The document titled “Strengthening the decision-making process of the Parliamentary Assembly concerning credentials and voting” failed to garner two-thirds of the delegates’ votes. A failed vote would have killed the resolution. To prevent such a scenario, Petra de Sutter, the author of the document, proposed to end the debates in light of the profoundly divided Assembly. Consideration of the issue has been postponed until 2019. As a result, the Russian delegation will remain under sanctions for at least another year.

CE Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland supported the resolution. Jörg Polakiewicz, Director of the Directorate of Legal Advice and Public International Law at PACE, believes PACE lacks the right to sanction a national delegation. Marija Pejčinović Burić, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers of the CoE, is among those who think the anti-Russian sanctions are illegal. Addressing the PACE Assembly on Oct. 10, she said the conclusions offered by Mr. Polakiewicz were worth considering. The majority of delegates from Germany, France, and Italy want Russia back and the sanctions lifted. The UK and Ukraine fiercely oppose the idea.

Russian lawmakers have been absent from the PACE sessions since 2015 to protest the punitive measures that deprive them of their right to vote, participate in ruling bodies, and take part in election-monitoring missions, among other things. Last year Moscow suspended its payments (€33 mm annually; or 7% of the CoE budget) into the Council of Europe’s coffers until the delegation’s credentials are fully and unconditionally restored. Russia had been one of the largest donors to the Council of Europe’s budget, along with France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.

Moscow warned that it would not recognize other CoE bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights, as legitimate if they were elected without the participation of the Russian lawmakers. For instance, Moscow has every right to ignore the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) until the Russian delegation regains its full rights at the Council of Europe’s PACE. Russia’s non-participation in the vote to approve the CoE’s senior officials in PACE, including the Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Judges of the European Court of Human Rights, casts doubt on their legitimacy.

Last year, Pedro Agramunt, the leader of the parliamentary assembly, had to resign after being stripped of his powers for paying a visit to Syria in March accompanied by Russian MPs. This is a good example of how PACE encroaches on the rights of elected officials who show an independent streak. A year ago, the Committee of Ministers, the Council of Europe's decision-making body, called on Russian authorities to let opposition leader Aleksei Navalny run for president – a blatant example of meddling in internal affairs. The CoE stepped has clearly overstepped its authority in an effort to exert political pressure.

Russia did not invite PACE monitors to its parliamentary elections in 2016 or its presidential election in 2018, which was indicative of that deteriorating relationship. However, there were around 300 electoral observers who came to monitor the 2018 presidential election at the personal invitation of the State Duma and Federation Council.

The Assembly is a unique platform for addressing critical European matters, but without Russia, the discussions of many key issues are rendered pointless. Without Russia, the CoE will cease to be a pan-European institution — something that is a real source of pride for its leaders. Discussions conducted in PACE will no longer be a Europe-wide conversation. But Russia will not lose much. It can always use the podium of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to participate in discussions and broadcast its views.

If PACE is to serve as a platform for exchanging opinions and launching initiatives, no member’s rights can be restricted. The CoE along with PACE needs Russia as much as Russia needs it, perhaps even more, but this is a disappointment. Enough is enough. Moscow’s frustration with the Council of Europe’s agencies is growing. In Moscow, talk of leaving the CoE is in the air. Participation in international organizations should serve national interests. If it does not, Russia is big and important enough to do without the CoE’s agencies, but the Council will be emasculated and never again be what it is today. By failing to institute reforms, it has shot itself in the foot.

Photo: @Eurochambres

The Russian Federation (Russian Federation) joined the Council of Europe (CE) in 1996 and ratified the ECHR in 1998. The ECHR established the European Court of Human Rights in 1959. These mechanisms to protect human rights are binding on all 47 CE member states.

After Crimea became part of Russia in 2014, Russia’s voting rights in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) were suspended. Moscow responded in 2017 by reducing its payments to that organization by one-third, a decision that will not be reversed until its delegation has its voting rights back. Russia is one of the largest donors to the CE with an annual membership fee amounting to €33 million ($37.5 million), or about 7% of the Council’s overall budget.

In 2016, the PACE was not invited to monitor Russia’s parliamentary elections. Obviously this was a sign of a deteriorating relationship. In late 2017, the RF warned it could withdraw from the PACE altogether if its right to vote was not restored. More than 20 ECHR judges have been elected without Russia’s input. Why should the RF respect their rulings? Top CE officials are also elected without Moscow’s vote. Why should it trust them? Is it legitimate to hold such elections without Russia? Certainly not. Then why should the RF comply with rules that were established without its input or with court verdicts that are obviously politicized? And why should it pay? Would anyone buy a movie ticket knowing in advance that he would never see the film? So many questions! And the answers are all “no.”

In 2015 the RF adopted a law asserting its right to ignore rulings from the ECHR if those conflict with Russian law. It’s an open secret that the RF is deeply disappointed with the institutions of the CE: the PACE and the ECHR. The PACE’s anti-Russian tilt is obvious. Anyone who observes the organization’s activities will remember how Pedro Agramunt, the president of the Parliamentary Assembly,  was stripped of his powers and forced to resign last year. This happened after he joined Russian lawmakers on a trip to Syria, which included a meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The CE has openly interfered in the RF’s internal affairs by insisting on the right of Aleksei Navalny, an opposition politician, to take part in the 2018 presidential election. Navalny is not allowed to run because anyone with a criminal conviction is barred from seeking elected office in Russia.

In 2017, the Court ruled that the ban on “gay propaganda” is illegal, because it breaches Article 10 of the ECHR, which protects the right to freedom of expression and information. Ridiculous, isn’t it? Does this mean that Russia has no right to protect its children from pride marches, promiscuous propaganda, and indecent behavior? If that’s not flagrant meddling into internal affairs, then what is?

The institutions of the CE could and should be reformed to guarantee that everyone is equal and the organization is not biased. No PACE member should be denied voting rights and no resolutions should be adopted with only a minority of votes. Finger pointing should be abandoned. That is not what the PACE was created for. Its mission is to serve as a platform for exchanging views and ideas.

And the Court should stop being used as a tool of the CE for propaganda and political purposes. The Court should provide its independent opinion, but without any further binding rulings. National law should prevail.

Russia refuses to contribute to this organization in which it has no voice and rightly so. Remember “No taxation without representation”? No doubt Americans are sympathetic toward Russia’s stance.

If the RF pulls out from the ECHR and the ECHR, it will also terminate its membership in the CE. The Council represents approximately 820 million people. The population of the RF, a country rich in resources, with a huge military and economy, exceeds 144 million. Without Russia the CE would no longer qualify as a truly pan-European institution. The RF is large enough that the idea of European discourse without Moscow is meaningless.

As a member of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Moscow does not need the podium of the PACE to make its views known. But will the CE enjoy the same clout without Russia? The RF can easily do without the Council, but the organization’s clout will diminish. It’s time for CE leaders to reconsider their organization’s mission.

In April 2014, the Russian delegation to PACE was stripped of key rights, including the right to vote and take part in the assembly’s governing bodies, following the developments in Ukraine and Crimea’s reunification with Russia. The restrictions were prolonged and are still in place.

In September, Secretary General Thorbjørn warned that Russia may be “forced to leave” the Council of Europe. According to him, a new law in Russia that would allow the Constitutional Court to overrule the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is part of a “worrying trend.” For instance, the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of January 19, 2017, stipulates that Russia is not obliged to (and may not) implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of July 31, 2014 on the Yukos case. The European Court of Human Rights has recently ruled that Russia’s so-called gay propaganda law reinforces “stigma and prejudice” and violates the right to freedom of expression. The ruling deprives Russia of its legitimate right to protect traditional family values.

In June, the Russian Federation decided to suspend payment of its contribution to the budget of the Council of Europe for 2017 (one-third of Russia’s 2017 fee) until full and unconditional restoration of the credentials of the delegation. Russia is currently one of the largest donors to the Council of Europe’s budget along with France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and more recently, Turkey. Its annual membership fee amounts to €33 million ($37.5 million), or about 7 percent of the organization’s overall budget. Two-thirds of this sum had already been transferred to the CE’s accounts, meaning suspended sum totals €11 million ($13 million). No future payments will be made until the rights of the Russian delegation to the PACE are fully restored. The Council of Europe loses "very large amount" because of Russia's decision to suspend the payment of part of the contribution to the budget of the organization for 2017, said the PACE Rapporteur on the activities of the Bureau of Ian Liddell Grainger. Acting President of the PACE Roger Gale called Moscow's decision an "unprecedented problem.

In 2016, Russia did not invite PACE monitors to its parliamentary elections as a sign of aggravating relationship.

It should be noted that the suspension of Russian parliamentarians from participation in the approval of the Council of Europe senior officials in PACE, including Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General, Commissioner for Human Rights and Judges of European Court of Human Rights makes one question their legitimacy.

The organization runs a campaign to persecute those who wish to normalize interaction with Russia. This month, Pedro Agramunt, the leader of the parliamentary assembly, had to resign after being stripped of his powers. One of the reasons was his visit to Syria with Russian MPs in March, when he met President Bashar al-Assad. Assembly members will elect the next president to hold office until the term ends in January. The two proposed candidates are Stella Kyriakides of Cyprus and Emanuelis Zingeris of Lithuania. If Russia does not take part in the election, the legitimacy of the vote will be questioned.

In late September, the Council of Europe's decision-making body, the Committee of Ministers, called on Russian authorities to let opposition leader Aleksei Navalny "stand for election" for the Russian presidency. It was widely perceived as an act of interference into internal affairs. The Russian Justice Ministry responded to the committee's statement by accusing the Council of Europe of "stepping beyond" its authority and trying to "exert political pressure" on Russian authorities.

If Moscow leaves the Council of Europe, the organization would no longer be able to present itself as a pan-European institution. Russia is too big and important to be excluded from European discourse. Without the membership, it will still remain in Europe. Moscow does not need the PACE as a podium to make its views known; it has the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) for that purpose.

No Russian official has made a statement that Moscow is going to leave the organization but the idea is in the air. The disappointment with the efficiency of the Council of Europe, the PACE and the ECHR is evident.

It’s time for the Council and its structures to be reformed. It would be right to change the PACE procedures. No delegation should be deprived of credentials or restricted in its rights. No resolutions should be approved by minority of votes. Today, it’s normal to adopt a resolution in the name of PACE when only 50-60 deputies take part in the voting. But the main thing is to change the approaches. There should be no scapegoats, no smear campaigns. The PACE should become what it once was – a platform for exchanging ideas and assessments, taking positions and initiatives, not propaganda efforts.

According to the established procedure, in January PACE national delegations have their mandates confirmed. The rules say that to resume the authority an official request for approval signed by the Chairman of the National Parliament must be sent to the President of the PACE at the beginning of the year. The time limit for submitting the request expired on January 15. The delegations from the UK, Lithuania, and Poland, Sweden and Estonia have supported the initiative to challenge the credentials of the Russian delegation on the grounds of alleged «failure» to carry out the previous resolutions of the Assembly and keep Russia deprived of voting rights at the upcoming PACE winter session to kick off on January 25 to last till January 29. Russian newspaper Izvestia (Jan.13 edition in Russian) confirmed the information about the initiative to resume the sanctions against the Russian delegation to PACE citing its sources in the Assembly Secretariat.

To start the proceedings, the anti-Russian initiative should be supported by at least 30 deputies from five states. The PACE Monitoring Committee is to prepare a relevant resolution to either confirm the credentials of the Russian delegation to PACE, or cancel them completely, or confirm with certain restrictions.

The sanctions against Russia were imposed by PACE in April 2014 due to the reunification of Russia with Crimea. According to the resolution, Russian deputies were denied the right to vote in PACE and the right to be represented in its governing bodies. At the end of January 2015 PACE adopted a resolution to prolong the restrictions. In response, the Russian delegation left the Assembly till 2016.

The head of Russian delegation Sergey Naryshkin has said on many occasions that Russia had no illusions about the restoration of its authority in 2016, and that the PACE’s approach was unacceptable.

First Deputy Chairman of state Duma Committee on international Affairs, member of the Russian delegation in PACE, Leonid Kalashnikov said, Russia is likely not to attend the organization’s winter session.

Chairman of the State Duma's Foreign Affairs Committee Aleksey Pushkov warned that Russian delegation would not participate in the January session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe if there will be no prospects of a full-fledged participation.

Russia could refuse to pay the fee it sends to the Parliamentary Assembly, if the restrictions were in force. The fee – the total of about $40 million – to the Council of Europe is indivisible and it is an aggregated fee to PACE, the Committee of Ministers, the European Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and to the European Court of Human Rights.

The decision to keep Russia out of PACE proceedings is strange enough, to put it mildly. PACE has always prided itself on its democratic tradition. The deputies of the Assembly always emphasize that it's very important to hear what Russia has to say on hot issues and acute problems faced by the continent. At the very same time an initiative is launched to exclude Russia, a key security actor in Europe and one of the top five donors to the Council of Europe, from participation in the Europe’s most representative parliamentary forum that unites 47 member-nations.

Expressing his personal opinion, Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland said some time ago that the time was right to deescalate the tensions, because the world has to deal with such serious problems as Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts and the refugee crisis.

He said that in his opinion, it is necessary to unite all the efforts to remove the wall separating the sides and try to find a solution together.

Now the ball is in PACE's court.

The inter-parliamentary dialogue plays a special role in promoting parliamentary involvement and cooperation at the time when Europe is hit by huge economic difficulties, seemingly unsurmountable refugee problem, and terrorist activity. The very survival of Europe, as we know it today, is questioned. The absence of Russia will bring to naught all the activities related to the key burning issues faced by the Old Continent today. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has shot itself in the foot.

The new subcommittee was set up as part of the PACE Monitoring Committee and will, as reported on its official website, cooperate closely with it, in order to explore any «situation in which active armed conflict has been brought to an end, but no peace treaty or other political framework resolves the conflict to the satisfaction of the combatants». Thus it is no surprise that it was the head of the assembly’s Monitoring Committee, an Austrian by the name of Stefan Schennach, who spearheaded the establishment of the subcommittee on conflicts between Council of Europe member states.  The was the same gentleman who took it upon himself to send an observer mission to the Crimea to investigate the humanitarian situation there, as well as any potential violations of human rights.

PACE also particularly emphasizes that the new structure will not become yet another mechanism for resolving conflicts, but will aim to use the elements of parliamentary diplomacy in order to support the existing mechanisms for mediating strife.  

The list of conflicts cited by an anonymous staffer on the freshly minted subcommittee is quite interesting.  Initially those would include Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, northern Cyprus, Transnistria, and Crimea.  In addition the new organization might focus on the conflict in eastern Ukraine – pending developments in that region.

None of this seems particularly striking, especially given how any bureaucratic institution loves to «spawn offspring.»  Of course the work of its «mother» – the PACE Monitoring Committee, which is responsible for verifying the fulfillment of obligations assumed by members of the Council of Europe – is more directly linked to the post-Soviet states.  The issues emanating from the regions in conflict (and those areas are certainly not universally regarded as being «in conflict») regularly assume the form of bitter debates, while the elites of the post-Soviet nations are being subjected to manipulation by foreign actors.  Any pan-European structure such as the OSCE, in some way or other finds itself faced with a vast landscape, from the republics in Novorossia – the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) – to Nagorno-Karabakh, but the OSCE’s work has been the recipient of … how shall we put it … very mixed reviews.  

«Like other international organizations, we will not talk about the larger issues that fall within the context of conflict resolution, but will focus on the more specific aspects of that process,» stated Stefan Schennach.  The idea of inter-parliamentary cooperation, including with representatives from the legislative bodies of unrecognized or semi-recognized states, is becoming more popular in Europe.  Perhaps this will make it possible to offer individual gestures of humanitarian assistance, but it will hardly resolve the conflicts themselves – although it can’t hurt …

Some of the events associated with the emergence of this new entity support this not overly optimistic premise and are also linked to the «initial» list of conflicts that will be the object of its focus.  So, the obvious crisis of the Eastern Partnership project suggests that a legitimate subject of discussion might be a kind of safety mechanism that would enable Europeans to keep abreast of what is happening, including the aforementioned «specific aspects.»  The Armenian political scientist Stepan Safaryan, who is spearheading the subcommittee on frozen conflicts, suggests that PACE wants to create some leverage for itself, adding that Strasbourg does not currently have that capacity.  He stated, «The committees previously created to address this issue drafted reports and offered assessments, which had some impact on the political processes.  Now PACE wants to restore that capacity by creating a specialized structure.» 

This desire is of course entirely understandable, viewed through the lens of geopolitical logic, as well as bureaucratic.  However, it should not be forgotten that for Russia the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-South Ossetian conflicts are no longer an issue: that question was put to bed on Aug.  26, 2008, and since then Moscow has been building its relationships with the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia, recognizing them as independent subjects of her foreign policy.  Also, Sukhumi and Tskhinvali are taking part, as independent entities, in the Geneva format of consultations on security in the Caucasus, and it is not yet clear how the new structure will be able to help there.  According to Irakli Khintba, the head of the Expert Department of the Presidential Administration of Abkhazia, the new structure’s hypothetical recommendations will not apply to Abkhazia.  Abkhazia is not a member of PACE.  In addition, the representative from Abkhazia pointed out that that agency’s actions toward the republic have always been overtly hostile, adding, «We remember how PACE repeatedly demanded that Russia withdraw its recognition of Abkhazia, the bias with which it assessed the Russian-Abkhaz Treaty on Alliance and Strategic Partnership, and the one-sidedness and hostility we saw in their reports on the situation in Abkhazia.» 

In turn, the deputy director of the Caucasus Institute, Sergei Minasyan, expressed doubts about the viability of the idea itself, recalling that at one time the Turkish minister for EU affairs, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, tried to create a similar subcommittee, but it shut down within a few years because the Armenians took no part in its work.  It is possible that the new subcommittee will suffer the same fate.

In a similar vein, when and if PACE discusses «the conflict in Crimea,» it is not clear what there will be to say – that region is a constituent part of the Russian Federation, and any attempts to exert external influence there without Moscow’s consent (which, as we know, is no longer involved in PACE’s work) cannot be seen as anything other than interference in Russia’s internal affairs.  Suffice it to recall the failed attempt by an OSCE mission to force its way into Crimea with obviously dubious objectives, in early March, ten days before the referendum vote on the peninsula.  According to Jean-Claude Mignon, who reported to the Council of Europe about the status of Ukraine’s commitments, the work of the new PACE subcommittee on frozen conflicts should be consistent with OSCE’s experience in this area.  It would be unfortunate if the «inter-parliamentary cooperation» occurring under the aegis of PACE and its new committee knowingly took the low road …

And the additional involvement of any of PACE’s entities in the conflict in the Donbass could have a positive impact only if it adheres to the spirit and the letter of the Minsk agreement, fully taking into account the position of the power structures in the DPR and the LPR.  Should that occur, the instruments of parliamentary diplomacy could help to unify the parties’ positions and encourage Kiev to officially reject militant rhetoric and actions (which, incidentally, seems unlikely at present).  

Finally, given the many problems within the Council of Europe itself (in Belgium, Spain, Great Britain, etc.), such excessive attention to post-Soviet conflicts seems out of proportion, and in addition may have any number of causes and repercussions.  There is a real question as to whether European institutions sincerely wish to pursue a constructive path: otherwise PACE would not have remained indifferent to the blockade of Transnistria, which has lasted for many years and has now become extremely punitive.  At the same time, Russia could incorporate some of Europe’s more innovative practices and strengthen her inter-parliamentary contacts with de facto state entities she does not recognize (Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, northern Cyprus, and the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics).  Obviously the history and civilization of all of these places, with the exception of northern Cyprus, are inseparably linked to Russia, and none need to be in the safekeeping of PACE.

Let us remind ourselves of the recent resolution adopted by PACE on Ukraine, which states that, «none of the arguments used by the Russian Federation to justify its actions hold true to facts and evidence. There was no ultra-right wing takeover of the central government in Kyiv, nor was there any imminent threat to the rights of the ethnic Russian minority in the country, including, or especially, in Crimea». According to Europe, apparently, the severed legs and heads of innocent civilians in Donbass, the demolished hospitals, and the tens of thousands of refugees do not pose a threat to «the ethnic Russian minority». So, is there any need for Russia to continue subjecting itself to humiliation from those who aid and abet war criminals? 

* * *

The Council of Europe was established on 5 May 1949, a month after NATO was set up. The lists of the co-founders of both organisations are almost identical: Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark and Italy. The only difference is that the military dimension of the anti-Soviet alliance was headed by the US, and neutral Sweden only joined its humanitarian wing. The idea of setting up the Council of Europe belonged to the creator of the ‘cold war’ concept, Winston Churchill. 

By 14 September 1953, PACE had already adopted a resolution in which the USSR was accused of initiating the ‘cold war’. It turns out it is not that Churchill suggested starting a ‘cold war’ against Russia in his famous Fulton speech, but that Russia was scaring the world with threats of a third world war. Which is exactly the same as the situation in Ukraine. It is not that the West organised and supported a neo-fascist coup in Ukraine, but that Russia carried out «unprovoked military aggression».

With the breakup of the USSR, little changed in the Council of Europe’s attitude toward Russia, with the exception that Boris Yeltsin dragged Russia into the Council of Europe in 1996. After this, various destructive measures were imposed on Russia such as the removal of restrictions for people in possession of state secrets to travel abroad, the loss of the FSB’s investigative functions, and the enabling of international humanitarian organisations to work within Russia. The government was unable to protect not only its state secrets and national security, but also its foreign policy interests. The Council of Europe required Russia to give up categorising some foreign countries as a zone of special interest called the «near abroad». In addition, Russia was obliged to return cultural property received as compensation for the losses it sustained during the Second World War to other countries, which is completely comparable with the indemnities imposed on those countries that capitulated in the war.

Communism died long ago, but the organisation created to combat this mythical «communist threat» still cannot settle its nerves, squaring historical accounts with Russia now rather than the USSR. In the Council of Europe, Russia is always to blame for everything. For the so-called «Holodomor» in Ukraine, for the deportation of Nazi collaborators in Baltic states, for the crimes of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. 

It has long been a bad tradition in PACE to rubber stamp resolutions and reports on racist and xenophobic tendencies in Russia, on the persecution of national minorities and the violations of their rights. The fact that opuses like these are voted for without fail by Baltic States where ethnic Russians are declared to be «non-citizens» and are deprived of their civil rights on the basis of their national origin and language does not seem to trouble the Council of Europe, of course. Russia’s efforts to strengthen state authority are constantly attacked, while any attempts to secure the uninterrupted transit of energy resources to Europe are seen as political pressure. 

In light of the recent resolution on Ukraine, PACE’s position regarding the war in Chechnya merits particular attention. In 2000, PACE stripped the Russian delegation of its right to vote, having previously adopted a number of resolutions and recommendations «on the conflict in Chechnya», which, among other things, required Russia, «To introduce an immediate and complete ceasefire and, in particular, to stop immediately all indiscriminate and disproportionate military action in Chechnya, and to start immediately a political dialogue, without preconditions, with the elected Chechen authorities». The desire to protect human rights in Chechnya, of course, is worthy of high praise, were it not for one thing. There is not a single document in the archives of PACE that requires the rights of the victims of terrorist attacks in Budennovsk, Beslan, Moscow or Novorossiysk to be protected, or a single word in support of Russia. Neither are there any decisions on the deprivation of the French delegation’s voting rights for aggression against the independent state of Mali. Just as today there are no demands for the government of Ukraine to stop immediately, without preconditions, all military action in Donbass and begin talks with the elected authorities of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

It is typical that Russia’s invitation to take part in the PACE session without the right to say a single word in its defence came amid Petro Poroshenko’s invitation to the 70th anniversary of the Normandy landings. Europe is taking no notice of the fascism in Ukraine in the artillery shelling and aerial bombardment of Donbass. Consequently, at his inauguration the new Ukrainian president once again spoke about the unitary structure of Ukraine, the single state language, the lack of alternative in signing an essentially colonial association agreement with the EU, and the need for a security treaty that Ukraine would enter into with the West. Europe is satisfied with all this, so there is no point waiting for PACE to adopt a wrathful resolution on the violation of human rights in Donbass. The Russian delegation is apparently being invited to Strasbourg so that it can be given the latest lesson in «protecting human rights». 

* * *

One could spend a long time citing examples of the Council of Europe’s double standards, but enough have been listed to raise the question: why does Russia need to be a member of the Council of Europe at all? To receive from Strasbourg, as well as defamatory statements about Russian politics, court rulings calling for gay parades to take place in Moscow?

The world’s irreversible transformation into a multipolar world puts reforming the system of international organisations on the agenda. The Western-controlled archaic structures of the ‘cold war’ era such as PACE, which is used exclusively as a tool to put pressure on the global community, need to be replaced with a new and more modern system of international cooperation. A Council of Eurasia would be far more relevant than the Council of Europe, for example. At the same time, increasing Russia’s standing in the world would fully allow the country to let go of outdated Western organisations and contribute to the formation of a system of international relations more responsive to the demands of the modern world.

Speaking on April 8 in Paris, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said further intervention by Russia in Ukraine would have "grave consequences" for Moscow's relationship with NATO and "would further isolate Russia internationally”. Rasmussen called on Russia pull back what he described as “tens of thousands” of troops massed near the Ukrainian border. "We have all plans in place to ensure effective defense and protection of our allies," he said. "It is obvious that the evolving security situation in Ukraine and along its borders make it necessary to review our defense plans and look at how we could strengthen our collective defense." He saidNATO was reviewing a 1997 co-operation agreement (Founding Act) with Russia and subsequent Rome declaration of 2002 that prevented NATO setting up bases in eastern and central Europe. The foreign ministers of the alliance would decide on that in June. "Those decisions will be impacted by the situation in Ukraine and Russian behavior," Rasmussen said. (1)

On April 9, US Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, Commander, US European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO Allied Command Operations, told Associated Press, (2) that forthcoming NATO plans envision the mobilizing of American troops. According to the four-star Air Force General, he wouldn't "write off involvement by any nation, to include the United States." "Essentially what we are looking at is a package of land, air and maritime measures that would build assurance for our easternmost allies," Breedlove told the AP. "I'm tasked to deliver this by next week. I fully intend to deliver it early," he noted.

 His words were echoed by US top defense chief.  Speaking to CNN on April 9, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said, “We're always vigilant and we’re always looking at the options that we need to take.” (3)

 Assistant Secretary of Defense Derek Chollet, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on April 8, said that the United States was to “re-examine its force posture in Europe and our requirement for future deployments, exercises, and training in the region."  (4) He did not specify what such a re-examination could entail at a time when the Pentagon faces budget cuts and is seeking to redeploy part of its resources to the Asia Pacific region as part of pivot strategy.

All the above mentioned US officials could not have made such obviously threatening statements unless it was at least an option on the table.

The day after NATO’s decision to end cooperation with Russia on April 8, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany’s largest national subscription daily newspaper, bluntly declared that “NATO now regards Russia as an enemy.” Is it intended to bring the message home or is it just a botched statement?

Beat of Drums of war heard inside USA

US House Republicans call on the Pentagon to revise its strategy. For instance, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon unveiled legislation on April 8 that aims to boost United States military's posture and capabilities in Europe to counter "Russian aggression towards Ukraine and NATO allies," according to the committee. The bill, backed by Republican Reps. Mike Turner and Mike Rogers, calls for the United States to suspend military activity with Russia and provide military advice and technical assistance to the Ukraine. Republicans have criticized the Quadrennial Defense Review, a recently released strategy document from the Defense Department, for, among other things, scarcely mentioning Russia. Derek Chollet, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security affairs, said "we're not planning to rewrite the QDR” but Russia's actions will cause the United States to reexamine troop levels in Europe. (5)

There are voices raised calling for expansion of NATO.  Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham advocated increasing “cooperation with, and support for, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other non-NATO partners.” McCain and Graham urged expanding NATO to Georgia and Moldova.  The Foreign Policy Initiative put together a neoconservative all-star list of 56 advocating a Membership Action Plan for Georgia and membership for Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, “and other European security partners.”  A group of 40 congressmen called for admitting Macedonia and Montenegro, eventually including Kosovo, advancing “the membership prospects of Georgia and Bosnia-Herzegovina,” and continuing “close partnerships … with other countries in Central and Eastern Europe which seek closer relations with the U.S. and NATO.”

NATO: Stepping up military activities

 Amid rising tension in Ukraine, the Polish government has confirmed joint military exercises with the US will continue in June with the arrival of more F-16 jet fighters. According to Polish Radio (6) report on April 10, aerial refueling aircraft are also due to be dispatched to Poland from the UK over the same period.  “This is very strong evidence of Allied commitment, and the visible presence of the U.S,” Defence Minister Tomasz Siemoniak told the TVN24 news station. “We are striving to ensure that the lessons of the [Russian-Ukrainian] crisis result in the enduring presence of NATO in the East,” the official added. Asked about NATO’s readiness to intervene in the event of an attack on a member state, Siemoniak said that “these forces are prepared for immediate action.” The Minister noted that the 18 US F-16 jet fighters will be stationed at an airbase in Lask, central Poland, where the US and Polish armed forces have been cooperating intermittently for over a year and a half. “For several weeks now we’ve had 12 F-16 planes and transport aircraft there,” the Defence Minister said adding thatas far as NATO forces in region are concerned, attention is now focused on “long-term activities that could last years or decades,” although he acknowledged that such an arrangement cannot be finalized “in the space of a few days.”

Meanwhile The USS Donald Cook and French intelligence warship Dupuy de Lôme are in the Black Sea. The USS Donald Cook is the third US warship sent to the Black Sea recently. In February, the US dispatched the missile frigate USS Taylor into the waters of the sea to provide security for the Olympic Games in Sochi. Last month, the USS Truxtun went to through the Bosphorus to enter the Black Sea to conduct joint exercises with Bulgaria and Romania. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov earlier said that the presence of US ships in the Black Sea has often exceeded the limit under the convention. Previous U.S. naval visits to the Black Sea were typically separated by months.

NATO and Partnership for Peace Air Forces have just wound up exercising offensive and defensive missions over the Netherlands as part of Exercise Frisian Flag. The Dutch exercise, which is based at Leeuwarden airbase, has been underway since 31 March till April 11, 2014. About 50 aircraft participated flying two missions a day. NATO jets will take part in air patrols in the region later in a routine exercise that analysts say has taken on added significance because of the crisis. Several alliance members, including the UK, US and France, have offered additional military aircraft.

The U.S. added six F-15Cs to Lithuania and a dozen F-16s and 300 troops to Poland, made plans to involve more forces in exercises and training in Poland and the Baltic States, and increased intelligence flights over Poland and Romania.

 At its March meeting NATO ordered the study of measures to bolster the alliance’s Eastern European members, including adding troops and equipment on station, holding additional military exercises, improving the rapid-deployment force, and reviewing military plans.  Alliance commander Gen. Philip Breedlove said options for this “reassurance package” included augmenting airpower, increasing ships in the Baltic Sea, establishing a naval force in the Black Sea, and deploying a 4,500 strong army brigade from Texas. ButEastern Europeans desire even more.  Polish Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak insisted:  “The U.S. must increase its presence in Central and Eastern Europe, also in Poland.”  Romania’s President Traian Basescu cited “the need to reposition NATO’s military resources,” meaning into Romania.  Estonia’s NATO ambassador, Lauri Lepik, said “What the Baltic States want is an allied presence in the form of boots on the ground.”  An unnamed former Latvian minister told the Economist:  “We would like to see a few American squadrons here, boots on the round, maybe even an aircraft carrier.” (7)

All these steps are in clear violation of the 1997 treaty on NATO-Russian cooperation by boosting its forces in Eastern Europe, in which NATO vowed to provide collective defense by using reinforcements rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces at regular bases.

Russia: a call to reason

 Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that both Ukraine and the US have "no reason for concern" about the heightened presence of forces in the region, and that "Russia has repeatedly stated that it does not conduct unusual or unplanned activities which are militarily significant on its territory near the border with Ukraine.” The Russian authorities view NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s accusations against Moscow as an attempt to bolster the relevance of the alliance, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a commentary posed on its website on April 10 (8). “The Secretary General’s constant accusations against us suggest that the alliance is trying to use the crisis in Ukraine to “consolidate its ranks” in the face of some imaginary external threat allegedly facing NATO countries, as well as to reinforce the relevance of the alliance in these issues in the 21st century,” the statement said.  Recent statements by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on the situation in Ukraine as well as the alliance’s double standard on Crimea have hindered a de-escalation of tensions in the country, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Russia denies denied the accusations of meddling in Ukraine. He said Russia would seek talks on the Ukrainian political crisis that could involve the United States, the European Union and “all the political forces in Ukraine.”

The April meeting of NATO foreign chiefs showed the advocates of escalation got the upper hand in the alliance. Troops and air forces get concentrated in the vicinity of Russian borders. Military presence and activities are intensified under the cover of exercises. The alliance is raising unsubstantiated accusations of an imminent invasion of Ukraine by Russia as a pretext to build up their forces in Eastern Europe and work out war plans against Russia. The foreign policy anti-Russian efforts are vibrant in the post-Soviet space, especially talking about Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.  NATO is taking advantage of the situation in Ukraine to justify its reason d’etre, including the military expenditure equal to half of the world military spending exceeding dozens of times the amount allocated for military purposes in Russia.  The plans would involve the militarization of Europe. NATO’s aggressive escalation threatens a war between NATO and Russia—a major military power with a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. The threat of disaster is in the air.

Endnotes:

1. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140408/DEFREG01/304080013/Rasmussen-Russian-Actions-Ukraine-Threaten-NATO-Relations
2. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nato-may-send-us-troops-eastern-european-allies
3. http://newday.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/09/defense-secretary-chuck-hagel-on-ukraine-we-are-always-looking-at-options-we-need-to-take/
4. http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/us-could-re-examine-its-military-presence-in-europe-114040801227_1.html)
5. http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/house-republicans-push-for-stronger-strategy-on-russia-20140408
6. http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/167835,Ukraine-crisis-More-US-jet-fighters-due-in-Poland)
7. .forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2014/04/07/washington-should-not-defend-ukraine-or-expand-nato-u-s-should-shift-responsibility-for-europes-defense-to-europe/
8. http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/68E544065F48B4C144257CB600279853

Ismay, the military advisor to Britain’s World War II leader Winston Churchill, was like his pugnacious boss an ardent imperialist, anti-communist and pro-American. His refreshing, if distasteful, candor about the strategic purpose of NATO has since been varnished over down through the decades.

The US-dominated military pact has been reinvented as a humanitarian mission with faux political correctness and spurious lofty claims of maintaining world peace. But Ismay’s terse words on NATO’s more sinister foundational purpose are starkly pertinent to present developments.

Today NATO seems to be fulfilling its original mission more than ever by isolating Russia and giving Washington a new lease of life in European political affairs.And the cleavage being driven between Russia and Europe will hit Germany hardest owing to possible economic repercussions.

In this divisive function we are witnessing a revival of the early Cold War rhetoric and mentality upon which NATO was first established in 1949.

The latest expulsion of Russia from the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council (PACE) following a resolution condemning Moscow for “annexation of Crimea” and “military occupation of Ukraine” is an unfortunate example of how NATO’s Cold War zero-sum logic is once again manifesting…

With honorable exceptions to the PACE suspension of Russia this week, the 47-nation Council based its decision on a tendentious report whose authors were clearly wielding a one-sided political agenda that purported to lay all the blame on Russia for the Ukraine crisis.

When the authors of the report, Mailis Reps, of Estonia, and Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, of Sweden, addressed the PACE in Strasbourg this week their description of events in Ukraine seemed to be lifted from a Washington script. The authors emphasized “condemning Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the ongoing threat posed by the Russian military on Ukraine’s eastern border.” No evidence or legal grounds were offered to support their assertions.

Reps and Pourbaix-Lundin urged: “We as an Assembly recognize the legitimacy of the new authorities in Kiev and the legality of their decisions.” There was not a mention of Western-backed subversion leading up to what was irrefutably an armed coup in February against the elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. According to the PACE rapporteurs, Yanukovych simply fled from office, inexplicably.

Nor was there any mention of the lawlessness and thuggery that the unelected fascist regime in Kiev has since embarked on. Indeed, delegates from the Kiev junta, described as “the government of Ukraine”, were given free rein to address the PACE and to spout fictional accounts of how normalcy prevails in Kiev and Ukraine, in barefaced defiance of factual reports of violence and intimidation against pro-Russian people and other political opponents. No mention of neo-Nazi Svoboda and Pravy Sector self-appointed Reich ministers, or of Sashko Bily and his gun-toting fascist hoodlums, or of public threats by Kiev demagogues to “whack Russians in the head”.

Russian delegates to the PACE, led by Alexei Pushkov, denounced the parliamentary report and the subsequent suspension of Russia it presaged.

Earlier, Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, speaking in Berlin, complained that Washington and Europe were not basing their assessment of Ukraine on political facts. He said: “The Western community is discussing developments in Ukraine beyond the context of the key reason of the conflict. It is criminal to pull Ukraine in different directions, making it choose between the EU and the Russian Federation.”

From the outset of the political upheaval in Kiev this ultimatum-attitude has characterized Washington and Europe. When street protests took off last November, the incumbent Yanukovych and Moscow offered a dialogue with Washington and Brussels to find a political solution. The offer was flatly rebuffed, leading to further Western-backed street violence and the eventual coup d’état – which the Western governments and their media claim represents a “democratic revolution”. 

That coup has since thrown the rest of Ukraine into turmoil with separatist moves underway in the eastern, pro-Russian cities of Donetz, Kharkov and Lugansk. Ironically, the new junta in Kiev is calling these protesters “terrorists” and “criminals” who face armed suppression if they don’t vacate government buildings that they are occupying, as the putschists in Kiev had previously done – only with a lot less violence being used in the current eastern demonstrations.

Clearly, the official views being expressed by Washington and Europe do not correspond with the facts of the situation in Ukraine. To accuse Russia of subversion and aggression simply because the people of the southern Crimean Peninsula voted in a referendum last month to join the Russian Federation is bereft of vital context. Not only bereft of context, the accusations are turning reality on its head.

Meantime, the American commander of NATO, General Philip Breedlove has now said that American troops and other forces are to be scaled up in Eastern Europe. Under the cover of contrived crisis, NATO is accelerating its long-held plans for encirclement of Russia – in complete violation of non-aggression treaties with Moscow that were signed following the end of the Cold War.

Breedlove’s plans for military expansion to Russia’s borders follow on the visit to Europe by US President Barack Obama at the end of March. Obama used Cold War rhetoric to appeal for greater NATO unity, that is, for greater American military and political presence in Europe.

It is no coincidence that since Obama’s de facto Pivot to Europe, NATO has stepped up the aggressive posture towards Russia.

NATO’s current Secretary General, Danish former Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, this week excelled in inflammatory rhetoric when he reiterated accusations of “Russian aggression in Ukraine” along with unsubstantiated claims of Russian military build-up on the frontier of Europe.

Speaking in Paris, Fogh Rasmussen called for “a readiness action plan” and said: “The current crisis poses a serious challenge to our common security. But North America and Europe stand together in facing up to it. And we stand united in our firm response. In recent weeks, we have seen the United States’ clear commitment to Europe’s security.”

Provocatively, the NATO chief went on to equate Russia with terrorism by claiming that Europe is confronted with: “Newer challenges, such as terrorism, failed states, cyber and missile attacks. And old challenges in new guises, such as attempts to redraw borders by force.”

His five-year tenure at NATO is due to end this coming September. It’s a fair bet that the Danish politician will land a plum job at some American think tank for his recent bellicose services on behalf of Washington.

Later in the week, while in Prague, Fogh Rasmussen sounded as if he was trying to imitate Churchill’s notorious Iron Curtain speech of 1946. That piece of Churchillian hyperbole is credited with having spawned the Cold War with its gratuitous offensiveness towards the Soviet Union, which only the year before had been a crucial World War II ally.

Fogh Rasmussen declared in Prague: “For the first time since countries like the Czech Republic won their freedom, and the Cold War ended, we see one state trying to grab part of another’s territory at gunpoint.”

The results of this concocted, divisive rhetoric and mentality are plain to see. As Lord Ismay once said, NATO is still keeping the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. As we saw with the Council of Europe this week, US-led NATO is continuing to set the PACE for aggression towards Russia, with the help of European friends like Rasmussen who are spewing the “Fogh” of war.