PACE LAUNCHING ANTI-PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Mikhail Zygar
Kommersant
5/r_527/Russia_and_Armenia_criticized_in_the_PACE/
April 15 2008
Russia
The Council of Europe thrashed out the elections in Russia and Armenia
Yesterday the PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe)
spring session opened in Strasbourg. First the delegates discussed
the recent Russian presidential election, unanimously acknowledging it
unfair and unjust, and even tried to find measures to be taken against
Russia. Nonetheless one shouldn’t rule out the possibility of taking
measures against Armenia before it comes to Russia: Yesterday the
presidential election in that country caused a big scandal in the PACE.
An Unjust Russia
The morning session of the PACE began with discussing observers’
reports on the elections which were carried out in Europe within three
previous months. These include the presidential election in Russia,
Armenia, Serbia and Montenegro, as well as the parliamentary elections
in Monaco. At that, only the Russian and Armenian electoral campaigns
touched off quite a reaction with the delegates.
The PACE was the only European organization to send its observers to
the Russian election of March 2. Andreas Gross, head of the mission,
declared during his yesterday’s speech at the Assembly that the
Russian election had been neither free nor fair.
"Election can be neither free nor fair when people have no opportunity
to choose. This was the case in Russia: none of the candidates,
except for Dmitry Medvedev, had a chance to win. For the election
to have seemed a bit more free, the obvious favourite should have
taken part in the pre-election debates. He might have shown at least
some respect towards the challengers and voters, displaying that all
candidates had equal rights," Mr Gross assumed.
He recollected that fall 2007 about 70% of Russians declared ready
to cast their ballots for the candidate President Putin would anoint,
and the same 70% said they didn’t trust the voting process at all.
The report prepared by the PACE contains some suggestions which the
Russian government should follow to improve its election legislation.
First, the delegates suggest that all candidates for President
be obliged to participate in debates. Second, the European
parliamentarians consider the necessity for a candidate to collect
2,000,000 signatures to receive nomination too strict, depriving the
opposition leaders of the right to get nominated. Finally, the PACE
members resent that candidates don’t have the same share of access
to the digital mass media. They insist that an independent public
channel be set up in Russia. By the way, the last condition is one
of the key PACE demands: until it’s met, the Assembly won’t give up
monitoring Russian elections.
Konstantin Kosachev, Head of Russia’s delegation, decided to retort
to the author of the report. He stressed that in Russia, as well as
in Armenia, Serbia and Montenegro, the Head of State was changed as
a result of democratic elections, whereas in Monaco, Great Britain
and Sweden the title was inherited.
But after it Russian lawmaker Ivan Melnikov of the Communist Party
took the floor and praised Andreas Gross for his "unbiased and detailed
report." He spoke in support of all the PACE requirements on altering
the election laws, adding that not only should all candidates be
obliged to participate in debates, but TV channels must also broadcast
debates when it best suites the audience, not at 7 a.m. or 11 p.m.
Germany’s Holger Haibach stated that "Russia’s election, however
smoothly it went, was a mere formality, it didn’t correspond to the
spirit of democracy – this is the way it should be treated." In his
view, the PACE must not only establish the fact, but also take certain
measures. Referring to the fact that Russia, among other things, broke
its promise to ratify Protocols 6 and 14 to the European Convention
on Human Rights, Mr Haibach declared that the PACE was to answer the
question, whether Russia was moving in the right direction. In his
opinion, "one can give only a negative answer to this question,"
so Europe must consider "what to do with the huge country that is
unwilling or unable to address its current problems."
Kommersant wrote yesterday that some of the PACE delegates have
already proposed to deprive Russia of the right to vote unless it
ratified Protocols 6 and 14. Apparently, this was the measure Mr
Haibach implied.
PACE vs. ODIHR
Discussing the recent elections in the European states, the PACE
delegates mentioned another organization dealing with human rights
issues – the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR). This body, evoking Moscow’s irritation, was unexpectedly
subjected to severe criticism. Britain’s conservative, David Wilshire,
was the one to begin with criticizing the ODIHR. He said that during
the latest presidential election in Montenegro he was surprised to find
out that the ODIHR observers had prepared their report on monitoring
the election in advance and wouldn’t meet the demands of their PACE
counterparts as drafting a joint report.
Consequently, Mr Wilshire required that the Assembly consider whether
to cooperate with the ODIHR in the future.
Konstantin Kosachev took up the issue he could use for his benefit.
He also set himself to unmasking the red tape of that organization,
retorting at the same time to the accusations of those delegates who
blamed Russia for not allowing the ODIHR observers to come to the
presidential election. According to Mr Kosachev, that organization
has no written criteria stipulating which elections to monitor. "The
bureaucratic structure determines where a stronger mission should
be sent, and where – a weaker one. The OSCE ODIHR usually sends
about 18 observers to a country. We invited 70 representatives of
that organization, but were told that their number was too small,"
said the exasperated Mr Kosachev.
Russia can’t accuse the PACE of that kind of policy since this
organization has a definite rule: observers are sent to those countries
which are monitored, that’s why the PACE observes the elections in
Russia, not those in France and Germany.
In the end, the delegates agreed that the framework of the further
cooperation with the ODIHR should be thought over.
Row over Armenia
The biggest yesterday’s scandal concerned discussing the situation in
Armenia. During the morning session, Britain’s John Prescott, ex-Deputy
Prime Minister in Tony Blair’s government, delivered his report on the
recent presidential election in Armenia, which was even less critical
than that on Russia’s election. Mr Prescott stated that it complied
with the standards of the Council of Europe. The lack of criticism
about Armenia though roused the indignation of several delegates.
Hungary’s Zsolt Nemeth reminded that the Armenian election resulted in
civil unrest, with 9 people killed. "The Council of Europe legitimizes
the anti-democratic policy of the Armenian government! If we are
unable to influence or change anything, let’s give up the practice of
sending observers there! We need a thorough evaluation of the monitor
missions," claimed the excited Mr Nemeth.
Sweden’s Marietta Purbe-Lundin, member of the PACE mission to
Armenia, described emotionally that in her presence vote fraud took
place. "Hundreds of ballots for Levon Ter-Petrosyan were rendered to
be for Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan. The members of the electoral
commission were aware of what they were doing and that I saw it, but
they were far from embarrassed. There were Mr Sargsyan’s observers
at the polling station, who so much threatened everyone there –
my interpreter begged me not to make any remarks to them. I was
so frustrated that couldn’t get a wink of sleep that night," the
parliamentarian complained.
Azerbaijan’s Samad Seidov was even more critical of Armenia, "Mr
Prescott says that the Armenian election complies with the standards
of the Council of Europe. What does he mean? Have murders become
the standards of the Council of Europe? Here 9 people killed were
mentioned, but no one recollected those died in jail, or thousands
of political prisoners, including the members of the Armenian
Parliament. Why is the world so closely watching the situation in
Tibet, paying no attention to the arbitrariness in Armenia?"
Nevertheless, John Prescott and several other observers stated that
the critics of Armenia’s election were too emotional and biased,
whereas there were no shocking facts of electoral fraud registered.
All in all, the dispute is sure to continue. It was decided in the
morning that ad hoc debates on Armenia be held Thursday, which means
that the majority of the delegates rather disagree with the positive
conclusions of Mr Prescott. More to the point, Russia’s representatives
told Kommersant that the question of overhauling and confirming the
credentials of the Armenian delegation might be raised during one of
the forthcoming PACE sessions.