POLITICAL 259 PC 05 E Original: English NAT O   Pa rl ia me n ta ry  As s e mb l y SUMMARY of the meeting of the Political Committee Folketingssalen, Copenhagen, Denmark Saturday 12 and Sunday 13 November 2005 International Secretariat November 2005

259 PC 05 E i ATTENDANCE LIST Chairman Markus Meckel (Germany) Vice-Chairman George Voinovich (United States) General Rapporteur Bert Koenders (Netherlands) Chairman of the Sub-Committee on NATO Partnerships Karl A. Lamers (Germany) Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on NATO Partnerships Marco Minniti (Italy) Vice-Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Relations Assen Agov (Bulgaria) Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Relations  Ruprecht Polenz (Germany) President of the NATO PA Pierre Lellouche (France) Secretary General of the NATO PA Simon Lunn Member Delegations Belgium Daniel Bacquelaine Theo Kelchtermans Philippe Mahoux Bulgaria Nikolaï Kamov Canada Raynell Andreychuk Joseph A. Day Denmark Per Kaalund Helge Adam Møller Estonia Tiit Matsulevits France Loïc Bouvard Michel Lefait Jean Puech Philippe Vitel Germany Uwe Karl Beckmeyer Volker Bouffier Klaus-Jürgen Jeziorsky Kurt. Rossmanith Marianne Tritz Greece Nikolaos Legkas Vassilios Maghinas Ioannis Papantoniou Antonis Skillakos Hungary István Simicskó Italy Lamberto Dini Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri Luigi Marino Latvia Guntis Berzins Dzintars Rasnacs Lithuania Juozas Olekas

259 PC 05 E ii Luxembourg Colette Flesch Netherlands Bart van Winsen Norway Marit Nybakk Jan Petersen Poland Marian Pilka Portugal Rui Gomes Da Silva José Lello Renato Sampaio Romania Norica Nicolai Mihai Stanisoara Ioan Talpes Slovakia Jozef Banás Slovenia Branko Grims Spain Rafael Estrella Josep Maldonado Turkey Inal Batu United Kingdom Bruce George Paul Keetch Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Peter Viggers United States Jim Bunning Ben Chandler Jo Ann Emerson Trent Lott Mike Ross Gordon Smith Tom Tancredo John Tanner Tom Udall Associate delegations Albania Leonard Demi Armenia Aleksan Karapetyan Austria Walter Murauer Croatia Marin Jurjevic Velimir Plesa Finland Suvi-Anne Siimes Kauko Juhantalo Moldova Vitalia Pavlicenoc Iurie Rosca Russian Federation Victor Ozerov Dmiry Sablin Switzerland Hermann Bürgi Barbara Haering the FYR of Macedonia^* Slobodan Casule Esad Rahic Ukraine Sergey Bychkov Oleg Zarubinskyi * Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.

259 PC 05 E iii Mediterranean Associate delegation Algeria Ahmed Issad Abdelhamid Latreche European Parliament Paulo Casaca Ana Maria Gomes Pawel Piskorski Teresa Riera Madurell Karl von Wogau Parliamentary Observers Bosnia and Herzegovina Halid Genjac Japan Shintaro Ito Asahiko Mihara Masataka Suzuki Palestinian Legislative Council Hasan Kreishi Serbia and Montenegro Zvonko Obradovic Aleksandar Pravdic Interparliamentary assemblies Assembly of the Western European Union Pedro Agramunt Font de Mora OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Paul Legendre Speakers H.E.  Mr  Kai  Eide,  former  Special  Envoy  of  the  UN Secretary    General    to    Kosovo    and    Permanent Representative of Norway to NATO Mike  Haltzel,  Senior  Foreign  Policy  Advisor  and Principal of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP Stephen  Stedman,  Professor  of  Political  Science, Senior    Fellow    at    the    Center    for    International Security  and  Co-operation  (CISAC)  and  Freeman Spogli   Institute   for   International   Studies   (FSI), Stanford University Peter  Viggo  Jakobsen,  Head  of  the  Department  of Conflict  and  Security  Studies,  Danish  Institute  for International Studies Committee Secretary Richard Cooke International Secretariat Steffen Sachs, Director Isabelle Arcis, Co-ordinator Claudia Buerkin, Research Assistant Olga Stuzhinskaya, Research Assistant

259 PC 05 E 1 I. SPEAKERS A. Presentation of Ambassador Kai Eide on Kosovo 1. Ambassador  Kai  Eide, former  Special  Envoy  of  the  UN  Secretary General  to  Kosovo  and Permanent  Representative  of  Norway  to  NATO,  acknowledged  that  the  future  status  of  the province is a “highly sensitive political issue” as the views of Kosovo  Albanians and Serbs remain diametrically opposed and the chance for reconciliation on the ground is very slim.  While progress in  institution  building,  i.e.  the  establishment  of  executive,  legislative  and  judicial  branches,  has been   made,   the   international   community   has   started   from   a   “constitutional   vacuum”,   he acknowledged.      The   speaker   cautioned   that   the   development   of   new   institutions   is   being undermined by politicians  who see themselves as accountable to their parties rather than to the public.  In this context, the speaker described the creation of the Kosovo police as a “success”, but added  that  the  justice  system  is  very  weak.    As  organised  crime  and  corruption  are  the  biggest threats  to  the  stability  of  Kosovo  the  continued  presence  of  international  police  is  a  necessity.   Overall, the Ambassador described the general security situation in Kosovo as stable, but fragile. 2. With  regard  to  the  province’s  economic  situation,  Mr  Eide  stressed  the  progress  made,  for example  in  the  area  of  privatisation.    Nonetheless,  there  were  “tens  of  thousands  of  unresolved property issues” and respect for property was not very high.  Moreover, unemployment remained high and poverty widespread, he added.  The return of refugees remained an important topic that requires  international  support  and  attention  over  a  long  period  of  time.    The  Ambassador  also considered it important that the international community pushed an ambitious decentralisation plan for Kosovo.  There was “never a good time to address the question of the province’s future status”, but  now  was  the  time  to  choose  between  moving  forward  or  sliding  backwards.    Mr  Eide  was optimistic that “everybody will benefit from removing the status quo”.  Mr Eide indicated the need to move forward with caution, and without setting any artificial deadlines 3. In   the   debate   following   the   Ambassador’s   presentation,  Vitalia   Pavlicenoc   (MD)   and Slobodan Casule (the FYR of Macedonia) asked about the likely impact of Kosovo’s future status on the separatist movements in the area of the former Soviet Union and in the Balkans.  Stressing that  Kosovo  is  vitally  important  to  Macedonia,  the  latter  urged  the  international  community  to devise  a  policy  of  regional  integration.    He  also  raised  the  question  of  what  should  follow  the decision on Kosovo’s future status.  George Voinovich (US) asked Mr Eide to comment on Serbia and Montenegro and the EU’s role for stability in the region.  In this context, he suggested that the EU could serve as “glue” for bringing the region together.  Acknowledging the importance of the EU, Ambassador Eide said that it is important to achieve the “total integration of the Balkans into European structures” in the long term.  Meanwhile, there is a need for “stronger EU presence on the ground”, he said. NATO, including the United States, also has an important leadership role in the province:  KFOR needed a visible United States presence, he added.  With regard to Serbia and  Montenegro,  the  Norwegian  NATO  envoy  noted  that  the  international  community  should provide more support for democratic forces in Belgrade.  Therefore, Western officials should spend more time in Belgrade and to assist democratic leaders there.   4. Commending on Mr Eide’s report, Victor Ozerov (RU) reminded participants that Russia has always supported a peaceful solution to the Kosovo  issue.  He suggested a careful approach in tackling Kosovo’s future to avoid an outcome, which could be similar to the situation in Abkhazia.   Peter   Viggers   (UK)   asked   what   more   the   international   community   could   do   to   assist   the establishment  of  the  rule  of  law,  while  Rafael  Estrella  (ES)  inquired  about  the  protection  of minorities in the province and Bert Koenders (NL) about the discussion between the government and  opposition  in  Kosovo.    Moreover,  he  and  Markus   Meckel  (DE),  the  Chairman  of  the Committee,  asked  if  closer  relations  between  Belgrade  and  both  the  EU  and  NATO  would necessarily  require  the  arrests  of  Karadjic  and  Mladic.    Zvonko  Obradovic  (YU)  reminded  the

259 PC 05 E 2 audience   that   any   solution   to   the   Kosovo   issue   must   be   the   result   of   compromise.   Karl von Wogau  (European  Parliament)  commented  that  the  EU  needs  a  consolidation  phase after the last enlargement and asked if the EU should take over additional responsibility in Kosovo in the security field as it has done with EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina?  Leonard Demi (AL) stressed the importance of the economy and asked whether the economic aid to the region should not be increased. 5. In  his  response,  the  Norwegian  envoy  underlined  the  importance  of  a  sufficient  police presence  in  Kosovo.    In  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  the  EU  demonstrated  its  ability  to  do  the  job.   Establishing and implementing the rule of law in Kosovo was crucial and reducing the number of international  judges  and  prosecutors  would  be  a  mistake,  Mr  Eide  emphasised.    He  added  by saying  that  NATO  and  the  EU  should  continue  their  presence  and  a more  active  role  of the  EU would be very positive.  Referring to the financial aid question, he noted that it is not only about investment; it is also about the ways of how to facilitate the investment.   B. Presentation   by   Mike   Haltzel   on   Challenges   to   Transatlantic   Co-operation   and Discussion 6. Mike  Haltzel,  submitted  that  the  foreign  policy  adopted  by  President  Bush  and  individual European countries has led to a deterioration in transatlantic relations.  Despite the differences, a community of values still exists between NATO-Europe and the United States.  But changing public attitudes  are  eroding  the  foundation  upon  which  transatlantic  co-operation  is  based.    In  this context, he referred to the findings of “Transatlantic Trends 2005”, a poll conducted for the German Marshall Fund, and others.  The speaker concluded that Europe and the United States differ on a number  of  security  issues.  Mr  Haltzel  believes  the  only  way  to  successfully  meet  major  security challenges is through co-operation between the United States and Europe. 7. A  lively  discussion  followed  the  introductory  remarks.    Kauko  Juhantalo  (FI)  asked  about promoting the political dialogue between NATO and the EU. Lamberto Dini (IT) expressed doubt that the United States could lead the world by itself.  He stressed that it is “consensus that makes right what is strong, but without consensus, what is strong does not become right”.  In this context he said that military actions should not be undertaken without a prior mandate of the UN Security Council.     Mr Dini concluded his remarks by commenting that there was full consultation among allies at NATO during the Clinton administration.  Mr Meckel inquired about the possible impact of the newly created European Defence Agency (EDA). 8. Regarding  the  promotion  of  NATO-EU  dialogue,  Mr  Haltzel  cautioned  against  creating additional  institutions.    He  agreed  with  the  notion  that  international  legitimacy  is  “tremendously important”  for  international  security.    The  United  States  will  welcome  ESDP  if  it  serves  as  a mobilising  vehicle  for  increasing  military  capabilities,  the  speaker  noted,  but  added  that  the United States will continue to regard NATO as its tie to Europe.  Therefore, anything that weakens NATO is bad both for Europe and for the United States, he stressed. 9. Suvi-Anne Siimes (FI) emphasised that today’s security is more complex and also includes other  threats,  including  environmental  ones.    In  her  view,  the  United  States  should  be  ready  to discuss  other  aspects  apart  from  terrorism,  it  is  looking  for  more  support  from  Europe.    More generally, even though the EU and the United States often speak the same language, they do not always  mean  the  same  thing,  she  said.    In  a  similar  vein,  Philippe  Mahoux  (BE)  said  it  is legitimate to have different views on security, for example on the Ottawa landmine convention.  He, too, emphasised the need for transatlantic consensus, but stressed the right of the EU to develop its specific policies. 10.    The  speaker  agreed  on  the  need  for  a  close  and  comprehensive  co-operation  on  security, including   the   environment,   but   also   issues   such   as   a   possible   avian   influenza   epidemic.   Commenting on the Kyoto protocol and the Ottawa landmine agreement, Mr Haltzel reminded the

259 PC 05 E 3 Committee  that  the  issues  are  more  complex  and  that  it  is  not  only  the  United  States  that  is  to blame for disagreements, but also the EU. 11.     Jan Petersen (NO) was less critical of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy towards its Allies.    Jozef  Banás  (SK)  raised  the  question  of  costs  and  their  relation  to  effectiveness  of  the operations.    Discussing  the  latter,  Mr  Haltzel   emphasised  the  need  to  improve  intelligence capabilities  and  mentioned  the  recent  attacks  in  Jordan  as  an  example  of  a  case  where  better pre-emptive measures could have been used. C. Presentation on UN Reform by Stephen Stedman and Discussion 12.    Stephen Stedman’s assessment of UN reform was overall positive with the exception of the non-proliferation debate and the unresolved issue of Security Council reform.  He emphasised that the reform agenda was more a transformation than a reform agenda.  This is  very ambitious in a time when UN member countries are deeply divided over most security issues. 13.    According  to  Mr  Stedman,  the  most  important  progress  has  been  made  in  the  area  of international  peace  and  security,  where  for  the  first  time  the  full  membership  agreed  on  the “responsibility  to  protect”  as  outlined  by  the  Canadian  draft  paper  four  years  ago.    As  a  result , national  sovereignty  is  no  longer  sacrosanct,  but  it  requires  the  government  of  any  country  to protect its citizens.  Thus, the UN Secretary General has an increased capacity to mediate in civil wars.    Moreover,  agreement  on  the  establishment  of  a  Peace  Building  Commission,  a  Peace Building Support Office and a Peace Building Trust Fund provide means to prevent countries from falling   back   into   civil   war   after   a   conflict.      Moreover,   countries   have,   for   the   first   time, unconditionally  condemned  terrorism,  but  they  have  merely  agreed  to  debate  the  Secretary General’s proposed strategy for counter-terrorism, which consists of dissuasion, denying financing, deterring states from supporting terrorism, developing state capacity and defending human rights. 14.    Concluding his presentation, the two biggest shortcomings of the UN Summit earlier this year were  the  postponement  of  UN  Security  Council  reform  and  the  failure  to  address  the  issue  of non-proliferation, the speaker acknowledged.  This showed that a lot of governments are presently in denial about the actual state of the non-proliferation regime. 15.    In   the   debate   that   followed,   Ana   Maria   Gomes   (European   Parliament)   criticised   the United States  for  “disrespecting  international  law”.  Mr  Koenders  held  a  more  critical  view  of  the outcome of the UN Summit in September and reiterated that the responsibility to protect called for increased NATO-UN co-operation.  In the area of terrorism, the NATO PA should make an effort to see how the countries that opposed the agenda on non-proliferation (Egypt, Iran, United States) view  the  NPT.    Jan  Petersen  (NO)  called  upon  the  Assembly  to  submit  ideas  on  how  the  UN reform   agenda   could   be   supported.   Bart   van   Winsen   (NL)   argued   that   he   preferred   the Security Council reform to fail if that meant the extension of veto rights. Shintaro Ito (JP) stressed that   UN   reform   was   not   possible   without   an   urgently   needed   Security   Council   reform. Antonis Skillakos (GR) made additional comments. 16.    In his reply to the comments, Mr Stedman stressed that reform of the UN Security  Council would not be possible until states stopped reproducing maximalist propositions.  He welcomed the “seven-nation  nuclear-non-proliferation  initiative”  spearheaded  by  Norwegian  Foreign  Minister Petersen.  Concluding his remarks, the speaker argued that most nuclear weapons states are “not serious  about  nuclear  disarmament”  and  suggested  that  NATO  puts  this  issue  higher  on  its agenda.   D. Presentation by Peter Viggo Jakobsen on UN Peacekeeping Operations and Lessons for NATO/UN Co-operation –   A Danish Perspective and Discussion

259 PC 05 E 4 17.    The  essence  of  Mr  Jacobsen’s  speech  to  the  Committee  was  that  NATO  needed  to  go beyond war fighting and self-defence in order to be viable in the future.  To that end, the Alliance should  give  priority  to  co-operation  with  the  UN  rather  than  with  the  EU.    Because  they  are complementary,  NATO  and  the  UN  are  “perfect  partners”,  he  argued:    The  UN  needs  rapid reaction combat capable forces and critical enablers in logistics and intelligence, which NATO can provide.  NATO  needs  legitimacy,  local knowledge  and  civilian  expertise  that  can  be  provided  by the   UN.      In   contrast,   he   considered   NATO-EU   relations   more   competitive   rather   than complementary.  The EU wants its own role, and a fight over missions, funds and capabilities seem inevitable.  Therefore, NATO-UN institutional co-operation should be enhanced, e.g. through UN liaison officers in Brussels or joint training of desk officers. 18.    In the discussion, Mr  Van Winsen commented that the speaker may underestimate NATO’s adaptations  after the  Cold War.    Marit  Nybakk  (NO)  inquired  about  how  UN  stabilisation  forces could co-operate with regional organisations such as NATO or the EU.  Ms Gomes criticised the sale of arms by Alliance member countries to developing countries and suggested that NATO may monitor these.  Mr Estrella touched upon the issue of UN Security Council (UNSC) authorisation for  military  operations  and  reminded  the  speaker  and  the  Committee  that  the  1999  Kosovo  air campaign, which did not have UNSC authorisation, was the exception.  He asked whether the UN is merely providing the mandate for operations carried out by others.   19.    Responding  to  the  comments,  Mr  Jakobsen  said  he  recognised  NATO’s  adaptations,  but found them insufficient.  Alluding to media recognition, he said that NATO was losing out to the EU, which  will,  in  his  view,  “over  time  steal  publicity  from  NATO”.    Providing  assistance  in  defence reform would not produce headlines, but “doing operations” would, he maintained.  He concluded his presentation by providing three reasons why NATO could and should co-operate more closely with   the   UN   in   peace   enforcement:      the   UN’s   current   70,000   peacekeepers   are   already overstretched, primarily because the “First World” is unwilling to provide troops; secondly, because the UN will not obtain a peace enforcement capability of its own; and thirdly, because “there will be ‘no European army’ in the foreseeable future”.   II. GENERAL DEBATE 20.    In  his  introductory  remarks  for  the  general  debate,  the  Chairman  highlighted  five  topics, namely:    NATO  co-operation  with  Ukraine,  NATO relations  with  the  Southern  Caucasus,  the  EU and the arms embargo against China, an evaluation of NATO’s institutional capabilities for nation building and NATO PA President Pierre Lellouche’s proposition of a high level panel on the future of NATO. 21.    Referring  to  the  recent  visit  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  NATO  Partnerships,  Mr  Van Winsen said  he  considered  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  fit  to  join  NATO’s  Partnership  for  Peace  (PfP) programme.    He  asked  the  Assembly  to  consider  which  steps  would  be  necessary  to  support Bosnia’s  entry  into  the  PfP.  Mr  Casule  stressed  the  need  to  “have  the  South-Eastern  Europe present in NATO rather than having NATO present in the region”.  He  warned against imposing Kosovo’s future status without the rule of law.  The Slovenian Ambassador to NATO, Mr Cinkovic called for better NATO-EU co-operation in the Balkans.  His colleague from Sweden, Ambassador Per  Anderman,  emphasised  the  importance  of  partnerships  for  non-aligned  countries  such  as Sweden  and  for  NATO.    He  said  that  the  re-organisation  of  NATO  should  not  diminish  the participation of NATO partners and underlined that NATO’s communication and dialogue should be improved.   22.    Mr Estrella reflected on the role of the NATO PA with respect to NATO and suggested that the  Assembly  should  look  more  closely  at  NATO’s  decision  on  the  use  of force  and  think  about mechanisms   to   co-ordinate   this   oversight   across   member   countries.   Also   reflecting   on   the

259 PC 05 E 5 NATO PA’s  role,  Paul  Keetch  (UK)  called  upon  the  members  of  the  Assembly  to  assure  that national parliaments provide sufficient resources to improve NATO and EU capabilities.   23.    The  American  Ambassador  to  NATO,  Victoria  Nuland,  stressed  that  NATO  should  focus more  on  political  processes  and  see  political  empowerment  in  post  conflict  situations  as  an  exit strategy.    In  her  view,  consultations  in  the  NAC  had  become  too  narrow  and  she  therefore supported  the  argument  of  the  Swedish  Ambassador for more flexible  structures  and  a  stronger integration of security exporters. 24.    The former head of the Mauritanian delegation to the NATO PA, Mr Moussa, spoke about the situation in Mauritania and said that parliamentary, and later presidential elections in the country are  scheduled  for  2006  and  for  2007  respectively.    He  urged  members  to  support  reform  in Mauritania.   Ms Pavlicenco drew the attention to the situation in Transniestria and called for the implementation  of  the  resolution  adopted  previously  that  called  for  Russian  withdrawal  from  the region. 25.    Referring  to  Belarus,  Juozas  Olekas  (LT)  said  that  it  is  important  to  be  more  active  in supporting democratisation of the country.  To tackle the grave shortcomings in media access, he suggested creating an information centre on Belarus and asked for political and financial resources to    support    the    Belarusian    opposition.        Towards    the    end    of    the    general    debate, Svetlana Zavadskaya, the wife of a missing journalist from Belarus, commented on the domestic practical developments in Belarus and added that the next elections will not be democratic.  She pleaded  that  support  for  journalists  be  of  prime  importance  in  order  to  improve  the  flow  of information.  She added that dialogue with the present regime leads to nowhere.   III. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Consideration   of   the   draft   General   Report   Securing   NATO’s   Role   and   Relevance [175 PC 05 E] presented by Bert Koenders (Netherlands), General Rapporteur 26.    Following  the  presentation  of  the  draft  General  Report,  Mr  Estrella  concurred  with  the rapporteur that national caveats can significantly hamper NATO-led operations.  With regard to the deployment of national forces in international operations, he identified a “double democratic deficit” as  these  forces  escape  parliamentary  control,  both  on  a  national  and  international  level.    The rapporteur  agreed  with  this  and  suggested  that  national  parliaments  should  work  together  and learn from each other in controlling defence decisions. 27.    On  the  issue  of  EU-NATO  co-operation,  Mr  Von  Wogau  stressed  the  EU’s  civil-military capabilities and argued for a clearer delineation of roles. Loïc Bouvard (FR) warned that NATO should not supersede national parliaments or the EU.  He said that France does not want NATO to become  a  “political  superpower”.    However,  he  urged  America’s  allies  to  increase  defence spending  to  achieve  a  more  balanced  United  States-European  relationship.    In  the  view  of  the Rapporteur,   the   political   issues   should   be   discussed   in   NATO,   but   it   must   also   not   be overburdened. 28.    Commending  on  the  Assembly’s  role  as  an  important  forum  for  dialogue,  Mr  Voinovich suggested  drafting  a  paper  explaining  the  Assembly’s  relationship  with  NATO  headquarters  that would   generate   increased   recognition   in   the   United   States   Congress.      He   reiterated   the United States’   support  for   NATO,   but   strongly   called   on   Europe   to   live   up   to   its   financial commitments of 2% of GDP for defence spending.  The Chairman acknowledged shortcomings in defence investments among United States Allies, but was sceptical that German military spending could be increased significantly in the short term.  Europeans should spend smarter and need to find a better division of labour as well as tackle national caveats, he suggested.  In his response,

259 PC 05 E 6 Mr Koenders agreed that both improvements in procurement co-operation and the level of defence investment  is  necessary.    However,  he  cautioned  that  the  Allies  should  focus  on  “output”  rather than  fix  their  eyes  on  figures  like  2%.    Furthermore,  he  saw  the  danger  of  resolutions  being ineffective   when   they   are   watered   down   if   they   are   not   more   than   the   smallest   common denominator.  Nikolaï Kamov (BG) and Mrs Gomes made additional remarks. The draft General Report [175 PC 05 E] was adopted unanimously. B. Consideration  of  the  draft  Report  NATO  and  Persian  Gulf  Security  [177 PCTR 05  E] presented   by   Ruprecht   Polenz   (Germany),   Rapporteur   of   the   Sub-Committee   on Transatlantic Relations 29.    Following  the  presentation  of  the  draft  report  on  NATO  and  Persian  Gulf  Security  by  the Rapporteur,  Ruprecht  Polenz  (DE),  Paolo  Casaca  (European  Parliament)  suggested  that  the NATO PA should consider election monitoring in Iraq to assist the democratic process underway.   In  his  reply,  the  Rapporteur  asked  members  to  consider  this  proposal  within  their  national parliaments.    Mr  Casaca  furthermore  reminded  that  the  increased  rhetoric  in  Iran  against  Israel was not limited to the conservative camp. 30.    Speakers  commended  on  NATO’s  willingness  to  reach  out  to  prospective  partners  in  the context  of  the  Istanbul  Co-operation  Initiative  (ICI).    Baronness  Ramsay  of  Cartvale  (UK) emphasised the need to improve NATO’s public diplomacy.  Mr Keetch reminded the Committee that training  Iraqi  security  forces  is  a  priority  for all  NATO  countries.    On  Iran,  he  warned  not to make it only a NATO “problem” and reminded that Iran was, at this point, a UN issue.   31.    Addressing  the  United  States-European  relationship,  Gordon  Smith  (US)  reminded  the Committee  of  the  demands  on  the  United  States  to  intervene  militarily  around  the  world.    “The United  States’  plate  is  full  and  American  taxpayers  bear  the  brunt”,  he  said  and  called  for America’s  NATO  allies  to  increase  their  defence  budgets.    The  United  States  appreciates  the assistance it receives in fighting terrorist groups worldwide, the head of the United States Senate delegation to  the  NATO  PA  stressed,  but  added  that  Europe, too, has an  interest  in  Iraq  and  in solving the problems in Iran.  On Iran, the Senator warned against a policy of appeasement and noted that the United States would “not sit idly by and allow the extermination of Israel”.  Arguing that  the  United  States’  commitment  to  its  Asian  allies  is  different  from  the  relations  with  its European  Allies  he  warned  that  selling  arms  to  China  would  be  seen  as  a  “hostile  act”  in  the United States.   32.    According  to  the  Rapporteur,  whether  or  not  NATO  should  deal  with  the  Iranian  nuclear programme  reflected  the  underlying  question  about  the  perception  of  NATO  by  the  members.  If consultations really worked within NATO, there would not have been such differing positions. He also admitted that the EU needed to assume stronger responsibility in using “hard power” although he opposed the notion of “hard and soft” power as too simplistic. 33.    Mr Estrella recalled that the debate of arms sale to China should not only be led in terms of quantity  because  it  leads  to  a  simplification  of  the  debate  and  ignores  important  United  States exports to China in terms of quality.  Karl Lamers (DE) made additional remarks. The draft Report [177 PCTR 05 E] was adopted unanimously. C. Consideration of the draft Report NATO-EU Security Co-operation [176 PCNP 05 E] by Marco Minniti (Italy), Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on NATO Partnerships 34.    Welcoming  the  draft  report  of  the  Rapporteur,  Ioannis  Papantoniou  (GR)  proposed  the creation of an ad hoc group for co-ordination and a high-level task force to draw up a report for

259 PC 05 E 7 governments.  Mr Casule emphasised that EU-NATO co-operation is working successfully on the ground, as operations in Macedonia have proved. 35.    Mr Van Winsen was concerned about an inward-looking EU and proposed that ESDP should be further developed with regard to combating terrorist groups.  The Rapporteur agreed that the EU could do more in fighting terrorist organisations.  More generally, he stressed that the EU must avoid navel gazing and needs to offer the Balkan peninsular a European perspective at least in the long  term.    The  Rapporteur  announced  the  update  of  minor  parts  of  the  report  to  include  the adoption of a police reform by the Bosnian Parliament. The draft report [176 PCNP 05 E] was adopted unanimously.   IV. RESOLUTIONS A. Consideration    of    amendments    and    vote    on    the    draft    Resolution    on    NATO Transformation    and   the    Future    of   the    Alliance   [198   PC   05   E]   presented   by Bert Koenders (Netherlands) 36.    Nine amendments were submitted to the draft Resolution on NATO Transformation and the Future of the Alliance.  Of these, the following amendments were: 37.    accepted:    amendment  8  (Mr  Pilka,  Mr  Agov,  Mr  Zaborowski);  amendment  9  (Mr  Pilka, Mr Agov,   Mr   Zaborowski);   amendment   7   (Mr   Meckel,   Mr   Bouvard,   Mr   Mikser,   Mr   Olekas, Mr Estrella). 38.    rejected:    amendment  2  (Mr  Estrella),  amendment  6  (Mr  Meckel,  Mr  Bouvard,  Mr  Mikser, Mr Olekas,  Mr  Estrella);  amendment  1  (Mr  Erdem,  Mr  Batu),  however,  an  oral  amendment  was accepted  unanimously  to  substitute  ‘as   a   result   of   the   unresolved   Cyprus-Malta   issue;   ’  by ‘because  of  unresolved  issures  arising  from  the  recent  enlargement  of  the  European  Union’; amendment 5 (Mr Estrella); 39. Amendments 3 and 4 (Mr Estrella) were withdrawn, but paragraph 3 was orally amended by deleting the words ‘and relationship with Operation Enduring Freedom’ 40. The draft resolution [198 PC 05 E], as amended, was adopted. B. Consideration    of    amendments    and    vote    on    the    draft    Resolution    on    Kosovo [198 PC 5 E] ,     presented by Bert Koenders (Netherlands) and Marco Minniti (Italy) 41.    The delegation of Serbia made a few comments on the original draft version of the text and referred to the “conditional independence”.  Twenty-seven amendments were submitted to the draft Resolution   on   Kosovo,   which   was   introduced   by   Marco   Minniti.      Of   these,   the   following amendments were: 42.    accepted:  amendment 14 (Mr Ozerov, Ms Sliska); amendment 1 (Mr Forcieri, Mr Chandler, Mr Tancredo, Mr Udall, Mr Casule); amendment 23 (Mr Estrella, Mr Keetch, Mr Lello, Mr Bouvard); amendment 7 (Mr Lupoi); amendments 2 and 3 (Mr Forcieri, Mr Chandler, Mr Tancredo, Mr Udall, Mr Casule); amendment 10 (Mr Lupoi), orally amended to add ‘including the effective protection of the  cultural  and  religious  heritage  of  Kosovo’  at  the  end  of  new  paragraph  8b;  amendment  25 (Mr Meckel,  Mr  Olekas,  Mr  Banas);  amendment  5  (Mr  Forcieri,  Mr  Chandler,  Mr  Tancredo, Mr Udall, Mr Casule); amendment 6 (Mr Forcieri, Mr Chandler, Mr Tancredo, Mr Udall, Mr Casule,

259 PC 05 E 8 Mr  Ozerov,  Ms  Sliska,  Mr  Pilka,  Mr  Agov,  Ms  Nicolai,  Mr  Zaborowski,  Mr  Meckel,  Mr  Banas, Mr Estrella); 43.    All other amendments were withdrawn. 44.    The draft resolution [225 PC 05 E], as amended, was adopted. C. Consideration    of    amendments    and    vote    on    the    draft    Resolution    on    Belarus [227 PC 05 E] presented     by     Markus     Meckel     (Germany)     and     Bert     Koenders (Netherlands) 45.    Before    the    introduction    of    the    draft    resolution,    the    Chairman    gave    the    floor    to Svyetlana Zavadskaya.  She said that Belarusians already lived under a dictatorship and appealed to  the  members  to  avoid  official  contact  with  Belarusian  government  representatives  involved  in crime, e.g., abductions of political opponents to the regime, journalists and those who continue to harass them.   46.    Six amendments were submitted to the draft Resolution on Belarus.  Of these, the following amendments were: 47.    accepted:    amendment  1,  orally  amended  to  be  inserted  after  paragraph  4  (Mr  Olekas, Mr Rasnacs, Mr Pilka, Mr Bouvard, Mr Van Winsen, Ms Nicolai, Mr Talpes); an oral amendment by Mr Meckel to paragraph 5 of the draft Resolution to include after ‘political opponents’ the words“in 1999 and 2000”;  an oral amendment to paragraph 6a of the draft Resolution to replace the words ‘electoral process is’ by ‘presidential elections 2006 are’; 48.    rejected:  amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (Mr Ozerov, Ms Sliska) 49.    Following  the  votes  on  individual  paragraphs,  the  draft  Resolution  [227  PC  05  E],  as amended, was adopted unanimously. V. COMMITTEE  ACTIVITIES  IN  2005  AND  2006  AND  ELECTION  OF  COMMITTEE AND SUB-COMMITTEE OFFICERS 50.    Towards the end of the meeting, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on NATO Partnerships, Mr Lamers, informed the Committtee about the Sub-Committee’s 2005 activities and the scheduled visits   for   2006.   Assen   Agov   (BG),   Vice-Chairman   of   the   Sub-Committee   on   Transatlantic Relations, spoke about the visits of the Sub-Committee in 2005 and those planned for the following year.   51.    All officers of the Committee eligible for re-election were confirmed in their positions.  Three positions were vacant and the following persons were elected: 52.    As    Vice-Chairmen    of    the    Political    Committee:    Mr    Nikolaï    Kamov    (Bulgaria)    and Mr Rui Gomes  da  Silva  (Portugal).    As  Vice-Chairman  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  Transatlantic Relations:  Mr Juozas Olekas (Lithuania). 53.    Thanking the Danish host delegation for a flawless and pleasant organisation of the Session in Copenhagen, Mr Meckel closed the meeting.   ___________________________