Proposition 53K3050

Proposition de résolution relative à l'inculpation pour piraterie d'activistes pacifiques en Russie.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 8, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Russia resolution of parliament human rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Oct. 10, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of an urgent decision to address this resolution promptly, the Committee on Foreign Relations met yesterday morning to discuss the draft resolution of the chief rapporteur, Mr. Van der Maelen. From this discussion, I will give you a brief report.

Mr Van der Maelen, as the chief speaker, briefly overlooks the draft resolution. On 18 September 2013, Greenpeace tried to raise awareness of the potential hazards associated with oil production in the Arctic. The activists of the Arctic Sunrise have been placed in Russian custody on charges of piracy. Experts have concluded that Russia’s intervention is both disproportionate and unlawful and contrary to international maritime law. Greenpeace’s action could not be considered piracy.

Ms. Dumery, of the N-VA, points out that the Russian argument that the ship was seized in the exclusive economic zone and that the country was therefore allowed to intervene for security reasons does not, on the basis of the initial analysis, cut wood. She further points out that the N-VA does not comment on the action of Greenpeace, but that it concerns the credibility of international law, the foundations of the rule of law and human rights.

Ms Lalieux, of the PS, points out that the draft resolution is not aimed at making an opinion on Russian piracy legislation, nor on Greenpeace’s method of action, but rather to obtain the release of crew members. Ms Lalieux also highlights the worrying developments taking place in Russia, ⁇ in the fields of environment and human rights. It points out that Russia is a member of the Council of Europe and, in that capacity, has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and should therefore respect it.

Snoy et d’Oppuers, of the Ecolo-Groen group, believes that the non-violent acts of civil disobedience by Greenpeace activists cannot be considered acts of piracy.

She also stresses that the call for Greenpeace activists must be accompanied by a more general commitment to Russian citizens.

Mr Dallemagne, of CDH, points out to the importance of civil society and to Russia’s inappropriate response to Greenpeace activists, both in terms of international law and Russian law. Mr Dallemagne also says he is concerned about the way the Russian Federation takes human rights seriously or not.

Ms De Permentier, of the MR, points to Russia’s excessive response, even though the MR is not in favor of the Greenpeace method. Ms. De Permentier asks for more information on the state of health of the inmates and wants to know with certainty that they will have access to medical care and legal assistance. She also believes that the fate of dissident organisations in Russia deserves the continued attention of Parliament, and says that her group will support the motion for a resolution.

Bruno Valkeniers said that his group does not support the motion, although freedom of expression is an inalienable right. The group rejects the proposal because it is based on parties who maintain a sanitary cord in Belgium. The speaker also pointed out the unilaterality of Greenpeace’s views and the economic damage that Greenpeace’s actions cause to ⁇ .

Mr Roel Deseyn, from CD&V, welcomes the swift processing and content of the motion for a resolution. The speaker calls for this particular case to be left aside and to focus on respecting freedom of expression and non-violent protest as a universal right. The speaker stressed that Russia is and remains a partner of Belgium, and that it is of great importance that the dialogue continues.

Ms Wierinck, of the Open Vld, praises the swift response and handling of the motion for a resolution. She believes it is especially important to continue to pay sufficient attention to the rather strange positions Russia sometimes holds about Syria, the hollowboys and the media.

Mrs Dumery, of the N-VA, reiterates that each group appears to have its own motives to support or not support the motion for a resolution. It is a merit of the text that it abstracts from the concrete action of Greenpeace. This means that international treaties must be respected.

Finally, Mr. Luykx, the Chairman observing, stressed that the case concerned activists who were unjustly and using excessive force arrested and detained.

The representative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs stressed that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is closely following the matter and intends to address the issue at the bilateral meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia on 15 October. Finally, the speaker stressed that Belgium, together with its European partners, is closely monitoring the human rights situation in Russia, giving due attention to the cases relating, among other things, to Pussy Riot and the legislation on NGOs and HOLBIs.

The entire draft resolution, including the technical improvements, will be adopted by 11 votes to 1.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, whether it is an action of Greenpeace or a commercial ship, what is at stake here is the credibility of international law, the rule of law and human rights.

On September 19, the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise south of Nova Zembla was seized by the Russian Coast Guard. The ship was seized and thirty crew members were captured and are still staying in Moermansk.

The Netherlands, the flag state of the ship, protested against the capture of the crew and demands the release of the ship. Meanwhile, the Dutch government has initiated an arbitration procedure at the International Maritime Law Tribunal in Hamburg to release the ship and its crew.

Russia claims that the ship was seized in the exclusive economic zone and that it was therefore allowed to intervene for security reasons. We strongly doubt that such a thing is possible. It goes straight against the accusation of piracy against the Greenpeace crew that, as I said, is still in custody.

For all clarity, the accusation of piracy is an accusation under Russian law, but not under the United Nations Maritime Law, a treaty that came up thanks to the efforts of the Dutchman Hugo de Groot in the seventeenth century. That maritime law states that national law is limited to the coastline, more specifically 3 nautical miles, and that everything outside it falls under the international waters. They do not belong to one state, but to all states. In this area, the treaties apply.

The Russian diplomacy blasts warm and cold in the dossier. At first, a collaborator of Putin himself said that the accusation of piracy was unfounded, but now he claims the opposite. It is very clear that the Dutch government has initiated a procedure and that we must support the Netherlands in doing so.

The N-VA group signed the resolution. It is our merit that no position is taken on the acceptability of the underlying action of Greenpeace.

It is a reaction against the Russian Federation that is actually doing something that goes beyond its own powers. This response, on the other hand, is inconsistent with the membership of the Council of Europe, with the commitment to fundamental human rights and with their obligation to international treaties. I therefore hope that as a result of this resolution, our government will put the Netherlands a heart under the belt, also through the EU and also with political support.

I will not return to the facts because they have already been recalled. I use this to thank all my colleagues for reacting so quickly to the resolution proposed to them by my colleague, Dirk Van der Maelen, and myself. Faced with this challenging situation, it was in the urgency that we voted, yesterday, in the Committee on Foreign Relations, the proposal for a resolution.

This urgency is first imposed by the international calendar. The Russian Foreign Minister will meet with his Russian counterpart on October 15. By adopting this draft resolution, the House formally expresses its concern about the situation of the crew of the Arctic Sunrise. The adoption by a very large majority in the plenary session of this text will, I am sure, bring an added value to the strong and unambiguous diplomatic position that our minister will have to adopt at this meeting. It is a pity that he is not there, but I hope that this message will be passed on to him.

The purpose of this resolution is obviously not to comment on Russian legislation or their analysis of the peaceful methods used by Greenpeace activists. It is clear, however, to obtain the immediate release of crew members through a diplomatic solution, to denounce the disproportionate intervention against peaceful activists, I recall, and to condemn the prosecution of the twenty-eight members of Greenpeace and the two journalists who accompanied them.

These requests are quite legitimate when it is known that in addition, the accusation of piracy cannot apply to peaceful protests, such as those of Greenpeace, and that the Greenpeace ship, the Arctic Sunrise, has been unlawfully captured, as my colleague said, in international waters by the Russian Coast Guard.

Even though I know that Belgium is not a party to the cause, I think that the initiative taken by the Netherlands before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea should be supported. I think this is an important diplomatic path. If Luxembourg and Belgium also support this initiative, then it would be the Benelux that could join it.

More broadly and this is not the subject of this resolution, the debate took place in a committee but I would like to recall a few points in this regard in the plenary session. It is the situation in Russia as a whole that is highly concerned, both from the environmental and human rights point of view. As I pointed out, for months, my group has been concerned about the tense geopolitical situation generated by the natural resources present in this region.

These resources now more than ever make the Arctic the object of all cravings, especially the major oil groups. Tensions are only growing, as are the risks to the environment. The Arctic must remain a zone of peace, a region of international cooperation, but also and above all a region where the environment is protected. At the level of the international community, it is necessary to act in this direction.

Beyond the environmental issues, the upcoming holding of the Winter Olympic Games and current events now place Russia at the center of all attention.

While fully respecting the sovereignty of this state, it is necessary to recall that Russia is a full member of the Council of Europe and has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. This Member State must therefore, like all other Member States, ensure that the rights, duties and freedoms resulting from them apply effectively throughout its entire territory and in all its laws and acts.

As the founding state of the Council of Europe, Belgium cannot ignore this debate about the general climate that seems to rule in Russia. I can thus cite the examples, I did and it has been recalled, from punishments inflicted on Pussy Riot, to figures of the opposition or the adoption, last June by the Russian parliament, of a law punishing any act of homosexual propaganda before minors. Such acts are severely denounced by human rights defenders, especially as new legislation of the same kind appears to be announced in Russia.

For my group, it is clear that public authorities, whatever they are, cannot maintain or even amplify a state of mind contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. We will be more attentive than ever to this situation and to the jeopardization of our values.

The specific case that justified the adoption of this resolution illustrates all these aspects. If a diplomatic solution is to be found and lead to the rapid release of these peaceful Greenpeace activists and journalists who accompany them, it remains no less that our country, the European Union and the Council of Europe will continue to closely monitor the situation in Russia, a key country in our close neighborhood, which deserves all our attention.

Finally, while images are currently circulating on the internet, while some are today concerned about a possible extinction of the Olympic flame during its journey in Russia, what we are concerned today is that the rights of everyone are not extinguished in Russia. I thank you.

The territory of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation has suffered and continues to suffer a number of degradations of its environmental framework. These environmental degradations interfere with the lives of Russian citizens in their everyday lives. I think here of the disappearance of the Sea of Aral as a result of its overuse for the development of cotton agriculture in Kazakhstan and the dozens of nuclear submarines waiting to be dismantled.

In this regard, we can only welcome the work of Greenpeace. Through its acts, the ecological association gives a beacon on causes often unknown to the general public or overlooked for political and economic reasons. Through its action, it reminds us that the environmental risks taken by one and the other go well beyond state borders.

Mr. Speaker, if I can only welcome the work of Greenpeace both in Russia and abroad, I have to say that I do not endorse all the methods of this organization. The NGO’s shock methods sometimes mark the minds and flirt from time to time with legality.

That being said, Mrs. Minister, light must be placed on the events that led to the erosion of the Arctic Sunrise.

Based on the Montego Bay Convention, Jean-Marc Thouvenin, a professor of law at the University Paris-Ouest Nanterre La Défense and director of the Centre de droit international, considers that the accusation of organized gang piracy does not hold.

In a recent statement during the Arctic Forum in Sakelhard in the Greater North, Vladimir Putin said the following: “These people have violated international law, but it is absolutely clear that they are not pirates. However, de facto, they tried to seize the platform.” This statement suggests a possible re-qualification of the charges of the thirty crew members, which we look forward to.

Until then, we must continue to mobilize in the name of the right to freedom of these people. The precedents that exist regarding the fate reserved for some NGO members by the Russian government require our attention at all times until these people regain their freedom.

The defense of human rights is a noble struggle and a central axis of our foreign policy. I am confident that our Foreign Minister will discuss this issue at his meeting with his Russian counterpart.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Ecolo-Groen Group has participated in the initiative of the resolution and welcomes the rapidity with which it has been dealt with to be adopted here tonight. I would like to thank all the members who participated in this urgent procedure.

You doubt, the Ecolo-Groen group supports this resolution for two of its main dimensions.

The first is the ecological dimension. The fact that we voted in 2011 a resolution calling for a moratorium on oil exploitation, and even exploration, and for neighboring countries to abstain. In fact, no one in the world has the ability to control the consequences of a potential disaster due to an accident leaving oil to leak, thus causing a black tide. We do not have the means to prevent this risk. Therefore, it is serious to continue oil exploitation, especially at sea.

We agreed on this point in 2011 and we still agree, I hope. That’s why Greenpeace’s action deserves to be supported, even though it sometimes takes the path of civil disobedience, but still non-violent, I recall.

I would still like to say that if we are kindly sitting on our bench and saying that protecting the Arctic is very good, the government isn’t always going that way. In fact, very recently, he granted the guarantee of the Ducroire to a Belgian company that worked at the port of Sabetta, on the borders of Russia in the Arctic Ocean, to carry out dragging.

More specifically, it is a dragging company that will build a port for the exploration of the seabed. We are also responsible for this and Ecolo-Groen was the only one to appeal to the government at the time. Minister Vande Lanotte told us that everything was well and that the risks were controlled. We are allowed to doubt it! I also call for coherence.

The second dimension of the text concerns human rights, the question of the qualification of acts of activists. We rebel against the fact that activists are accused of piracy. This is unacceptable, especially because in Russia the human consequences would be very serious, as these people risk 15 years in prison. We must rebel against that. I would like to point out that in Belgium too, the Wetteren court recently called anti-GMO activists “criminals.” Be careful, we are also threatened by the law of our country. We cannot accept that activists who defend a cause, which they consider to be of general interest, which is not a criminal offence, be considered as offenders. This is also serious, and we must pay attention to the deviations of our law in this matter.

We are here to stop calling activists pirates. As Ms Lalieux said, this is also the time to rise up against the serious human rights abuses in general in Russia. I was very impressed by the testimony of one of the Pussy Riot who went on a hunger strike. She described the living conditions in women’s labor camps. This testimony is available on the net. It felt like it was in Stalin’s time.

We have to react and the foreign minister who will meet with his Russian counterpart next week must dare to put this point on the table in general.

In conclusion, this resolution allowed us to address two very important issues. Thank you for voting tonight.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, as we announced yesterday in the committee and as our party did yesterday in the Flemish Parliament, the Flemish Interest will not approve the proposed rapid resolution.

I would like to explain why and give a few additional arguments. You never know if I can convince, for example, a few N-VA members today. It is not necessary to hope to undertake, nor to succeed in persisting.

As Flemish nationalists, the Flemish Believers know what it means to live in a country like Belgium, where the CGKR restricts freedom of opinion. I’m really curious what the vote on the matter next week – I’d like to say “a little later,” but the vote has been postponed until next week – will result. The Flemish Interest knows what it is to live in a country where parties and people to express their views are dragged and convicted in court. Freedom of opinion is an inalienable right for us.

Thus, it is better for the presenters of the resolution to wipe out the sanitary cordon at their own door and respect freedom of expression before they hang out the sacred indignation about the situation in other countries.

Moreover, we have the greatest problem with the selectivity of indignation. Now that we are talking about Greenpeace – of course, we are talking about Greenpeace, unlike what was claimed yesterday in the committee and just in a few presentations here – it can suddenly not go fast enough. Two days are sufficient to hunt a resolution through the House.

Colleagues, can I remind you – I will give just a few examples – the two resolutions, a resolution of the N-VA and a resolution of the Flemish Interest, on the excessive violence of the Turkish government in the face of peaceful protests, as well as a resolution, among others by Ecolo-Green, on the treatment of the press in Turkey?

Those three resolutions are clearly less important and less urgent, despite the fact that there have been deaths. They have been hurting here for months. In jargon, it means “hanging in the room.”

Again, one handles two sizes and two weights, with which we have the greatest difficulty. We do not play with.

We will not approve this draft resolution. We refuse that not out of sympathy for Russia or Putin, let that be clear. The way he deals with the opposition can absolutely not go through the beugle and it is ⁇ not just about Greenpeace. We have problems not so much with the views of Greenpeace – we can still find ourselves in – but with its unilaterality, where it, like the Russian government, does not allow any form of discussion. We also have problems with their way of acting, which now cannot immediately be called ecotourism. Anyone who finds a different opinion on it than Greenpeace is put in the corner and addressed so that in our mediated society he has no chance of a serene discussion. The damage that the many actions cause to the business, including in Flanders, will probably be collateral damage?

Colleagues, maybe, very ⁇ , it is even advisable to postpone the present proposal of resolution for a moment and wait for the additional investigation into the so-called drug discoveries on board the Arctic Sunrise and the accusation of an attempt to smash another ship. If that is based on truth – you imagine it – do you not risk having to crack back on socks? Also in this case it seems to me not advisable to give the absolutions without confessions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak from my bank. I would like to emphasize three points.

First, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Luykx, and above all also the colleagues who have ensured that we have been able to adopt the draft resolution in the plenary session within two days.

Second, my colleagues have sufficiently clarified why and the content of the draft resolution, and I agree. However, if someone finds a contradiction between what he or she said and another colleague, I would like to say that my position is closest to that of colleague Karine Lalieux.

Third, this text confides in our Minister of Foreign Affairs. We hope that he, along with his colleagues in the European Union, will succeed in bringing the message to Moscow that we do not consider it appropriate that the democratic space in that country is so limited and that we expect the thirty detained activists to be released as soon as possible.

Once again, I will have to speak in the most absolute noise. Sometimes there are surreal things happening in this assembly. This afternoon, Mrs. Laruelle, here present, told me that I should not care about what is happening in France by denouncing the aid that this country provides to the terrorists who operate in Syria. According to Ms. Laruelle, I was not in the right assembly to do this. So I had to take the TGV to go to Paris within the National Assembly to denounce this shameful pact of a neighboring country ...

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a minimum of calm in order to be able to express myself as a representative of the Nation. I think I have a right!

But continue on!

Yes, but the bell, the noise... It is showing very little respect and if it was a member of another party, we would not have been ringing the bell at that time!

So, to denounce France, we cannot, we are not in the same assembly. Also, I invite the authors of this resolution, in the same logic as Mrs. Laruelle and the government, to take the plane to go tell Mr. Laruelle. Putin’s way of thinking. In fact, with this discussion, we are clearly wasting the taxpayer’s money!

I will therefore vote against this resolution, because we clearly have no lesson to give to Russia and Putin who appears, in recent months, as a responsible political leader who, unlike American or European political leaders, is a guarantee of peace on the international stage.

If I have to scream, I will scream, Mr. President: I have resources!

We do not have to interfere with Russian democracy and even less with its justice. On the contrary, we should be inspired by the Russian model.

I repeat: let the authors follow the advice that Mrs. Laruelle gave me at the beginning of the session and let them go and give their good advice in Russia. I did a research: daily flights are provided by Brussels Airlines between Brussels and Moscow. There is no doubt that Putin will welcome them with a good kick in the back, because if it is forbidden for our government to denounce the attitude of a European ally, we do not have to give lessons to an independent country, such as Russia.

Thank you for the show you give! Thank you, Mr. President, for the respect you give to an elected representative of the Nation! I assure you that, anyway, until the end, you will have to do with me!

Somebody asks t-il still the word? (No to)