EMBARGO UNTIL DELIVERY     

22.06.2009

Speech by Terry DAVIS

Secretary General of the Council of Europe

on the occasion of the

third part of the 2009 Ordinary Session

of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

(Strasbourg, 22-26 June 2009)

President,

Standing here before you today for the last time as Secretary General of the Council of Europe, it is natural for me to feel very emotional. It is not only the last five years as Secretary General. Altogether, I have been involved with the Council of Europe for a total of 17 years. And it is not only the last five years which have been some of the most rewarding as well as some of the most challenging years of my life. But the last five years have been very special. The fact is that being the Secretary General of the Council of Europe is never boring, but it is never easy.

In January this year, I delivered the fifth and last of my State of the Council of Europe speeches to the Assembly, in which I talked in some detail about the successes and problems of the Council of Europe in 2008 and about the prospects for 2009. I will not repeat what I said then. To a large extent, the situation has developed as we predicted it would develop – the economic crisis is still here, and so are its implications for the Council of Europe. On one hand we are pressured to reduce our spending even further, but on the other hand we are expected to do more to help our member states to deal with the negative impact of the crisis on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

We all know that. And we all know that the Council of Europe is not alone in this situation. And we also know that things may get worse before they get better.

However, for my last speech to the Parliamentary Assembly, as Secretary General, I have decided to go beyond the day-to-day problems of the Council of Europe. I will try, instead, to look at my experience as Secretary General and offer a few thoughts about where the Council of Europe is, where it is going and how it could, in my view, do even better.

These are only a few ideas, some of which I have already expressed in the past, but which I hope will be of some interest to you.

My first point is that the Council of Europe is making a valuable, measurable and significant contribution to democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe. Most of the problems of today are international in nature and therefore require an international response. The Council of Europe combines a broad geographical scope with a consensus about common values and standards. It combines cooperation in law enforcement with the protection of human rights; consultation, exchange of information and cooperation with legally binding standards and rigorous monitoring, expert advice and assistance.

My second point is that the Council of Europe is getting better with age. When I took up my office five years ago, many questioned the future of the Council of Europe, especially in the context of the enlarging European Union. I believe that our work and achievements in the past five years have shown that any fears of an imminent demise of the Council of Europe are unfounded. There are fewer and fewer people who believe that the European Union can compete or should compete with the Council of Europe in our areas of expertise.

I believe that it is now accepted that co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union is a win-win situation, especially when it comes to assistance programmes. The Council of Europe brings the expertise, legally binding standards and a framework for cooperation in which countries participate on an equal footing. The European Union contributes its budgetary means, and its political and economic influence.

Moreover, the European Union is gradually increasing its participation in relevant Council of Europe conventions, in areas in which it has taken over the competence of its member states.

Of course, duplication and waste of resources still occur, but they are an incident, rather than a trend. The fact is that the Council of Europe has been steadily increasing its influence and visibility which, in turn, increase our capacity to make a difference in the areas of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

My third point is that our work on democracy is still not at the level of our work on human rights and the rule of law. This has been one of my priorities during the past few years, but it is still work in progress. The fact is that the traditional Council of Europe approach through conventions and legislative expertise has a limited effect on the functioning of democracy in our member states. In many cases, the shortcomings are not about laws, they are about the lack of political culture. In the past, activities to help the emergence and the consolidation of such political culture were not at the forefront, and I am afraid that, given the current budgetary situation, they will once again not receive the attention they deserve. One of the consequences of this reluctance to invest in the long term is the frequent political turmoil linked to elections in many of our member states.

My fourth point is that the Council of Europe still has not fully absorbed its historic enlargement after the disappearance of ideological divisions in Europe. True, all European countries with the exception of Belarus are now members of the Council of Europe, but beneath the shiny surface, some old divisions have still not disappeared completely.

On one hand, some of the so-called “old” member states continue to see the Council of Europe as a classroom for more recent democracies in which the pupils from the East are given advice, criticism and instructions. The insistence on “core values” of democracy, human rights and the rule of law and their very restricted interpretation is an expression of this attitude. It focuses on the imposition of the Council of Europe values from the outside, rather than on the more time consuming, but ultimately more effective “home-grown approach” through cooperation in areas in which so-called “new” member states feel equal and have much to contribute.

The other side of this same problem is the attitude of the authorities in some member states, which see compliance with Council of Europe standards as a concession to outside pressure instead of seeing it as something in the genuine interest of their countries and their people.

I believe that the correct response to this situation lies in a more robust but also more consistent approach to compliance with Council of Europe standards. Everyone, including countries with a longer democratic tradition, should accept that rules are the same for everyone, in all situations and at all times.

My final point is about the need to strike a better balance between the prevention of violations of human rights and criticism of violations after they have taken place. Let me explain.

In recent years, we have seen a steady increase in the budget for the European Court of Human Rights. We all know about the huge backlog of applications to the Court. That is why I believe that the increase in their budget has been justified, even if money alone will not solve all the problems.

The real difficulty started a few years ago when the Governments of member states decided that the additional money for the Court should come from the allocations for other parts of the Council of Europe. This has seriously weakened the capacity of the Council of Europe to prevent violations of human rights as distinct from condemning violations after the event.

Let me give you an example.

Two weeks ago, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a ground-breaking judgment in the case of a Turkish woman whose mother had been killed by the woman’s husband who had abused both women for years. The Court found that the Turkish authorities had violated Articles 2, 3 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the Articles which guarantee the right to life and also prohibit torture, degrading and inhuman treatment and discrimination. The Court ruled that the Turkish authorities had failed to offer effective protection against abuse in spite of repeated calls for help by the two women.

For me, the most striking aspect of this case is that the failure was not so much a result of inadequate legislation but rather the attitude of those responsible for implementing the legislation. I have no doubt that Turkey will act in response to the judgment. But I see two other issues. The first is that domestic violence is not only a problem in Turkey; the second is that a change of attitude cannot be simply imposed through a new law or a new decree.

If we want this historic judgment to make a real difference to the lives of abused women across Europe, the Council of Europe must follow up the judgment through action not only in the area of human rights – where a new convention is already being drawn up – but also in the areas of social cohesion, education and campaigning - which are all essential to change attitudes and provide for effective protection against this kind of violation of human rights in the long run.

The fact is that the Council of Europe is a logical whole, in which every part, from the Committee of Ministers to the Assembly, the Court to the Congress, the Commissioner, the operational directorates and the partial agreements, all have their own roles and reinforce each other’s work.

Yes, we can look, we must look, and we have looked for greater efficiency and value for money, but we should also understand that, even in times of budgetary constraint, the approach which boils down to starving one part of the system in order to feed another will inevitably backfire.

If we want the European Court of Human Rights to function normally and fulfil its vital role in the protection of human rights in Europe, the Court needs a properly functioning, a properly funded and a properly supported Council of Europe as a whole.

That is how our organisation has developed and disseminated democracy, defended and extended human rights, advocated and encouraged the rule of law over the past sixty years, and this is how it will continue to carry out its mission for decades to come, provided that our leaders match the vision, the courage and the commitment to our common values, which the people who created the Council of Europe demonstrated in 1949.