongly the fact that NATOoperations in Libya were conducted in full accordance with the UN mandate.Mr Haupert felt that the translation of the word “clear” with “sansambiguïté”in the French versionwas too strong, and suggested using a different translation.The President accepted the proposed amendments from Slovenia, Luxembourg and theUnited Kingdom.The draft statement [101 SC 11 E], as amended, was adopted.