NATO-RUSSIA PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE 110 NRPC 05 E Original: English NAT O   Pa rl ia me n ta ry  As s e mb l y SUMMARY NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee meeting White Hall, Grand Hotel Union Ljubljana, Slovenia Friday 27 May 2005 International Secretariat May 2005

110 NRPC 05 E i ATTENDANCE LIST President Pierre Lellouche (France) Vice-Presidents Pierre Claude Nolin (Canada) Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri (Italy) Treasurer Lothar Ibrügger (Germany) Secretary General Simon Lunn MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS Belgium Daniel Bacquelaine Canada Jane Cordy Denmark Helge Adam Møller Estonia Sven Mikser France Pierre Lellouche Loïc Bouvard Germany Markus Meckel Karl A. Lamers Greece Vassilios Maghinas Italy Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri Hungary Agnes Vadaï Latvia Aleksandrs Kirsteins Lithuania Juozas Olekas Rasa Jukneviciene Luxembourg Marc Spautz Netherlands Jos van Gennip Bert Middel Norway Jan Tore Sanner Poland Marian Pilka Portugal José Lello Rui Gomes da Silva Romania Tiberiu Barbuletiu Russian Federation Lubov Sliska   Victor A. Ozerov Spain Jordi Marsal   United Kingdom Lord Clark of Windermere Peter Viggers Committees Civil Dimension of Security Michael Clapham (United Kingdom), Chairperson Political Markus Meckel (Germany), Chairperson

110 NRPC 05 E ii 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 Etienne Sallenave Germany Rainer Büscher Greece Roxani Xeplati Hungary Károly Tüzes Italy 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 Russian Federation Oleg Melnikov Viacheslav Kolotvin Spain Mercedes Araújo United Kingdom Tracey Garratty   Accompanying the member delegations France Bernard Chalet Germany Johannes von Ahlefeldt Greece Vassiliki Ioannidou Italy Pia Califano Stefania Perozzi Laura Tabladini Poland Kamil Mikliszanski Russian Federation Yury Gorlatch Alexander Voronin Olga Yakovleva Spain Araceli Quintano United Kingdom Scott Strain

110 NRPC 05 E iii International Secretariat Silje Margrethe Andresen Andrius Avizius Andrea Cellino Paul Cook Srdjan Cvijic Sophie Debail Alex Dowling Filippo Gamba Christine Heffinck David Hobbs Andrew Hubner Raphaëlle Mathey Susan Millar Jacqueline Pforr Steffen Sachs Zachary Selden Chris Shaw Svitlana Svetova Minute Writer Steven Mark Suzanne Todd

110 NRPC 05 E 1 The meeting opened on Friday 27 May 2005 at 4.10 pm with Mr Pierre Lellouche, President of the NATO PA, in the Chair. 1. Opening of the proceedings The President welcomed delegates and thanked the Slovenian hosts. He reminded delegates that the  purpose  of  the  Committee  was  the  exchange  of  ideas  of  mutual  concern  to  build  mutual understanding. 2. Adoption of the Draft Agenda [103 NPRC 05 E] The draft agenda [103 NPRC 05 E] was adopted. 3. Adoption of the Minutes of the meeting of the NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee held in Venice, Italy on Friday 12 November 2004 [222 SCRF 04 E] The Minutes [222 SCRF 04 E] were adopted. The President thanked Mr Forcieri and the Italian delegation for hosting the last annual session in Venice. He reminded the Committee of the issues that it had previously considered, including the Caucasus.  Lord  Clark  had  proposed  that  the  Russian  delegation  should  prepare  a  report  on Russia’s  role  in  the  South  Caucasus.  The  President  congratulated  Mrs  Sliska  on  the  report  that she had produced [085 NRPC 05 E] and invited her to take the floor. 4. Presentation  by  Mrs  Lubov  Sliska,  Head  of  the  Duma  Delegation  of  the  Russian Federation, on The Role of Russia in resolving regional security problems in the South Caucasus [085 NRPC 05 E] Mrs Sliska delivered a prepared text which summarized the report. The President thanked Mrs Sliska for providing this presentation. There were a number of frozen conflicts in the Caucasus region. However, there was a possibility of a settlement of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.  The  economic  situation  in  Azerbaijan  was  also  of  concern  as  was    the continued presence of four Russian military bases in Georgia. However, negotiations were under way to withdraw these bases by 2008 and he invited Mrs Sliska to comment on this timetable.  He also   asked   for   views   on   the   situations   in   South   Ossetia   and   Abkhazia   which   featured   in Mrs Sliska’s  report.    He  himself  had  heard  Georgian  concerns  about  illegal  activities  in  these enclaves and about Russian involvement there.  The stabilisation of the region was of considerable interest to Assembly and he called on colleagues to comment on the presentation and report by Mrs Sliska. Lord Clark (UK) said the presentation was a helpful step in taking things forward. It was important to hold these meetings where all delegations had equal status, and he felt that they helped to build trust. He thanked Mrs Sliska for drawing the meeting’s attention to the issues of drug and human trafficking as well as the fight against terrorism. He welcomed progress being made in negotiations between Russia and Azerbaijan to improve the refugee situation in Azerbaijan. This was especially important given that the country had borders with Iran and the Middle East. He disagreed, however, with the suggestion that OSCE monitors should pull out of the Georgian- Russian border. It was important that international border measures should remain in place.

110 NRPC 05 E 2 Mr Barbuletiu (RO) said that NATO already played a strong role in the South Caucasus region. NATO’s  support  for  defence  and  security  control  helped  stabilise  the  region  and  was  also beneficial  to  the  Russian  Federation.  NATO  played  an  important  role  in  improving  dialogue, cooperation and reform. The EAPC framework provided the opportunity to address such issues as frozen conflicts. Mr  Olekas  (LT)  agreed  that  it  was  a  very  interesting  report,  if  a  little  optimistic.  Georgia  was  a prosperous  and  democratic  state  and  he  called  for  more  representation  of  Georgia’s  views.  He recognised  that  Georgia  was  not  a  member  of  this  committee  but  he  considered  it  important  to hear their point of view. He mentioned a recently adopted European Parliament resolution which referred to the Baltic States. Mrs  Sliska  (RU)  responded  that  talks  were  under  way  to  withdraw  Russian  military  bases  from Georgia.  Progress  would  take  place  during  2006  with  withdrawals  timetabled  for  2008-2010.  All that would remain would be an anti-terrorism centre.  Such withdrawals would not impact upon the security of Lithuania. The President asked Mrs Sliska to clarify the timetable for closing the military bases. Mrs Sliska (RU) replied that the proposed date was the end of 2008. The  President  asked  whether  the  proposed  anti-terrorism  centre  would  imply  the  presence  of Russian military forces on Georgian soil. Mrs  Sliska  (RU)  replied  that  the  precise  form  of  the  centre  would  depend  on  the  outcome  of negotiations  which  were  not  yet  completed.  However,  agreement  in  principle  on  a  centre  had already been reached. Mr van Gennip (NL) said that the Committee on Economics and Security had been delighted by the recovery in the Russian economy, but asked Mrs Sliska whether perhaps her remarks about Azerbaijan  had  been  a  little  too  positive,  given  the  unpredictable  effect  of  the  Baku-Ceyhan pipeline on Russian energy interests. Mr Bouvard (FR) thanked Mrs Sliska for the quality of her presentation, but asked her to expand on  the  remarks  in  paragraph  49  about  “the  region’s  strategic  balance”,  and  about  “forcing”  the Russian Federation out of the region. Mr Meckel (DE) asked Mrs Sliska for her assessment of the mood in the Russian Federation about negotiating  with  sovereign  states  in  the  South  Caucasus.  He  wondered  whether  Russia  actually accepted the sovereignty of the states of the South Caucasus.  He also asked why the Russian Federation had no longer wanted the OSCE to maintain its border mission, and who the third party involved in the anti-terrorism centre was intended to be, given that Abkhazia, part of the sovereign State of Georgia, was presumably not intended. He suggested that perhaps the third party might   be NATO. Mr Mikser (EE) noted that the report referred to Abkhazia and South Ossetia as “sides” but in her oral  presentation,  Mrs  Sliska  had  referred  to  them  as  “countries”  which  was  clearly  incorrect  in terms of law.  He asked how Mrs Sliska viewed the status of these two places, and in what way their status was different from Russian regions with separatist ambitions, such as Chechnya. Mrs  Jukneviciene (LT) asked Mrs Sliska what  her view  was on the return of the body of Aslan Maskhadov to his family and whether she could influence the authorities of the Russian Federation to ensure that it was returned.

110 NRPC 05 E 3 Mr  Clapham  (UK)  said  that  during  its  visit  to  the  South  Caucasus,  the  Committee  on  the  Civil Dimension  of  Security  had  been  told  by  the  US  Ambassador  to  Georgia  that  there  had  been terrorists in the Pankisi gorge. Noting that Mrs Sliska’s paper was very positive in tone, and helped to identify areas where progress might be made, he asked Mrs Sliska to elaborate paragraph 11 of her document which said that it was very important that co-operation with NATO in the region be “transparent and predictable”. Mr Kirsteins (LV) asked Mrs Sliska how it would be possible to transform military bases into an anti-terrorism  centre,  and  just  how  large  it  was  envisaged  that  this  centre  would  be.    He  also stressed that Russia should observe the commitments that it made at the Istanbul OSCE summit. Mr  Forcieri  (IT)  said  that  the  report  offered  an  exhaustive  view  of  Russia’s  perception  of  this sensitive issue. He was, however, concerned by Mrs Sliska’s view that NATO’s participation in the situation might complicate the negotiations. He asked Mrs Sliska to explain how NATO might make the situation more difficult and what actions NATO should take to help the negotiating process. The President summed up the discussion. He asked the Committee whether they would agree to ask Georgia, which was a NATO partner country, to present its views at a future meeting of the NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee. Mr  Ozerov  (RU)  asked  the  President  to  clarify  what  subject  Georgia  would  be  asked  to  submit views on. The President said it was important to discover Georgia’s views on enclaves and the situation in Abkhazia  and  South  Ossetia.  Such  clarification  would  aid  the  Committee’s  discussions  on  this issue. Mr Forcieri (IT) said that members of the Committee could legitimately present papers. However, it  would  not  be  procedurally  correct  for  an  external  country  to  present  a  point  of  view  at  the Committee. He suggested a rapporteur from the Committee could be asked to ascertain Georgia’s point  of  view,  but  he  objected  to Georgia  presenting  its  opinions  directly  to  the  Committee. This could set a precedent for other external countries to present opinions. The  President  recognised  this  procedural  point  but  emphasised  that  Georgia  had  a  partnership agreement  with  NATO  and  the  Ossetia-Georgian  conflict  was  of  concern  to  the  security  of  the Alliance and the Russian Federation. Lord Clark (UK) shared the views of Mr Forcieri. He suggested an alternative way forward would be for the Committee officers to meet privately with the Russian Delegation to discuss the issue. Mrs Jukneviciene (LT) said that she understood the sensitivities involved but if a third party was being discussed, it was important to have them present. Mrs Sliska (RU) reminded colleagues that the purpose of the report had been to examine the role of  the  Russian  Federation  in  resolving  regional  problems  in  the  South  Caucasus.  Her  report discussed  the  situation  in  Armenia  and  Azerbaijan  as  well  as  in  Georgia.  She  was  not  against hearing  the  views  of  these  countries  but  she  agreed  with  Lord  Clark  that  discussions  should  be held in a different locality and forum. The President said it was imperative to find solutions for Abkhazia and Ossetia and an exchange of views with the relevant country would aid this process.

110 NRPC 05 E 4 The  Secretary  General  reminded  the  meeting  that  the  NATO-Russia  Parliamentary  Committee comprised 27 equal countries. Therefore if the 27 countries agreed to a presentation of views from an external country this would be facilitated. Mrs  Sliska  (RU)  said  that  discussions  could  be  held  with  Georgia,  but  she  did  not  consider  it appropriate  for  their  views  to  be  heard  in  the  framework  of  the  NATO-Russia  Parliamentary Committee. The President said dialogue was essential and agreed to take forward the discussion in order to hear  Georgia’s  views  at  the  autumn  session,  and  that  security  in  the  South  Caucasus  would  be addressed  during  the  Assembly’s  Rose-Roth  seminar  in  Yerevan  later  in  the  year.  He  invited Mrs Sliska to clarify Russia’s view on the role of the OSCE in the South Caucasus; the status of Abkhazia  and  South  Ossetia;  US  military  bases  in  Azerbaijan;  and  the  demilitarisation  of  the Caspian   Sea   region.   He   reiterated   that   everyone   wished   the   Russian   Federation   to   be   a democratic and prosperous country. Mrs  Sliska (RU)  confirmed  that  Russian military  bases  in  Georgia  would  be  withdrawn  in  2006- 2008. She said that Russia had ensured a peaceful transfer of power in Ajaria and that the Russian Federation  played  a  key  role  in  Abkhazia  where  50 per  cent  of  the  population  held  Russian passports.  Abkhazia  had  never  voluntarily  joined  Georgia;  it  had  been  incorporated  into Georgia with the formation of the Soviet Union. She did not object to the role of the OSCE in working to settle conflicts in the South Caucasus, but its main task was to work on the problems between South Ossetia and Georgia, not to report on Russia.  She also expressed concern about the presence of terrorists in the Pankisi Gorge.  She welcomed   progress   on   the   oil   pipeline   through   Azerbaijan   which   would   provide   economic prosperity for that country. The issue of the South Caucasus region was very delicate and it was important  to  pursue  all  diplomatic  avenues  and  only  take  a  decision  on  inviting  NATO  into  that region as a last resort.  She felt that NATO was seeking to “squeeze” Russia out of the region, and that the presence of the Alliance there could destabilize an already very delicate situation.   Regarding the proposed anti-terrorism centre in Georgia, this would be manned by experts and not military forces.  She also pointed out that Russia had no military bases in Azerbaijan.   The Russian Federation had never displayed a neo-imperial status following the dissolution of the Soviet  Union.  It  recognised  the  independence  of  the  new  states.  In  reply  to  Mrs Jukneviciene’s remarks, she stated that Mr Maskhadov had been recognised as a criminal and under Russian law the  bodies  of  eliminated  terrorists  were  buried  in  secret  locations  known  only  to  those  who  had eliminated them. She  concluded  that  the  situation  in  the  Caucasus  region  was  very  sensitive,  as  known  to  those who had been involved in working to resolve it, and she wanted to see something like KFOR in the South Caucasus. The President thanked the Russian delegation for their enlightening contribution, which had led to a  very  interesting  discussion.  In  his  own  personal  opinion,  the  Committee  had  made  useful progress  in  some  areas,  even  if  there  was  not  agreement  on  everything.  Proposals  would  be brought forward to make sure that this progress continued. The meeting was closed at 5.35 pm. ______________