Request by the Parliament of Kazakhstan for Observer status with the Parliamentary Assembly
Information report
| Doc. 12056
| 07 October 2009
- Committee
- Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
- Rapporteur :
- Mr Tadeusz IWIŃSKI,
Poland, SOC
Summary
In November 2006, the Parliament of Kazakhstan requested to
be granted Observer status with the Parliamentary Assembly. The
request was referred to the Political Affairs Committee.
The committee concludes that it would be difficult to support
the granting of Observer status to the Parliament of Kazakhstan
without a number of preconditions and commitments.
It finds it more appropriate if future co-operation between
the Assembly and the Parliament of Kazakhstan would take the form
of a Partnership for Democracy, on the basis of a new status to
be set up following Resolution
1680 (2009) on the establishment of a “Partner for democracy” status
with the Parliamentary Assembly and provided that there is a specific
request for it by the Parliament of Kazakhstan and subject to the conditions
foreseen.
1 Introduction
1. In November 2006, the Parliament
of Kazakhstan, which has a co-operation agreement with the Assembly
since 2004, requested to be granted Observer status with the Parliamentary
Assembly. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the request
was referred to the Political Affairs Committee for report. I was
appointed as Rapporteur in April 2007.
2 Conditions
for granting Observer status with the Assembly
2. In accordance with Article
60 of the Rules of Procedure, “The Assembly may, on the proposal
of the Bureau, grant Observer status to national parliaments of
non-member states of the Council of Europe which meet the conditions
set out in paragraph 1 of Statutory Resolution (93) 26 of the Committee
of Ministers on Observer status”.
3. Paragraph 1 of Statutory Resolution (93) 26 of the Committee
of Ministers on Observer status reads as follows: “Any state willing
to accept the principles of democracy, the rule of law and the enjoyment
by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and wishing to co-operate with the Council of Europe may
be granted by the Committee of Ministers, after consulting the Parliamentary
Assembly, Observer status with the Organisation.”
4. Furthermore, in its
Resolution
1253 (2001) on the abolition of the death penalty in Council of
Europe Observer States, the Assembly “decides to henceforth only
grant Observer status with the Assembly to national parliaments,
and to only recommend the granting of Observer status with the Organisation
as a whole to states which strictly respect a moratorium on executions
or have already abolished the death penalty” (paragraph 11).
5. Thus, Observer status with the Assembly is designed for Parliaments
of non-European states which are fully functioning democracies and
guarantee the rule of law and the respect for human rights. Currently, Parliaments
of Canada, Israel and Mexico enjoy this status.
6. Moreover, in
Resolution
1600 (2008) on the Council of Europe and its Observer states: the
current situation and the way forward, the Assembly, inter alia,
instructed the Bureau to “delay granting parliamentary Observer
status to any more parliaments until all the issues raised in this
resolution have been resolved” (paragraph 30.5). At its meeting
of 13 March 2008, the Bureau agreed not to make any new proposals
for granting Observer status until the implementation of
Resolution 1600 (2008) had been reviewed by the Political Affairs Committee
in 2010.
3 State of procedure
in the Political Affairs Committee
7. In the framework of the preparation
of a report on the request of the Parliament of Kazakhstan, the committee
held a hearing in March 2008 with representatives of both chambers
of the Parliament, as well as representatives of political parties
not represented in the Parliament.
8. In September 2008, I carried out a fact-finding visit to the
country, and held discussions with State and Parliament officials,
representatives of the extra-parliamentary opposition and of civil
society and NGOs.
9. In addition, an ad hoc committee of the Bureau of the Assembly
observed the extraordinary parliamentary elections in Kazakhstan
held in August 2007.
10. The committee held several preliminary discussions on the
issue, which showed that views remain quite divided as to a possible
response to the request for Observer status. The majority of members
were clearly in favour of upgrading existing relations with the
Parliament of Kazakhstan.
11. However, a few members of the committee expressed doubts as
to whether Kazakhstan has already reached a degree of democratic
development sufficient for it to be considered in compliance with
the criteria for obtaining Observer status.
12. Some members thought that Observer status could only be granted
after Kazakhstan meets a number of preconditions to be specified,
and should be accompanied by specific commitments on the part of Kazakhstan’s
Parliament.
13. Others were fairly doubtful as to whether Observer status
would be the most appropriate framework for strengthening co-operation
with Kazakhstan and accompanying democratic reforms in this country.
14. In this context, the committee decided to accept an invitation
from the Senate of Kazakhstan to hold a meeting in Astana. This
meeting, which was due to take place on 26-27 May 2009, would have
provided an opportunity for exchanges of views with various political
actors of Kazakhstan, including the extra-parliamentary opposition,
and representatives of civil society, thus helping members to form
a substantiated opinion on the request of the Parliament of Kazakhstan.
15. Unfortunately, on 7 May 2009, i.e. less than three weeks before
the agreed date of the meeting, the Senate of Kazakhstan decided
to postpone it, arguing that many parliamentarians and representatives
of political parties of Kazakhstan could not participate in it due
to numerous other commitments. This unilateral decision, taken at
such short notice, tends to undermine the credibility of the Kazakh
side as a reliable partner, and casts doubts on the seriousness
of their intentions as regards co-operation with the Assembly. Moreover, it
deprives the committee of the possibility to see in situ the situation in the country
and form a first-hand opinion on the state of progress of democratic
reforms.
4 New status with
the Assembly: partner for democracy
16. In June 2009, the Assembly
adopted
Resolution 1680
(2009) on the establishment of a “Partner for democracy” status
with the Parliamentary Assembly based on the report by Mr Van den
Brande.
17. The aim of this new status is to create a framework for institutional
relations and co-operation with Parliaments of neighbouring countries
on the basis of clearly expressed commitments towards democracy, respect
for human rights and the rule of law.
18. Unlike Observer status, designed for accomplished democracies,
the new status is tailored for countries which have made a choice
for democracy and wish to use the Council of Europe’s experience
of, and expertise in, democratic transition. Therefore, unlike Observer
status, it foresees country-specific commitments defined on a case-by-case
basis with the country concerned, with a follow-up mechanism.
19. The Partner for Democracy status would seem an appropriate
form for stepping up the Assembly’s co-operation with Kazakhstan,
which has stated its intention to build a democratic state whose
key values would be the human being, human life and human rights
and freedoms.
5 Conclusions
20. I assume that, when requesting
to be granted Observer status with the Assembly, the Parliament
of Kazakhstan was guided by a wish to develop co-operation with
the Assembly and benefit from its experience in conducting democratic
reforms and building a society based on the respect for human rights
and the rule of law.
21. It seems that, in the current circumstances, it would be difficult
for the committee to support the granting of Observer status to
the Parliament of Kazakhstan without a number of preconditions and
commitments.
22. At the same time, Observer status with the Assembly, in its
current form, does not foresee any formal commitments, neither does
it provide any follow-up mechanisms.
23. Therefore it would be more appropriate if future co-operation
between the Assembly and the Parliament of Kazakhstan would take
the form of a partnership for democracy, on the basis of the new
status and provided that there is a specific request for it by the
Parliament of Kazakhstan and subject to the conditions foreseen.
