/pub/history/military/a-weu/document File: 1365cppr.kemp Document 1365 17th May 1993 The development of relations between the WEU Assembly and the parliaments of Central European countries ______ REPORT submitted on behalf of the Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations by Mr. Kempinaire, Rapporteur ______ TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT ORDER on the development of relations between the WEU Assembly and the parliaments of Central European countries EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM submitted by Mr. Kempinaire, Rapporteur I. Introduction II. The Central European countries (a) Bulgaria (b) Estonia (c) Hungary (d) Latvia (e) Lithuania (f) Poland (g) Romania (h) The Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic III. Conclusions ************************************ Draft Order ----------- on the development of relations between the WEU Assembly and the parliaments of Central European countries The Assembly, (i) Considering the declaration issued at the close of the extraordinary meeting of the WEU Council of Ministers of WEU with states of Central Europe held in Bonn on 19th June 1992 in which the ministers "advocated the development of relations between the WEU Assembly and the parliaments of the states concerned"; (ii) Stressing the importance already achieved in recent years in relations between the Assembly and its committees and the parliaments of those states; (iii) Convinced of the need for the parties concerned to strengthen and develop these relations; (iv) Aware that exchanges of views on the building of Europe, particularly on security and defence questions, cannot be restricted to the governmental level but that parliamentarians must play an active part in them; (v) Considering that the development of relations between the WEU Assembly and the parliaments of Central European countries will help to make this debate more useful and fruitful, INSTRUCTS ITS PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE 1. To encourage visits by Assembly committees to Central European countries, particularly when they prepare reports concerning that region; 2. To promote the Assembly's participation in symposia and any other type of meeting at which parliamentarians are present that might be organised by those countries; 3. To extend regular invitations to ministers for foreign affairs and defence from the forum of consultation to speak at Assembly sessions; 4. To send reports, the letter from the Assembly and other publications to the largest possible number of interested persons and institutions in Central European countries; 5. To arrange for parliaments, governments and specialised institutions and associations in those countries to send the Assembly any documents and information they consider useful in order to ensure a better knowledge and greater understanding of their opinions, aims and decisions. **************************** Explanatory Memorandum ---------------------- (submitted by Mr. Kempinaire, Rapporteur) I. Introduction The declaration issued at the close of the extraordinary meeting of the WEU Council of Ministers with Central European States held in Bonn on 19th June 1992 stated inter alia that "intensifying the relations between WEU and the states of Central Europe will contribute to stability and the emergence of a new peaceful order in Europe based on partnership and co- operation, greater security and confidence, as well as disarmament". The declaration also specified that the strengthening of these relations "should reflect the specific relations which exist and are developing between these countries and the European Union and its member states. Other appropriate forms of co-operation could be set up as required in the light of the development of these relations". Finally, the text adds that "in this way, WEU's Central European partners will be able to acquaint themselves with the future security and defence policy of the European Union and find new opportunities to co-operate with the defence component of the Union and with the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance as these develop". It was therefore in this context that the ministers "advocated the development of relations between the WEU Assembly and the parliaments of the states concerned". Your Rapporteur believes this is tantamount to recognising that the debate on "the emergence of a new peaceful order in Europe" cannot be kept within the intergovernmental framework but must include a very substantial parliamentary aspect. The WEU Assembly must pursue its internal debate, closely linked with the one being held in the parliaments of member countries, to promote a European security and defence identity and also foster the participation of the parliaments of Central European countries in this debate by encouraging an in-depth dialogue with them which should facilitate mutual knowledge, allow reciprocal, easy communication and help to achieve a consensus thanks to an understanding of the respective positions of all concerned. It is thus in this framework that relations between our Assembly and the parliaments of Central European countries should be developed. Starting in 1990, the Assembly has been in the habit of inviting delegations from the parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe to attend its plenary sessions. So far, these invitations have not been permanent and have been made for one session at a time, the Assembly always reserving the right to renew them as it considered them appropriate. Parliamentary delegations from Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia were the first to attend a session of our Assembly (the extraordinary session held in March 1990). Since then, other parliamentary delegations have been present at our sessions: from Hungary and Poland (at all sessions since that date), Yugoslavia (in March, June and December 1990 and June 1991), the Soviet Union (December 1990, June and December 1991), Czechoslovakia (June and December 1991), Bulgaria (December 1990 and December 1992) and Romania (as from June 1991). Furthermore, the parliaments of the eight Central European countries which, since the meeting in Bonn on 19th June 1992, have been known as the WEU forum countries, were invited to attend the symposium on a new security order in Europe held in Berlin from 31st March to 2nd April 1992. That symposium was also addressed by the Minister of Defence of Lithuania, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Romania and Poland and the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Czechoslovakia. Finally, starting in 1991, the Defence Committee, the Political Committee, the Technological and Aerospace Committee and the Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations have visited Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, thus proving our Assembly's great interest in countries in the region and our desire to improve mutual knowledge and develop existing relations. Moreover, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Romania have been able, in recent years, to explain their respective countries' foreign policy to the Assembly. The determination shown by our Assembly in the last three years to establish and develop relations with the Central European countries in the interest of both sides is consequently clear. In the following pages, your Rapporteur will endeavour to give a concise description of the political situation in the Central European countries, referring almost exclusively to the presidential and parliamentary elections held in those countries and to the composition of their governments and chambers, as well as the ideas expressed by their parliamentarians on how they intend to develop their relations with the WEU Assembly. Conclusions setting out the initiatives that should be taken to this end will conclude the present report. Lastly, your Rapporteur believes it is worth drawing attention to the knowledge that the people of the Central European countries have of our organisation. According to the Eurobarometer of the Commission of the European Communities (No. 2, January 1992), in a poll of 10 000 persons in Central and Eastern Europe who were asked in October 1991 whether or not they had heard of WEU, affirmative answers were as follows: Hungary 56%, Estonia 49%, Latvia 45%, Poland 43%, Bulgaria 40%, Czechoslovakia 40%, Lithuania 40% and Romania 39%. Affirmative answers to an identical question concerning the European Community range from 83% for Poland to 69% for Bulgaria. It may be assumed that, in 1992 and during the current year, knowledge of WEU among the people of Central Europe has increased steadily. In any event, the abovementioned figures, which show a degree of knowledge relatively comparable with that of citizens of member countries, indicate a high level of information, thus suggesting the probable interest of Eastern European countries in an organisation such as WEU: it is indeed a guarantee of the security of its members now that the disbandment of the Warsaw Part, the far-reaching changes in the region and the conflicts developing there make more obvious to those countries the need to belong to a defensive organisation ensuring its own security. II. The Central European countries (a) Bulgaria The present Bulgarian constitution was adopted by the Grand National Assembly on 12th June 1991 by 309 of the then 400 members. This constitution stemmed from the determination of the large majority parties, in face of the crisis in the institutions arising from the reformed communist authorities, to pursue peacefully the process of transition to democracy. On 13th October 1991 and in accordance with the new constitution, which provides for a single chamber system, the National Assembly, which now has 240 members, was elected for a four-year period. With a rate of participation of almost 84% of the electorate, the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) obtained 34.36% of the votes cast, giving it a total of 110 seats, the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP, ex-Communist) 33.14% and 106 seats and, finally, the Movement for Rights and Liberties (MRL, representing the Turkish minority) 7.55% and 24 seats. On 8th November 1991, on the proposal of the President of the Republic, the National Assembly elected Mr. Dimitrov Prime Minister. He formed a government consisting of members of the various parties and movements composing the UDF; this government has the support of the MRL. Presidential elections with majority voting and two ballots were held on 12th and 19th January 1992. In the first ballot, Jelio Jelev, President of the Republic since August 1990 and UFD candidate supported by the MRL, obtained 44.63% of the votes cast, followed by the PSD candidate, Mr. Valkanov, with 30.44% and then Mr. Gantchev, with 16.8%. The latter, a former emigrant and independent candidate, had the support of the Business Bloc, a movement grouping the heads of private firms. In the second round, Jelo Jelev obtained almost 53% of votes cast compared with just over 47% for his rival Valkanov. In May 1992, the Prime Minister, Mr. Dimitrov, reshuffled his government; on 28th October 1992, following a vote of confidence in the National Assembly, the government was overthrown, mainly because of the support hitherto afforded, with some reservations, by the MRL. President Jelev had already shown his disagreement with the government's attitude towards trade unions, the media, the Orthodox Church and the opposition outside parliament. The economic problems the country is encountering on its way to a market economy and the difficulty it is having in restoring land to the Turkish minority, accompanied by differences between the various groups and persons of which the UFD is composed, have also been key factors in this crisis: this led to the formation of a government of technocrats with the support of the MRL and the more or less clear consent of the UDF. Independently of all these differences, your Rapporteur thinks he has discerned a wide consensus among all the parliamentary political forces, particularly about the irreversibility of the democratic process the country has embarked upon. The strengthening of democratic principles, the guarantee of the supremacy of law and the move towards a market economy are generally considered to be the necessary bases for bringing about stability and civil and political peace. The same consensus exists vis-a-vis foreign and security policy. It is also unanimously agreed that the targets set will be more swiftly and effectively reached if the European countries help Bulgaria. It regards the treaty on European Union as the first step towards building the common European house that should accommodate the countries of Central and Eastern Europe instead of keeping them some distance from the door. It is also the general opinion of Bulgarian parliamentarians that Bulgaria must be integrated in all the European bodies as soon as possible. Integration will nevertheless have to be preceded by a period of co-operation. Contacts and co- operation with the institutions already mentioned are a factor of stability for the country. It should be underlined that, at the beginning of March 1993, Bulgaria and the European Community signed an agreement of association and an interim agreement anticipating the application of trade arrangements, the main aspects of which are the establishment of a regular political dialogue at the highest level, the creation, within ten years, of a free trade area and economic, cultural and financial co- operation. Our Bulgarian colleagues considered that the process of integration in the European structures has a fundamental aspect: security. They believe this problem to be linked with the country's relations with its immediate neighbours, the European Community and the Mediterranean countries. Inter alia, Bulgarian parliamentarians have unanimously expressed the wish for close contacts with NATO and WEU. They have stressed that they have associate member status in the North Atlantic Assembly, while in the WEU Assembly they have merely been invited on an ad hoc basis. Following a joint initiative by the Bulgarian National Assembly and the North Atlantic Assembly, there is also to be a meeting in the very near future to study regional security problems to which our Assembly will be invited. Our Bulgarian colleagues have said they wish to take part in the preparation of WEU Assembly reports dealing with security problems in the region; at the same time, they have expressed their interest in co-operating in the preparation of reports that try to solve ethnic problems in view of their experience which they consider might be useful to other European countries. According to one Bulgarian parliamentarian, participation in the preparation of our reports would help to avoid it being deduced from a report emanating from our Assembly that Bulgaria has expansionist aims, whereas its foreign and security policy is based more on the principle of non-interference, on which there is a national consensus. The President of the Bulgarian National Assembly, Mr. Yordanov, stressed the need to associate with European security a country which could guarantee security in an area so important for the continent. He considered his country's present situation, i.e. as an ad hoc guest, should lead subsequently to other forms of co-operation allowing Bulgaria to become a full member of our organisation. According to Mr. Yordanov, there were many possibilities for co-operation between the two parliamentary assemblies and they were not confined to the abovementioned participation in drafting reports and presence at committee meetings; Mr. Yordanov proposed a meeting between Bulgarian parliamentarians and members of our Assembly's Political Committee with the aim of drawing up a programme for Bulgaria's accession to WEU. Finally, your Rapporteur considers it worth pointing out the existence in the Bulgarian National Assembly of six groups for friendship with the German, French, Greek, Japanese and Polish Parliaments and with the International Association of French- Speaking Parliamentarians in view of the role that can be played by such groups in the development of interparliamentary relations. It should also be recalled that Bulgaria has been a member of the Council of Europe since 7th May 1992. (b) Estonia For Estonia, the elections in March 1990 marked the start of a peaceful process and were largely an example of the restoration of national independence and the return to democratic institutions. The new Supreme Soviet resulting from the elections was composed of three main blocs: the Popular Front, resolutely in favour of independence, consisting of the Peasant, Social Democrat and Liberal Groups with 49 of a total of 101 representatives; an electoral coalition dominated by the former Communists, with 29 seats; and, finally, the Russian minority bloc, with 27 seats. On 20th August 1991, the Estonian Supreme Council proclaimed the country's independence. The Russian Federation recognised the new country on 24th August, followed a few days later by Mr. Gorbachev, President of what was at that time still the Soviet Union, once the attempted coup d'etat that took place in the country at the same time had been overcome. In September of the same year, a constituent assembly composed of an equal number of representatives of the Estonian Supreme Council and Congress started to draw up the new constitution of the Republic of Estonia. The fact that this basic law was approved by referendum on 28th June 1992 by a majority of more than 90% of the votes cast gives an idea of the extent of the consensus obtained. The new constitution came into force on 3rd July 1992 and citizens went to the polling booths again on 20th September to elect the President of the Republic and Parliament (Riigikogu). According to the new constitution, the Presidency of the Republic is mainly ceremonial; nevertheless, the prestige of the candidates (one had been Chairman of the Supreme Council since 1982, having, at that time, been appointed by Yuri Andropov) and the fact that, for the first time since 1938, Estonians had an opportunity to elect their President gave the presidential campaign greater political significance than anticipated by the constitution for the post in question. ss The former Chairman of the Supreme Council, Mr. Ruutel, obtained 42.7% of the votes, folowed closely by Mr. Meri, standing on behalf of Pro Patria, a group composed of five parties (Conservative, Christian Democrat [two parties], Liberal and Republican), an ardent defender of the market economy, who obtained 28.8% of the votes; in third place was the candidate of the Popular Front, Mr. Taagepera, with 23.8% of the votes. Since none of the candidates obtained half the number of votes cast plus one, parliament had to elect the President of the Republic. It was the Pro Patria Group candidate, Mr. Meri, who was elected by 59 votes, his opponent, Mr. Ruutel, obtaining 31. As a result of the elections, the Riigikogu was composed as follows: Pro Patria 30 members Moodukad 12 members Centrists 15 members Rural Union 8 members Independent Royalists 8 members Estonian Citizens 8 members Miscellaneous 9 members The leader of the majority group, Pro Patria (ISAMAA), once appointed Prime Minister by the President of the Republic, reached an agreement to form a coalition government with the Estonian National Pro-Independence Party and the Moodukad (moderate) Group. The main aims of this government agreement were: (a) to strengthen the state and develop the constitution; (b) to stabilise the economy and create conditions favourable to the introduction of a market economy; (c) to guarantee social stability; (d) to integrate Estonia in Europe. The agreement on the latter point (European integration) is the sign of Estonia's opening to the world. An essential aspect of this process was the improvement of the country's relations with Russia. The existence of a very large Russian minority on Estonian territory - 30% of the population -and the presence of 18 000 Soviet troops (officers and men)1, combined with trade difficulties, were the main problems between the two countries and to which it is proposed to pay special attention. Furthermore, the government agreement demonstrates its concern about the fate of Finno-Ugrians in Russia (mainly in Siberia) and Estonian citizens in Petserimaa2. The Estonian Government believes that the early establishment of a network of embassies, consulates and trade representations will help to counter what it considers to be a propaganda war waged by Russia against Estonia's interests. The government programme also proposes to tighten links with the Scandinavian countries and with the Nordic Council, to conclude a treaty of association with the European Community, to promote co-operation with the Central European countries in trade and reforms, experience of which might be of interest to Estonia and, finally, to develop relations with Japan and the United States. Lastly, the programme emphasises the importance of Estonia's integration in the European security system and its co-operation with NATO and Western European Union. The Republic of Estonia is a member of the Inter- Parliamentary Union, the Assembly of Baltic States, the Assembly of the CSCE and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and is an associate member of the North Atlantic Assembly. It has close parliamentary relations with the parliaments of Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. (c) Hungary The parliamentary elections in March and April 1990 were the first free elections held in Hungary since 1947. Prior to the elections, the communist regime had started making changes helping to transform the country into a democratic state with the adoption of a series of laws such as the 1987 electoral law allowing a quarter of members of parliament not to be members of the Communist Party, the 1986 law II granting greater freedom of expression to the press, the 1987 law I laying the juridical bases for the new regime of land ownership and a whole series of measures that allowed political organisations to exist openly. The communists withdrew their former leader, Janos Kadar, from the political scene, dropped their former name and, in May 1989, became the Hungarian Socialist Party. Finally, on 18th October 1989, parliament approved a whole series of amendments to the 1949 constitution, indicating in the preamble to the amended text that it was transitional and consequently needed to be replaced by a new constitution. 67% of the electorate voted in the elections to the National Assembly3 (Hungary having a single chamber parliamentary system). Only six parties managed to reach the minimum of 4% required to be entitled to a seat: the Democratic Forum (a movement grouping various tendencies ranging from the extreme right to the centre) with 24.7% of the votes cast, the Alliance of Free Democrats (Liberal Social-Democrat), with 21.4%, the Independent Smallholders' Party (members of the European Democrat Union), with 11.7%, the Hungarian Socialist Party, with 10.9%, the Federation of Young Democrats (Liberals), with 9%, and the Christian Democratic People's Party, with 6.5%. As a result of the elections, the composition of the 386- member National Assembly was as follows: Members Democratic Forum 164 Alliance of Free Democrats 94 Independent Smallholders' Party 44 Hungarian Socialist Party 33 Federation of Young Democrats 22 Christian Democratic People's Party 21 Independents 8 Under the extremely complicated electoral system, there are constituencies in which individual candidates stand and then there are party lists, so that each elector votes twice, once for a candidate and once for a party. An individual candidate must have the support of 750 electors in the constituency to be eligible to stand and the same requirement applies to the list sponsored by a party. To be entitled to a regional list, a party must have presented candidates in at least a quarter of the constituencies in the region concerned. To be included in the national list, it must have presented at least seven regional lists. The government resulting from these elections was based on a coalition between the Democratic Forum, the Christian Democrats and the Smallholders' Party. In February 1992, the latter was split into two factions, the most important of which in terms of numbers continued to support the government coalition. Since its election, the National Assembly has been carrying out very intensive legislative work, including the reform of the constitution. In-fighting between the various political organisations, generally caused by the underlying ideological differences affecting many of them, did not have a significant effect on parliamentary activities. During the three years of the present legislature, a series of changes has been made to the composition of the parliamentary groups, but they have had no major impact on the balance of forces in the government coalition or the opposition, initially 302 (government coalition) to 84 (opposition) and now 280 to 106. In 1991, Hungary obtained the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country and its admission to the Council of Europe: the Hungarians therefore believe that the latter thus recognised that political and juridical institutions in Hungary and the level of development of human rights were quite comparable with those in other European democracies. Hungary therefore made full accession to the European Community a priority goal in its foreign and security policy. The agreement of association with the Community, although considered of great importance, is viewed as a temporary solution. In the interest of both parties concerned, Hungary also wishes to hold exchanges of views, establish co-operation in foreign policy matters and adopt joint positions, particularly in regard to the security of the continent. Mr. Rockenbauer, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Hungarian National Assembly, told our Assembly last year that the establishment of a European defence system meant setting up jointly the institutions necessary for ensuring lasting peace in the region and he added that the Hungarian Government and Parliament wished to take part in this undertaking. Hungary therefore wishes to tighten its links with WEU, which the treaty on European Union defines as a component of the future European defence system. Insofar as Hungary is already an associate member of the future European Union, Mr. Rockenbauer said it seemed logical to establish relations between Hungary and WEU based on a similar status. In view of the fact that, in our organisation, the status of associate member is reserved for member countries of NATO that are not members of the European Community, the Hungarian parliamentarian showed a keen interest in Mr. Cox's proposal for the creation of the status of affiliated member, which might concern his country. As examples of co-operation, the Hungarian parliamentarian also referred to the possibility of becoming familiar with the work of the planning cell and taking part in the establishment of the European armaments agency, WEU assistance in applying the Danube embargo and the possibility of co-operation between WEU and Hungary with a view to applying the Open Skies and CFE Treaties and more down-to-earth proposals relating to staff training and improving budgetary management. On relations between the WEU Assembly and the Hungarian Parliament, the delegatiom from that country believes possible affiliate status should allow it to 0artici0ate to soee extent in the activiti%s of the poditical groups and committees and in the preparation of reports, particularly those dealing with matters linked with security problems in the region. Finally, the Hungarian Delegation stressed the usefulness of defining with our Assembly the form of future co-operation and participation. (d) Latvia The Supreme Council is the present legislative institution in Latvia. It was elected on 18th March 1990 in accordance with a majority electoral system that divided the country into 201 electoral districts each of which could elect one deputy. All citizens over the age of 18 were entitled to vote provided they were resident in Latvia and were Soviet citizens. Nevertheless, the special nature of the electoral system favoured native Latvians whose representation in parliament is therefore greater than their percentage of the overall population. It should be emphasised that native Latvians represent about 55% of the population of the country. On 4th May of the same year, the 1922 constitution was restored. In accordance with the constitutional law of 21st August 1991 on the status of the Republic of Latvia as a state, the 1922 constitution is considered to be the juridical basis of the Latvian state. Nevertheless, only a few articles of that constitution are actually in force, the others having been suspended and are thus not applied. In accordance with the law on the organisation of the activities of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia until the Saeima (parliament) meets, the 1922 constitution will come into full force with the convocation of the fifth Saeima, i.e. after the elections to the new parliament that are, in principle, to be held in June 1993. The Supreme Council at present has 180 members. Seats which have become vacant have not been filled since there are no substitutes and there have been no by-elections to fill them. The Supreme Council's leadership consists of the Chairman, two Vice-Chairmen and one Secretary. At the end of 1992, there were three parliamentary groups: the Latvian Popular Front (53 members), the Latvian Popular Front Group (Satversme) (34 members) and the Agricultural Group (20 members). Provisional legislation governing parliamentary groups stipulates that there must be at least twenty members to form a group. Deputies who do not manage to form a group or join existing groups may form groupings whose activities are not covered by the legislation; they have no particular rights. The Chamber has sixteen standing committees and may set up temporary committees and committees of investigation. Bills are given three readings in the Supreme Council except in urgent cases when they are given only two. They require a simple majority vote and, in the final stage, one-third of the total number of deputies is sufficient. Decrees on the application of laws are issued by the Presidium of the Supreme Council, which consists of the Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and Secretary of the Council and the Chairmen of the sixteen standing committees. Contrary to what happened at the 1990 elections, when all persons resident in the country were entitled to vote and stand for election, at the June 1993 elections only persons with Latvian citizenship may vote and be eligible to stand; although your Rapporteur understands this situation, he considers it paradoxical since some members of the Supreme Council will be unable either to be re-elected or to vote. The Republic of Latvia has now applied for membership of the Council of Europe. In the conclusions to the note submitted on 19th January 1993 by Mr. Vogel, Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of that organisation, it is stated that the problem of citizenship might prevent accession for the time being. It will be necessary to await the outcome of the legislative elections on 5th and 6th June and the adoption of a satisfactory law on citizenship. The Republic of Latvia and the other two Baltic republics have also been very active in the United Nations and the Council of Europe with a view to obtaining the total, immediate withdrawal of foreign forces from their territory. On 25th November 1992, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution backing efforts made in this sense by states participating in the CSCE, calling on the parties concerned to conclude without delay agreements allowing the early, organised and complete withdrawal of foreign troops and urging its Secretary-General to use his good offices to facilitate the withdrawal of foreign troops from the three Baltic countries. Furthermore, in a letter to the Chairman of the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Chairman of the Supreme Council of Latvia expressed the wish, on behalf of the three Baltic countries, that the committee prepare an emergency report on the withdrawal of ex-Soviet troops, while protesting "at the recent events of the various anti-state organisations acting under the cover of the ex-Soviet army, directly interfering in the internal affairs of Latvia" and expressing alarm "at the decision taken by Russian President Boris Yeltsin to suspend temporarily the withdrawal process ... subject to the prior resolution of other outstanding issues between Russia and [the Baltic] countries". In view of the above and because they "are convinced that the stability, security and respect for national sovereignty in the Baltic region are indispensable prerequisites for the long-term security of Europe as a whole", the Chairman of the Supreme Council requested the Council of Europe to hold an emergency debate during the session to be held from 1st to 5th February 1993. However, at the time of writing, such a debate still has not been held. The position of the Supreme Council of Latvia in regard to relations with WEU was described to your Rapporteur by Mr. Indulis Berzins, leader of the majority group and Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Supreme Council. He believed that WEU, whose objective is European security, will play a role as "a bridge or a link between NATO and the European Community". To date, the European security system had proved ineffective in the crisis in former Yugoslavia and Latvia considered that WEU, thanks to closer association with NATO and the involvement of new states, might more effectively accomplish the task of guaranteeing European security. In this context, Latvia wished to be given associate status in WEU. In regard to our Assembly, Mr. Berzins said Latvia might take part in plenary sessions as a guest or observer. Similarly, it might take part in seminars or other such activities organised by WEU and establish a regular exchange of information on matters of interest to both parties. (e) Lithuania The policy of reforms started in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Gorbachev immediately received the active support of the Lithuanian population. The Lithuanian reform movement, Sajudis, the nucleus of which was the scientific and artistic intellegentsia and whose Chairman was Vitautas Landsbergis, was started in mid-1988. Initially, the movement's action was based on the restoration of democratic and national rights and it subsequently called for the restoration of national independence. The movement received the immediate support of the Lithuanian public. Efforts by the Lithuanian Communist party to adopt some of the Sajudis's proposals were not enough to avert its temporary loss of influence in the country. As from 1988 and until the first elections in 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania adopted a series of important decisions: it declared Lithuanian to be the official state language, approved a constitutional amendment giving Lithuanian legislation supremacy over Soviet laws, annulled the decisions taken by the People's Sejm in 1940 proclaiming Lithuania a Soviet Socialist Republic and consequently decreeing its union with the Soviet Union and, finally, legalised the multi-party system. At the same time, the Lithuanian Communist Party broke all its links with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (in December 1989) and, in 1990, took the name of Lithuanian Democratic Labour Party. A few of its former members kept the Lithuanian Communist Party in existence, tied to its old principles: it emanated from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and was opposed to the country's independence. Following the failure of the coup d'etat in the Soviet Union in August 1991, the Lithuanian Supreme Council banned the party's activities, considering it to be a foreign organisation which had, furthermore, supported the attempted coup d'etat. The first free elections since 1926 were held in February 1990. Electors had to choose between two proposals on which the electoral campaign was concentrated: independence immediately or after negotiations with the Soviet Union. The Sajudis, resolutely in favour of the immediate restoration of independence, obtained a sweeping victory while those in favour of the second possibility, the Democratic Labour Party and its fellow travellers, were severely defeated. Following the elections, parliament had the following groups: united Sajudis, 15 members, Concord (broken away from the Sajudis), 11, Nationalist, 10, National Progressive, 11, Moderate, 16 (all these groups, upholders of right-wing positions, afforded the government more or less stable support), Polish Minority, 8, Liberal, 10, Centre, 20, and Democratic Labour Party, 11, plus 29 deputies not belonging to a group. On 11th March 1990, the Supreme Council declared, by legislative means, the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania and the partial, provisional re- establishment of Lithuania's 1938 constitution. The Soviet Union refused to recognise this law and insisted that it be repealed. Lithuania's refusal to move backwards immediately led to an economic blockade by the Soviet Union and, a few months later, in January 1991, the Soviet army occupied the radio and television building, the national printing works and a few other establishments. According to official Lithuanian figures, Soviet armed interventions caused 14 dead and 800 wounded. A national plebiscite on Lithuania's independence and the establishment of a democratic regime was held on 9th February 1991. 90.5% of the votes cast, i.e. 76% of all potential voters, voted in favour. The Soviet Union finally recognised Lithuania's independence on 6th September 1991, a few days after the failure of the coup d'etat in that country. Shortly before, in June of the same year, the Supreme Council had passed a constitutional law to prevent Lithuania taking part in post-Soviet eastern alliances. This law provided for the development of relations of mutual interest with all states that were previously part of the Soviet Union but it affirmed that in no event would Lithuania be associated with new alliances of states, be they political, military or economic, based on the structures of the former Soviet Union. Any attempt in this sense would be considered a hostile act vis-a-vis Lithuania's independence and would consequently be punished by law. Finally, the law provided that no military base or unit of the army of Russia, the CIS or any of its component states might be stationed on the territory of the Lithuanian Republic. At the same time, the economic situation was deteriorating sharply: the reduction in energy supplies from the Soviet Union, on the one hand, and the economic reform, particularly in agriculture, on the other, caused great concern among the population. On top of this, there was the chaotic situation of the political groups. As long as independence was a common goal, the consensus was maintained, but, once independence was acquired, the disparity between criteria and the almost total lack of experience and tradition among the political parties led to an almost complete paralysis of parliamentary activity. These events led to early elections being called. Two ballots were held on 25th October and 15th November 1992. At the first ballot, the new constitution, which had previously been approved by parliament, was also submitted to referendum. The new electoral law under which the elections were held kept the total number of seats at 141 and, in order to avoid the parliamentary chaos of the previous legislature, stipulated that only 71 deputies would be elected by direct suffrage, the other 70 being elected in accordance with a proportional system: candidates on each list would be given a number of seats proportional to the number of votes cast. Each elector therefore had to vote twice, once for a candidate standing in a uninominal ballot and once for a party, coalition or movement standing at national level. In order to be elected on the first ballot, more than 50% of the votes cast had to be obtained; if no candidate obtained this majority, the two best- placed candidates continued to the second ballot. To accede to national level, candidates had to obtain a minimum of 4% of the votes cast, but this requirement was not applicable to national minorities, who could be represented simply by obtaining the necessary number of votes. The independence question having been settled and the referendum on the new constitution having received wide public support (with 75% of the electorate voting, 75.5% of votes cast were in favour of the new text), practically the only issue in the electoral campaign was economic problems. In 1992, the country's industrial production was half what it had been the previous year: this collapse may be attributed to various factors of which the most important is probably the breaking of links with Russia. The situation in the agricultural sector is no better, as shown by estimates for meat production for the current year which represent 30% of 1990 figures. Furthermore, infl!tion rose to a,most 2 000% in 1992. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that a majority of citizens decided to support those who promised that relations with Russia would be improved and agricultural policy radically changed, i.e. the Lithuanian Democratic Labour Party. Its leader, Algirdas Brazauskas, was elected First Secretary of the Lithuanian Communist Party in 1988 thanks to the support of reformists; after separating his party from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he transformed it, as stated above, into a social- democrat party. Brazauskas said of the ex-communist label attached to his party in an attempt to discredit it that only 6% of its present members had been members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and that his separation from the latter preceded that of Yeltsin: nevertheless, the Russian President is not defined as a former communist. The Seimas (parliament) stemming from these elections comprises the following groups: Lithuanian Democratic Labour Party, 71 members, Sajudis, 16, Liberty (Lithuanian political prisoners and deportees), 12, Christian Democrat, 10, Charter of the Citizens of the Lithuanian Republic, 10, Social Democrat 8, Polish, 4, Lithuanian Democratic Party, 4, plus 5 members who do not belong to a political group. In regard to the Polish and other minorities, it should be stressed that, according to official figures for 1989, 79.6% of the population was of Lithuanian nationality, 9.4% Russian and 7% Polish. The other minorities (which are generally stable or dwindling) include 1.7% Bielorussians and 0.1% Germans. Although the result of these elections cannot be extrapolated and applied to the other countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union or its satellite countries, there are clear signs that a whole sector of the population is becoming disenchanted with the reforms introduced largely in a doctrinary spirit that takes little account of reality. In many cases, this voluntaristic policy is aggravating the crisis throughout the production system inherited from the past without really favouring the emergence of new productive forces. On 14th February 1993, presidential elections were held. There were two candidates, Mr. Brazauskas of the Lithuanian Democratic Labour Party and Mr. Lozoraitis, Ambassador to the United States, who had the support of the other political groups. The results obtained by Mr. Brazauskas, elected President, far exceeded those obtained by his party three months earlier. This may be considered largely due to wide support for him as a person and as a reward for the success obtained by the government in a very short lapse of time in the economic sector: a halt in the fall of industrial production and an inflation rate of only 9% in January compared with a monthly average of more than 100% under the previous government. Moreover, the new President, while considering it essential for Lithuania to have close relations with the West and benefit from its assistance, recognises that relations with Russia must be improved and include advantages for both parties; however, he is continually insisting that Soviet troops be withdrawn from Lithuania by 31st August of this year. It is clear that the parliamentary and, more generally, political stability achieved by Lithuania offers the best chances of successfully meeting the difficult challenges facing the country, be they internal or external. One of them is to fulfil Lithuania's desire to be integrated in the process of building Europe. On 11th May 1993, it became a full member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. (f) Poland The Polish constitution now consists of two texts: the old constitution of the People's Republic of Poland (now the constitution of the Republic of Poland), modifed in December 1989 by a law that removed Marxist-Leninist principles and the characteristic terminology, and the constitutional law of 17th October 1992 (known as the small constitution), whose main aim was to strengthen the executive by introducing a presidential parliamentary regime. A new constitutional text is now being prepared. The Polish Parliament consists of the Sejm (or Diet) and the Senate, the Sejm being the main representative body. In accordance with the law of 28th June 1991, the first free, democratic elections were held on 27th October of the same year. The results of these elections, set out below, gave the Sejm eighteen political groups with between 2 and 62 seats out of a total of 460: % of votes cast Number of seats Democratic Union 12.31 62 Democratic Left Alliance 11.98 60 Catholic Electoral Action 8.73 49 Polish Peasant Party 8.67 48 Confederation for an Independent Poland 7.50 46 Centre Citizens' Alliance 8.71 44 Liberal Democratic Congress 7.48 37 Peasant Accord 5.46 28 Solidarity 5.05 27 Beer Lovers' Party 3.27 16 German Minority 1.17 7 Christian Democracy 2.37 % of votes cast Number of seats Labour Solidarity 2.05 4 4 Polish Western Union 0.23 4 Party X 0.47 3 Union of Real Politics 2.25 3 Silesian Autonomy Movement 0.35 2 Eleven other political parties and groups obtained 10.85% of the votes cast without managing to obtain any parliamentary seats. The electoral law provides for the election of 391 members of the Diet by local constituencies. No less than seven candidates may be elected in each constituency. The candidates for the remaining 69 posts are elected on a national list. Mandates are shared out between lists having obtained a seat in at least five constituencies or a minimum of 5% of the votes cast in all the constituencies. These rules are not applicable to lists of national minorities. In both cases, the election is by proportional voting. Elections to the Senate are by majority voting. Electoral constituencies do not necessarily have to correspond to those for the Diet. There are 49 of them and each elects two senators, except for Warsaw and Katowice, which each elect three. In the Sejm, the political parties form parliamentary groups, each of which must have a minimum of 15 members, and groups of members which are not subject to this rule but have more restrictive conditions for working in the chamber. In the Diet, a total of 33 friendship groups have established relations with parliaments throughout the world, eight of them having relations with the parliaments of all WEU member countries except the Netherlands. It is evident that the composition of the Sejm, where the two main political parties - Liberal Democrats and former Communists - each obtained barely 12% of the votes cast and, percentage-wise, have similar parliamentary representation, does not facilitate the formation of homogeneous, stable governments. There have been four governments or attempts to form a government since the formation of the Bieleki cabinet in January 1991. Its nomination and approval took parliament a month in an atmosphere of dissension. The present government of Mrs. Suchoka, formed on 11th July 1992, is a coalition between the Democratic Union, the National Christian Union (the Catholic Electoral Action parliamentary group), the Peasant Alliance, the Christian Democrat Party, the Liberal Democratic Congress, the Polish Peasant Party and part of the Beer Lovers' Party. Certain opinion polls carried out in April and May 1992 to which your Rapporteur had access revealed that 50% of the population was very unsatisfied with the political situation and only 6% satisfied. The conclusions were even more negative in respect of the economic situation. More recently, following the appointment of Mrs. Suchoka as Prime Minister, this tendency has started to change. Thus, public confidence in the government rose from 15% in May 1992 to 39% in September of the same year. On that date, the percentage approving the Prime Minister was 58% and she thus became the country's third most popular person, after the Minister of Labour, Mr. Kuron (66%), and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Skubiszewski (61%). Throughout the visit by the Committee for Parliamentary and Public Relations to Warsaw on 10th and 11th March 1993, attention was paid to the question of the development of relations between WEU and Poland in general and between our Assembly and the Polish Parliament in particular. Mr. Wielowieyski, Diet representative to the WEU Assembly, referred to the initiative taken by the Sejm, which is proposing to organise a symposium on "Western European Union thinking on security in Central Europe" in which the countries of the forum of consultation and the WEU member countries would take part. The initiative was well received by the Presidential Committee and preparations are now under way to hold it next autumn. Mr. Wielowieyski was also afraid the process of integrating Poland into the European Community might be a two-speed affair: one for purely economic matters and another, more rapid one for the other aspects, particularly those concerning security and defence. The Vice-President of the Diet, Mr. Kurczewski, said no more when he said Poland's membership of the Community would have to be preceded by a political co-operation stage to cover, inter alia, as he stressed, security policy. Our Polish colleagues also referred to the fact that NATO was showing a more constructive attitude towards Poland than WEU. Nevertheless, Poland applied for membership of NATO without success. This application was made without any debate having been held on it in parliament, as Mr. Iwinski, member of the Democratic Left Alliance Group (former Communist Party) complained. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ananicz, said his country was ready for full co-operation with WEU while considering relations with NATO were more flexible than with our organisation; however, he added that this might be due to WEU being in the midst of a transformation stage. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence told our committee that Poland had already adopted a position on security policy: it wished to be associated with Euro-Atlantic security, i.e. embark upon a process of rapprochement with NATO and WEU designed to lead to full accession to both organisations. The document entitled "Principles of Polish security policy" emanating from the Presidency of the Republic and dated 2nd November 1992 is very clear on this subject and affirms that Poland's strategic target for the nineties is to ensure membership of NATO and WEU, the European pillar of NATO and an essential link in the European collective security system. Our Polish hosts were also dissatisfied with the status they now have in the Assembly (since 1990, they have been invited to each session and have participated in each of them without exception). They believe more thought should be given to the idea of a possible affiliate status or of creating a status for countries that were candidates or wished to become candidates. It would, moreover, be necessary to intensify or extend co- operation between the Institute for Security Studies and the Department of Strategic Studies of the Ministry of Defence and also contacts between chiefs of defence staff and, among other forms of co-operation, associate staff of the Polish Ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs with all WEU working groups. (g) Romania The first legislative and presidential elections held in Romania after the fall of the communist regime were held on 20th May 1990. As a result of the elections, the Chamber of Deputies had 263 members belonging to the National Salvation Front (FSN) and 124 from the other seventeen parties and movements, 29 of whom formed the Democratic Union of Romanian Magyars. As the representatives of groups belonging to the minorities did not obtain sufficient votes to accede to the Chamber, they were officially given nine seats. The presidential elections brought Mr. Iliescu to power. He was the FSN candidate and was elected with 85% of the votes cast, a percentage significantly higher than that obtained by his party in the legislative elections (67%). The government emerging from these elections, presided by Mr. Roman, stayed in power until October 1991, with a cabinet reshuffle in the meantime. During that period, the confrontation between Mr. Roman and Mr. Iliescu, i.e. between reformers and conservatives in the FSN, paved the way for the future separation of the movement. Miners from the Jiu valley, spearhead of a population which is suffering considerably from the consequences of the economic reform movement, demonstrated in Bucharest and contributed to the fall of the Roman government. A new government was then formed with Mr. Stolojan, Prime Minister, and the parti#ipation0of other parl)amentary political groups (Agraria.s, Liferals and Ecologists) and independent persons. Moreover, the new Romanian constitution was adopted by parliament on 21st November 1991; submitted to referendum on 8th December of the same year, it was approved by an overwhelming majority of the population. Once the new constitution came into force and the new electoral laws on legislative and presidential elections were adopted, on 27th September 1992 the country was called to the polling booths to elect the President of the Republic and representatives to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. There are two rounds in the presidential election if no candidate obtains a majority during the first round. Mr. Iliescu was elected President of the Republic in the second ballot, with 61.43% of the votes cast. The legislative elections led to the following composition of parliament: Chamber of Deputies Seats Parliamentary Group of the Democratic National Salvation Front (Mr. Iliescu) 117 Parliamentary Group of the National Christian Democrat Peasant Party and the Romanian Ecological Party 44 Parliamentary Group of National Salvation Front (Mr. Roman) 43 Parliamentary Group of the Romanian National Unity Party 29 Parliamentary Group of the Romanian Magyar Democratic Union 27 Parliamentary Group of the Romania Mare Party (Greater Romania) 16 Liberal Parliamentary Group 14 Parliamentary Group of the Civic Alliance Party 13 National Minorities Parliamentary Group 13 Socialist Parliamentary Group (former Communists) 13 Social Democrat Parliamentary Group of the Romanian Social Democrat Party 10 Independents 2 Senate Seats DNSF Parliamentary Group 49 Parliamentary Group of the National Christian Democrat Peasant Party 22 NSF Parliamentary Group 18 Liberal Civil Guidance Parliamentary Group 12 Parliamentary Group of the Romanian National Unity Party 13 Parliamentary Group of the Romanian Magyar Democratic Union 12 Partida Nationala Parliamentary Group (Romania Mare and Romanian Socialist Party, former Communist) 11 Agrarian Democratic Party 5 Independent 1 In the light of the results of the elections, President Iliescu nominated as a candidate for the post of Prime Minister Mr. Vacaru, a technocrat with no party affiliation, who received a vote of confidence from the Chamber of Deputies and Senate meeting in joint session on 19th November 1992. His government is composed of members of the DNSF and independents. In his speech opening parliament, the President of the Republic, Mr. Iliescu, stressed that one of Romania's principal political aims was to strengthen links with NATO and WEU which he considered essential for the defence of national security and territorial integrity; this position would, he said, lead to Romania's accession to both organisations. On 17th February 1993, Mr. Iliescu visited WEU headquarters in Brussels, where he was received by the Secretary-General, Mr. van Eekelen, and met the WEU Council. The Romanian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Melescanu, addressing the WEU Assembly on 1st December 1992, announced that his country proposed to set up a special body "with the priority objective of integration in European structures and, first and foremost, the European Communities, WEU and the Council of Europe". This specialised body would be "responsible for marshalling resources, identifying activities and working out a strategy to speed up the process which could be lengthy". The Minister referred to the process started in Petersberg between the member countries of WEU and the Central European countries, which he believed to be "a qualitatively new stage in the field of European co-operation". He welcomed the idea of creating "affiliated" status for the Central European countries. The Minister reiterated "the importance of the parliamentary dimension, the key democratic component of the process of redefining the architecture of security and co-operation in Europe to which the recently-elected Romanian Parliament wishes to make a more active contribution". Mr. Melescanu concluded his address by affirming that "WEU and its Assembly are models of international action and co-operation at governmental and parliamentary level for the whole of Europe". During the visit by the Assembly's Political Committee to Romania from 30th March to 3rd April 1993, your Rapporteur, who was taking part in his capacity as Rapporteur and as a member of the Political Committee, was able to note, mainly at meetings with members of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees of the two chambers, the degree of consensus between the various parliamentary groups vis-a-vis foreign policy and security concerns and aims. This consensus may be explained by the fact that the disbandment of the Warsaw Pact allowing Romania to recover its freedom also gave the country a feeling of insecurity that nationalist tension in the region is tending to amplify. Romanians believe that integration in European economic and security institutions would bring stability to the region and this would be a very important factor for European security. On relations with WEU, our hosts found the creation of affiliate status would be interesting in a first stage of the integration process. Mr. Vacaroiu, Leader of the FDSN Parliamentary Group and a member of the Romanian parliamentary delegation invited to WEU Assembly sessions, told your Rapporteur that, initially, he wished our Assembly to increase the number of members of that delegation (two at present) so as to allow really multi-party representation of Romanian parliamentarians and a division of tasks that would make their presence more effective. In a second stage, they should take part in the work of committees, including the preparation of reports. The WEU Assembly has invited the Romanian Parliament to send a delegation to each of its plenary sessions since June 1991 and two Romanian parliamentarians have regularly attended all our sessions without exception. Your Rapporteur considers it worth adding that, at the meeting held during the visit to Romania with members of the Euro-Atlantic Centre (an institute studying security problems in the region and composed of representatives of communications, cultural and political circles), the latter unanimously expressed the wish to support Romania's integration in the European institutions, including WEU. Finally, the Romanian Parliament has set up a series of groups for friendship with other parliaments, including those of Germany, Belgium, Spain, France and the United Kingdom. Your Rapporteur believes it would be expedient to use such resources to tighten links with all parliaments and more particularly with those with which we are concerned in this report. (h) The Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic As from 1st January 1993, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic have been independent, sovereign states but, until 31st December 1992, they formed the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. For practical reasons and to avoid repetition, your Rapporteur has therefore had to include them in the same chapter. Once initial enthusiasm for the velvet revolution had waned, coming to grips with hard facts, i.e. the immense problems arising, progressively undermined the internal cohesion of the principal Czechoslovak political movements. Splits began to form in the Civic Forum, in the Czech part of the country, and Public against Violence, in the Slovak part. In 1991, the Civic Forum divided into what might summarily be called the right and the left: those in favour of the most rapid progress possible towards a market economy, whatever the social cost (Mr. Klaus) and those who, while approving the aims pursued, paid greater attention to the social costs, thus calling for a stage-by-stage transition (Mr. Dienstbier). These dissensions led to the creation of the Civil Democratic Party by Mr. Klaus's followers and the Civic Movement under Mr. Dienstbier; what happened to them will be examined in the paragraphs dealing with the 1992 general legislative elections. At the same time, in the Slovak part of the country, Public against Violence underwent a similar schism but for different reasons that were nationalist rather than economic. Under Mr. Meciar, the nationalist tendency became the Movement for Democratic Slovakia while the federal, minority tendency retained the party's original name. In those days, the principal task of the Constituent Assembly, elected in June 1991, was to draw up the constitution. It proved incapable of reaching the consensus that was necessary to accomplish its task. The fundamental questions - Should it be a federal or a confederal state? Should the constitutions of the two republics, in any event, retain a certain degree of concordance with that of the state? - obtained no definite answer. The possibility of a treaty uniting the two republics approved by their respective parliaments and of an exclusively internal nature was also discussed. Eventually, President Havel proposed holding a referendum to find a way out of the political and constitutional deadlock in which the country was caught. The proposed referendum was rejected by the Federal Parliament (with the support of the Slovaks and the Communists) and by the Slovak Parliament itself. This was the situation in which the legislative elections to the Federal Assembly and the Czech and Slovak Parliaments was held on 5th and 6th June 1992. The Federal Assembly, consisting of the Chamber of the People and the Chamber of Nations, with a total of 300 seats (74 for the Czech parties and 126 for the Slovak parties), was as follows: Czech parties Seats Civic Demoratic Party - Christian Democratic Party 85 Left Bloc 34 Social Democrats 16 Republicans and Christian Democratic Union (R-CDU) 4 Christian Democratic Union - Czecho- slovak People's Party (CDU-PP) 13 Liberal Social Union 12 The Civic Movement obtained a little under 5% of the votes cast and obtained no seats. Slovak parties Seats Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (MDS) 57 Party of the Democratic Left 23 Slovak National Party 15 Hungarian Minority Coalition 12 Social Democratic Party in Slovakia 5 86% of the electorate voted. The composition of the national parliaments was as follows: Czech National Council (200 members) Seats Civic Democratic Party and Christian Democratic Party 76 Left Bloc 35 Social Democracy 16 Liberal Social Union 16 Christian Democratic Union - Czecho- slovak People's Party 15 Republicans and Christian Democratic Union 14 Civic Democratic Alliance 14 Movement for Self-Administered Democracy in Moravia and Silesia 14 Slovak National Council (150 members) Seats Movement for a Democratic Slovakia 74 Party of the Democratic Left 29 Christian Democratic Movement 18 Slovak National Party 15 Hungarian Minority Coalition 14 Following these elections, the Federal Government has been composed of a coalition between the Civic Democratic Party, the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia and the Christian Democratic Union-Czechoslovak People's Party. The Prime Minister and four Deputy Prime Ministers, as well as the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Defence, the Economy, Finance and the Interior form this government. Since it had been agreed to transfer widespread powers to the Czech and Slovak institutions, the majority of the leaders of the latter avoided taking part in the Federal Government in order to exercise governmental duties in their respective republics. The Czech Government, formed on 2nd July 1992, was a coalition between the Civic Democratic Party-Christian Democratic Party, the Civic Democratic Alliance and the UDC-PP. Mr. Klaus was Prime Minister. The Slovak Government, set up on the same date, had Mr. Meciar as Prime Minister at the head of a cabinet including a member of the Slovak National Party and an independent, the rest of the ministers belonging to the majority party, the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia. In a last attempt to avoid the disintegration of the country, Mr. Havel decided to stand for the Presidency of the Republic in the Federal Assembly which, once constituted after the June elections, had to elect the head of state. In the first round, Mr. Havel did not succeed in obtaining the three-fifths of the votes needed in the three constituent bodies of the Federal Assembly - the Chamber of the People and the Chambers of the Nations (Czech and Slovak), mainly because of the opposition of the Slovak Nationalists and former Communists. In the second round, when a simple majority was required, the Slovak Chamber of Nations gave him only 18 votes when he needed 38. The defeat of Mr. Havel was one of the last mishaps in the swiftly accelerating process of the country's separation. Finally, on 25th November 1992, the Federal Assembly approved by a narrow margin the law on the partition of Czechoslovakia. In the Chamber of the People, 92 of the 150 members voted for the law (2 more than the number needed) while in the Chambers of the Nations, composed of 75 members each, those for the division of the country obtained 45 votes in the Czech part and 46 in Slovakia, the number required being 45. On 1st January 1993, the disappearance of the Federal Czech and Slovak Republic, born in 1918, became a reality. The parliamentarians from the two states then prepared to elect the presidents of their respective republics. On 26th January 1993, Vaclav Havel was elected President of the Czech Republic by 109 of the 200 members of parliament. He had the support of parliamentarians belonging to the government coalition, the Civic Democratic Party-Christian Democratic Party, the Christian Democratic Union-People's Party and the Civic Democratic Alliance, but ran into the radical opposition of the extreme right-wing Republicans. In Slovakia, after various attempts, it was Mr. Kovak who was elected President of the Republic after obtaining the votes of 106 of the 150 parliamentarians composing the Slovak Parliament. He had the support of some of the members of the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia, the Party of the Democratic Left and the Slovak National Party. Your Rapporteur has tried several times to ascertain the views of the Czech and Slovak Parliaments regarding our Assembly and the best means of developing relations with them, but there has been no answer as yet. III. Conclusions The parliaments of most Central European countries grouped in the forum of consultation have expressed their agreement with the proposal to develop their relations with the WEU Assembly as set out in the declaration issued at the extraordinary meeting of the WEU Council and the Central European states in Bonn on 19th June 1992. Some of those parliaments have also made relatively firm proposals about how they consider these relations might be developed. As has already been seen, these proposals related mainly to obtaining permanent guest status, an increase in the number of parliamentarians invited to attend our sessions and their participation in meetings of committees and the preparation of reports. Other proposals sought to organise meetings between our Assembly's Political Committee and members of the foreign affairs and defence committees of the Central European parliaments to consider the possible accession of those countries to WEU and to draw up a programme to meet that aim. Information contained in the introduction to this report shows the initiatives taken by our Assembly in recent years to promote the development of relations with the parliaments of those countries. However, it should be pointed out that any decision that might be adopted on the development of those relations will have, on the one hand, to respect scrupulously Article IX of the modified Brussels Treaty and, on the other, to take account of the present provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the WEU Assembly, in particular Rule 17 (observers) and 42.7 (procedure in committees). In any event, your Rapporteur believes the Assembly's invitation to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges in Order 85 on the enlargement of WEU, adopted by the Standing Committee in Rome on 19th April 1993, "to examine the creation of an 'observer status' and a 'permanent observer' or 'guest member status' for representatives of observer states and of the nine Central European countries assembled in the forum of consultation" and the invitations in the same order to the Political Committee "to monitor the development of WEU's enlargement", to the Committee on Budgetary Affairs and Administration "to examine in detail the consequences of enlargement for the Assembly's budget and premises" and to the Presidential Committee "to co-ordinate the activities of the Political Committee, the Committee on Budgetary Affairs and Administration and the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges in this matter, so as to ensure that appropriate reports and recommendations can be put to the Assembly no later than its December 1993 meeting" are appropriate answers to the basic problems and to the equally important practical problems raised by this question. Your Rapporteur therefore considers that the proposals our committee can and must implement at the present time to cope with the development of our relations with the parliaments of the Central European countries must above all aim to intensify action already carried out. Visits by Assembly committees to those countries have proved extremely useful and should be continued so as to improve mutual knowledge. Encouraging such visits should therefore be one of the Assembly's priority tasks. These visits might also coincide with the preparation of reports dealing with the region in question, thus helping to depict more closely in those documents the opinions of those concerned. Visits should be organised on the basis of meetings with parliamentarians and governmental authorities and also with institutions and associations dealing with security and defence and with higher education establishments and, of course, the media. The Assembly must also be prepared to take part in symposia held in those countries on matters within its purview and to hold symposia of its own on matters of particular interest to the said countries and in which they might take part. Invitations must continue to be sent to the ministers for foreign affairs and defence of the Central European countries to speak at Assembly sessions; an attempt should even be made to ensure the more frequent presence of as many such speakers as possible. Finally, our Assembly should take the necessary steps to send our publications, the letter from the Assembly, reports and other documents to as many people and institutions as possible in those countries. It should also arrange to receive documents from those countries that might enable better knowledge and understanding to be obtained of their opinions and aims. All these initiatives will no doubt contribute to the continued development of our relations, to a broadening of our possibilities of consensus and to preparing for closer co- operation in the future. 11. Adopted in committee by 5 votes to 0 with one abstention. 22. Members of the committee: Mr. Tummers (Chairman); Mrs. Fischer, Sir John Hunt (Vice-Chairmen); MM. Amaral, Buehler (Alternate: Junghanns), Caldoro (Alternate: Paire), Colombo (Alternate: Visibelli), Sir Anthony Durant, Mrs. Err, Mr. Eversdijk, Mrs. Frias, Mr. Ghesquiere, Dr. Godman, Mr. Gouteyron, Sir Russell Johnston, MM. Kempinaire, Lemoine, Lopez Henares, Martins, Nunez, Pfuhl, Reimann, Rodota, Seitlinger, Speroni, N.... 11. According to Estonian estimates. It should be underlined that the Russian authorities have given no official figures in this connection. 22. A small region in the south-east of the country which, under the Tartu peace treaty between Estonia and Soviet Russia signed in 1920, belonged to Estonia; however, since the frontiers were modified in 1944, it is on Russian territory. 33. In the by-elections held in Budapest and Esztergom in 1991 and in Kisber in 1992, the rate of participation was 22.14% and 27% respectively. ------- For information, please contact: Yves ROBINS, Press Counsellor _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ | ASSEMBLY OF WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ | 43, avenue du President Wilson _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ | F-75775 Paris cedex 16 France _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ | Tel 331-47235432; Fax 331-47204543 _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ | E-mail: 100315.240@Compuserve.com