12th EFGP Council Meeting, Budapest

Applications for observership

Marian Coyne, EFGP committee, introduced the application from the Serbian Greens for observer status. The full report is included in the delegate pack, she noted. She reported that, although there had been some differences between certain personalities amongst the Greens in Serbia, the recommendation of the committee to accept observership status remained the same.

Borisa Antonijevic, Green Ecological Party of Serbia, then introduced himself as a spokesperson of the party. There is also a female spokesperson, he added - and this is a rule of the party. He said that his party was founded on the principles of democracy; human rights; solidarity with animals, future generations and all people; tolerance and co-operation.
He said that there will be elections next year in Serbia, and that his party aims to enter parliament, which would bring about a big step forward in Green politics in Serbia. It is important to his party that they become an observer of the federation, he said.

Budimir Babic, of the Green Party of Yugoslavia, then spoke. Although his party had some problems with the Serbian Greens, he said they were better than the social democrats. He wished them well in the elections.

Paolo Bergamaschi, Italy, asked Borisa and Budimir if they accepted Marian Coyne as a mediator between them, on behalf of the committee?

Franz Floss, Austria, said that he had visited the parties in Serbia. He said that there were now more than 14 'Green' parties in Serbia - it is vital that we support the Greens of Serbia, he said.

Borisa replied that his party needed the help and input of the Federation, and that he would work with any Green party in Serbia that accepted democracy.

György Droppa, EFGP Committee, then introduced the Moldovan Greens' application for observership. Moldova, he said, was the poorest country in Europe. Nonetheless, the Moldovan Green Party is well developed, with around 30,000 members. Although they did not contest the last elections, they did at one time have a Green minister. One of their longest-running campaigns has been against nuclear transport through Moldova. The committee supported the Moldovan Greens' application for observer status, he said.

Ion Dediu, Green Ecological Movement, Moldova, introduced himself and his party. The situation in Moldova is very complicated, he said. He outlined some of his party's policies, both ecological and social. He would be very thankful to be included in the Federation as an observer, he said.

Dumitru Marin, Romania, spoke in support of the Moldovan Greens. They have a good programme, he said, and they fought against communism. The Romanian Greens have good relations with them.

Antoinette Brouyaux, Ecolo, asked why there had not been any participation in the federation before, if the party had been established for so long?

Ion Dediu replied that there had been involvement before.

György Droppa explained that the Moldovan Greens had been present at past council meetings, and that there had been involvement over the past three years.

Marian Coyne, EFGP committee, asked what actions or structures the party had put in place to promote women? She also asked if the Moldovan Greens intended to contest the next elections?

Ion Dediu replied that currently only about 35% of their party were women, and they needed to do a lot more to promote women. He also said that they had protested at the fact that they were stopped from contesting the last elections. They were optimistic for future elections, he said.

György Droppa, EFGP committee, then introduced the application from observership from Movimento Partito do Tierra (MPT), Portugal.

Jose Delgado, MPT, then introduced himself and his party. The party came from the background of the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s, he said. Although they have no action on gender, there is a good balance within the party. He looked forward to being accepted as an observer in the federation.

Victor Cavaco, Os Verdes, said that there was a mention of Os Verdes in the committee report, and therefore he felt it necessary to publish a short article, which was circulated with conference papers, clarifying the issue.

Philippe Lamberts, Ecolo, said that the report of Os Verdes contradicted the committee's report. It appears that the committee has not done its homework, he said. We must surely ask the committee to produce a new report that incorporates the views of Os Verdes?

György Droppa, EFGP committee, said that the opinion of Os Verdes was not incorporated in his report.

Paolo Bergamaschi, Italy, said that Os Verdes' remarks are minor details. We should take into account the political situation in Portugal, he said - we must be pragmatic.

Ulrike Lunacek, Austria, proposed that the vote be postponed, and that the 2 parties both be given a chance to make comment.

Jose Delgado, in answering some of the points, said that many of the statements made by Os Verdes are simply not true. Os Verdes had always stood in a coalition, he said. We have invited Os Verdes to work together, he said, but they aren't interested.

Debate - "New Security Challenges for the Greens"

At 12:10pm, Pekka Haavisto, EFGP committee, took the chair for the debate on "New Security Challenges for the Greens" He said that the security situation had been changed significantly by the events of 11th September. This is also a challenge for the peace movement, he said. What do we propose? How do we deal with this problem? He then introduced the speakers.

Hans Günter Brauch, Free University of Berlin, introduced his talk by asking, "Why did politicians react the way they did after 11th September?" He said there were three essential positions taken by politicians. The first was to counter force with force. The second was a predominantly peaceful way forward, looking for dialogue and understanding. The third was essentially a middle way, combining elements of both approaches. There was a contrast, he said, in the way Green parties responded to such challenges. Broadly speaking, those in opposition proposed peaceful solutions, while those in government preferred a more pragmatic approach. Looking to the future of security, he said that over the next 100 years, non-military challenges will tend to threaten world relations. However, we should be clear that while it is possible to predict trends, it is not possible to predict events. Nobody predicted 11th September, for example.
The conflicts of the future, he said, would most likely stem from domestic insecurity, scarce resource conflicts or the radicalisation of political groups. Climate change is one factor that may have a substantial impact on security, for example. The Mediterranean region will be hardest hit by security factors of climate change, he said. Population growth may also be a significant factor, particularly in North Africa, and in this area agricultural productivity and self-sufficiency are also declining.
In Central and Eastern Europe, food policy and energy policy will also be crucial factors in security. The way to avoid possible conflicts is through a shift to renewable energy and local food production, he said.

Joost Lagendijk MEP, GroenLinks, said that, in his opinion, a European Common Foreign and Security Policy is inevitable sooner or later. As Greens, we have to try to influence the debate, he said. There is, he said, a contradiction in being both critical of US foreign policy and being against a common role for European policy. Meanwhile, the argument for the CFSP has got much stronger since 11th September. On the EU rapid reaction force, Joost said that the current proposals of 60,000 troops available within 60 days were probably not realistic. Indeed, the EU will probably be unable to play a big military role for a number of years. As Greens, we can affect the end result of the CFSP, Joost said. For example, we can press for conflict prevention alongside military intervention. This is a way of "mainstreaming" conflict prevention. In addition, the idea of the civil peace corps, which has been adopted on paper for the last 6 years, needs to be put into reality. We can also argue for the restructuring of military budgets in order to put money into peaceful conflict-prevention and reduce the spending on conventional military expenditure. In addition, it is vitally important that the CFSP is under parliamentary control - both the European Parliament and national parliaments. In concluding, Joost said that Macedonia was a prime example of where the EU succeeded by doing what it was good at: talking, talking, talking.

Thomas Sevigny, Green Party of the USA, said that 11th September was a source of much shock and disbelief for US Greens. Since then, however, Bush has used the events of that day to push through a range of deeply conservative bills, including on civil liberties. The CIA has practically been given a free hand to spy on Americans. Financial and medical records can be viewed, wires can be tapped much easier than was ever possible before 11th September. Meanwhile, immigrants who are believed to represent a "possible threat" can be detained without trial. The measures under consideration are even more frightening - there has even been debate on the possibility of legalising torture!
One of the most frightening consequences of 11th September, however, has been the stifling of political dissent. Any expressions of dissent are automatically labelled 'unpatriotic'. In a sense, it's a kind of post-cold-war McCarthyism. Green parties around the world should be speaking out against this erosion of civil liberties, he concluded.

Heidi Meinzolt-Depner, Germany, said that women everywhere have discussed how to counter the pro-war agenda, which has been prevalent since 11th September. It is vital, she said, to raise awareness of alternatives to the pro-war agenda. She said that solidarity was very important in a situation such as this, but it should be solidarity with all victims of terrorism and oppression, and should not be focussed at the level of power politics.

Pekka Haavisto, EFGP Committee, then opened the debate up to delegates.

Ernst Gülcher, advisor to Green/EFA group, asked whether, in the light of 11th September, we were still allowed to be critical of US foreign policy? The US does tend to sabotage many constructive initiatives, he said.

Ulrika Lunacek, Austria, said that it has become more difficult to criticise US foreign policy since 11th September, but it is important that we continue to do so. In addressing Hans Brauch's contribution, she said that population growth in itself is rarely a problem. What is a problem is the lack of reproductive rights, the lack of democracy in countries affected, how wealth is distributed and other related factors.

Ane Aadland, Norway, questioned why there was no mention of HIV/AIDS in connection with population? Surely in some areas population will fall rather than rise because of this?

Paolo Bergamasci, Italy, asked whether the world will see an increase in multilateralism in the light of 11th September?

Margaret Wright, England & Wales, thanked Joost Lagendijk for his contribution, but questioned what he meant by strength in foreign policy?

Aude Vidal, FYEG, argued that we should be putting forward a Green alternative to US foreign policy.

Franz Floss, Austria, said that it is important to be distinct from the US - we don't want to be competition to the US, he said. He stressed the importance of the multilateral approach, and asked Joost why he made no mention of the UN mandate in connection with foreign and security policy?

Chas Booth, Scotland, said the Scottish Green Party was strongly against the war in Afghanistan. He also said there was a strong feeling of disillusionment that Bündnis 90/Die Grünen had backed German involvement in the war.

Françoise Duthu, France, said that the essential point to remember is that after 11th September we should be aiming for justice, not revenge.

Elizabeth Schroedter MEP, Germany, said that security was much more than just defence. She also said that Europe speaking with one voice in our approach to conflicts and problems was important.

Yiannis Tsironis, Greece, said that war is a crime, and we should declare this. The perpetrators of 11th September should be brought to trial, he said.

In response to these points, Tom Sevigny, Green Party of the USA, said that the current approach was by no means a multilateral approach, because multilateral suggests some sort of equality of partners, which was patently absent from the war in Afghanistan. He said that, unfortunately, there was very little analysis among most Americans about the causes of 11th September - many seem to think that it happened in a political vacuum. He also said that Bush's pronouncement of 'You're either for us or you're against us' means critics of US foreign policy are automatically regarded with suspicion.

Joost Lagendijk MEP, GroenLinks, said that we shouldn't copy the US model for foreign policy, but that it was important that we all speak with one voice - for example with a single seat for Europe on the UN Security Council. He agreed that acting militarily was not desirable, but said that sometimes it was required. On the issue of a UN mandate, he said it is important, but we should not limit ourselves to only working where a UN mandate exists.

Heidi Meinzolt-Depner, Germany, said that militarism, unilateralism and violence will only bring more of the same. She said she greatly regretted the fact that Bündnis 90/Die Grünen had sanctioned the military action in Afghanistan, as it has effectively removed the political voice of a large anti-war constituency.

Hans Brauch, Free University of Berlin, said that population growth is not a security threat, but rather a challenge in conjunction with a number of other factors, for example the education of women. He said that in the CIA's assessment of global trends for 2050 there is no mention of climate change or desertification. This is more than a little worrying, he said. Finally, he stressed the importance of conflict prevention as a security tool.

Pekka Haavisto, EFGP Committee, thanked the speakers and concluded the debate.

Outi Hannula, EFGP Committee, introduced the proposals by the Statutes Committee on Statute Changes.

Outi then outlined the proposals for changes in the statutes put forward. Firstly, the proposal to have a new deadline of 5 days before council OR congress to introduce TOPICAL resolutions. The committee felt that the number of these, especially at congress, was too high, and it was impossible to deal with them all, she said.

Franz Floss, Austria, then outlined the proposal to extend the committee term to 3 terms. He said that it generally took one term to learn the job, and was therefore a great waste if committee members were expected to step down just as they were getting to grips with the job. He also introduced the proposal to extend the term of office of Arnold Cassola, to enable the next committee elections to be held for all posts.
Outi also outlined the proposals to remove the right to adopt statutes by congress, which was principally a forum for debate, she said. However, if approved by the council, this proposal needs to be confirmed by the congress in Berlin 17-19 May 2002.

Pekka Haavisto, EFGP committee, thanked all the speakers and concluded the morning's proceedings at 2.15pm.

Discussion - "Environment, Energy, Security & Stability in Eastern Europe"

Marie Schaffer, EFGP Committee, introduced the discussion at 3.30pm. She introduced Serhii Kurykin, Green Minister of the Environment in Ukraine.

Serhii said that, unfortunately, Sustainable Development is far from the understanding of most people in Central and Eastern Europe. The main field of political debate is the internal field, he said. Of course, environment and energy are very closely related, as Ukraine knows to its cost, he said. He spoke briefly of the system in the Ukraine - they have a mixed voting system there with a 4% threshold, which means that the Greens were able to get into parliament there. Sooner or later, he said, the Greens had to decide whether to participate in government or not. This was a very difficult decision for the Greens, he said. In the end, they decided to accept.
When we talk about sustainable development, however, we also talk about money, he said. Everything costs money, and Ukraine has significant foreign debt. Because of this, debt for environment swaps are an important way forward for Ukraine, he said.

Pekka thanked Serhii for his contribution, and said that from his perspective, debt for environment swaps work quite well. He cited Poland as an example for where it had worked well. He then asked Serhii about the issue of human rights in Ukraine. This is a very sensitive issue, he said.

Arnold Cassola, EFGP Committee, asked Serhii what initiatives he had taken to integrate civil society and NGOs in Ukraine?

Serhii answered that human rights was a very painful question in the Ukraine. There have been many serious allegations, he said, but no hard evidence. On the other hand, many people tried to use the death of the journalist for their own political ends. Serhii said that he didn't know who killed the journalist. He said that the way forward out of the situation was for openness from the official bodies. All papers and documents relating to the incident should be on public view, he said. Meanwhile, in the whole situation, many people have forgotten about the journalist himself he should be remembered, said Serhii. On the issue of NGOs, Serhii said he is working hard to try in involve NGOs. One recent example was over the Kyoto protocol.

Franz Floss, Austria, agreed that there appeared to be no hard facts about the death of the journalist, but said that nonetheless it is a political issue, and the Greens are part of the government. Isn't this a problem?

Serhii replied that Franz was welcome to come to see the situation in Ukraine for himself at the next meeting of Green East-West Dialogue.

Zurab Mgaloblishvili, Georgia, said that the position of the Ukrainian Greens was well understood in Georgia. The decision that Serhii was to become a Minister was discussed by the Georgian Greens and it was agreed unanimously that it was the right decision.

Serhii added that it was the decision of his party that he became a Minister - it was not his personal decision.

Joost Lagendijk MEP asked whether there was a good relationship between the EU and Ukraine.

Serhii replied that there was a good relationship. He has met with Margot Wallstrom recently, and she was keen on greater co-operation between the EU and Ukraine. He added that Ukrainian membership of the EU is possible in the future.

Hans Günter Brauch, Free University of Berlin, asked if Ukraine is planning any joint initiatives on emissions trading with western companies, particularly on renewables?

Serhii replied that Ukraine had made a big mistake in the past with a large-scale wind development. This is now running into problems. Nonetheless, renewables may have a good future in Ukraine. He added that he was against quota trading.

Kees Kalkman, GroenLinks, said that there was an impression in Western Europe that Ukraine was heading towards greater authoritarianism. Is this true? If it isn't there's clearly a need for better sources of information on Ukraine. If it is true, how are the Greens dealing with it?

Serhii replied that Ukraine is in evolution, just like every other post-authoritarian country. The foreign media tend to be over-simplistic when they portray the country, however.

Marie Schaffer, EFGP committee, then thanked Serhii for his contribution and wished him well for the future.

Presentation of normal resolutions

At 4.30pm, Gabriela Szuba took the chair for the presentation and voting on normal resolutions. She explained that those resolutions considered non-controversial or easily explained would go first.

Caroline Hoffmann, Co-ordinator, North Sea Greens, introduced normal resolution number 3 on the ratification of the position paper on fisheries from the North Sea Greens. This was then passed unanimously.

Caroline then introduced normal resolution number 4 on pollution in the North Sea, which was also passed unanimously.

Antoinette Brouyaux, Ecolo, then introduced normal resolution number 2 on "Making Laeken a success".

Claes Roxbergh, Sweden, spoke briefly in favour of the Finnish amendments to the resolution.

Tarja Parviainen, Finland briefly outlined the Finnish amendments to the resolution.

Jean Huss, Luxembourg, briefly explained the Luxembourg amendment.

Reinhard Bütikofer, Germany, spoke briefly against the Luxembourg amendment.

Pekka Haavisto, EFGP committee, then introduced the motion on 'Terrorism and military action in Afghanistan'. He explained that he was asked to draft the original motion, but that since the situation had altered markedly since it was first written, it was agreed to rewrite the motion and resubmit it as an emergency resolution. However, since Les Verts had submitted amendments to the normal resolution, it would be necessary to debate that version of the motion.

Françoise Duthu, France, said she was surprised at the method of working. She had worked within her party to bring the amendments forward, she said.

Yiannis Tsironis, Greece, noted that there is no mention of the war in Afghanistan in the new motion. Why not? It's political suicide not to do so, he said. He also questioned why certain paragraphs of the old resolution had been dropped?

Ane Aadland, Norway, said that aid and bombs shouldn't be mixed, and the dropping of aid along with bombs was causing big problems in Afghanistan.

Paolo Bergamaschi, Italy, questioned the use of the term "Rogue States" in the resolution.

Jean Thierry, Denmark, said that he noted a big difference between the original resolution and the new emergency resolution. Why was this, he asked?

Reinhard Bütikofer, Germany, said that he considered it an insult that his party was being accused of choosing power over principle.

Philip Lamberts, Ecolo, pointed out that we were having a debate on the emergency resolution, and we should just be discussing the normal resolution.

Arnold Cassola, EFGP committee, said that the main bone of contention appeared to be paragraph 5, so can we go forward on the basis that this is taken as an emergency resolution and let the different parts come up with a compromise paragraph to replace original paragraph 5?

Franz Floss, Austria, said the war in Afghanistan was the main issue.

Yiannis Tsironis, Greece, said that in his view it was vital to condemn the war.

Pekka Haavisto, EFGP committee, said that this was not the right arena to have political fights - we have quite enough of those at home, he said.

Caroline Hoffmann, North Sea Greens co-ordinator, then pointed out that if Les Verts agreed to withdraw their amendments, the committee could then withdraw their normal resolution, and we could then have a full debate about the emergency resolution.

Françoise Duthu, France, agreed to withdraw the amendments tabled by Les Verts. The committee then withdrew normal resolution 1.

A Green Political Programme for Elections 2004

Frithjof Schmidt, EFGP committee, introduced the debate on setting up a working group for preparation of a common European Election Manifesto 2004.

Juan Behrend, Secretary General, GGEP/EFA, started by saying that there are many issues to include in a common manifesto. Turnout is falling in European elections, he said. Meanwhile, there may be a change to the size of the EP if accession countries join before the next elections. Most countries, with the exception of Germany and Luxembourg, will lose members, he said. He concluded that the GGEP/EFA was ready for a common manifesto.

Franz Floss, Austria, asked delegates: Do we need a manifesto? If so, what for? There's certainly a lot of work in putting it together. After the last proposal for a common manifesto, we had no money to publish it, he said. Will it be used? And will there be a financial commitment from larger parties? This element is important, he said.

Arnold Cassola, EFGP committee, said that those interested in setting up the working group should contact Arnold or the secretariat. Many questions remain to be answered

Reinhard Bütikofer, Germany said that whether or not we need a manifesto depends on what we use if for. If it is based on "common denominator" issues, it is likely to be used. We need to establish what our commonalities are.

Caroline Hoffmann, North Sea Greens co-ordinator, said that in her view we do not need a common manifesto. The money would be better spent supporting smaller parties, she said.

Pierre Jonckheer MEP, Ecolo, said that it is important to debate the issues. The enlargement process raises various questions, he said. We will have to focus on certain key issues - there are things that we can all agree on. Meanwhile, networking of people is also important, he said. Also, the result of national elections in 2002, especially in Germany, will make the picture clearer.

Isabel Vertriest, Agalev, said it was important for the 2004 elections to be clear about which countries are likely to win.

Kees Kalkman, GroenLinks, said that any process must have the involvement of common members. Perhaps we could have a meeting of several parties to discuss what should go into the manifesto? The commitment of the GGEP/EFA was essential, he said.

David Hammerstein, Spain, said that the Spanish Greens can win in 2004, but they need involvement and they need a translation.

Voting on observership applications

Frithjof Schmidt, EFGP committee, thanked all those who contributed to the debate. He then moved on to voting on the applications for observership.

Ulrike Lunacek, Austria, proposed postponing the vote on the observership of MPT until the next meeting, when the committee should submit a report including the views of Os Verdes.
Votes for Ulrike's proposal: a large majority Observership of MPT was postponed.

Observership of the Greens of Serbia Votes for: 54 - Votes against: 0 - Abstentions: 0 Passed unanimously

Observership of the Moldavian Green Party Votes for: 42 - Votes against: 0 - Abstentions: 9 Observership of the Moldavian Green Party was passed.

Frithjof thanked everyone for their contributions and concluded proceedings at 19:40