Parliamentary Assembly

Mr President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Madam Secretary General, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to address you in this Assembly Chamber. I thank you, Mr President, for giving me this opportunity to pass on a few thoughts to this distinguished audience on the outlook for the “new Europe” which we hear of virtually every day but whose actual form is still very vague.

This Assembly is a prime instrument for promoting the construction of a united and peaceful Europe. You have been pioneers in opening up the Council of Europe to eastern Europe, and the Assembly, made up as it is of elected political forces from all over Europe, is a productive meeting place for parliamentarians from some forty different countries.

This “new Europe” was represented at the recent Council of Europe Summit in Vienna. The Council was confirmed in its role as a pan-European organisation, called upon to help to create a vast area of democratic security on our continent.

Your Assembly was in the forefront of preparations for the summit. I am convinced that you will ensure that the political impetus imparted in Vienna is sustained.

The task now is to put the promising results obtained at the summit in to practice – the reform of the supervisory mechanisms of the European Convention on Human Rights; the action plan against intolerance; the protection of national minorities – in order to make the most of the potential created in Vienna.

The year 1994 will be a crucial one for Europe and the world. Europe has entered a particularly turbulent phase in its history. The profound upheaval we have witnessed over the last few years has changed the political map of the continent.

The collapse of the totalitarian regimes in eastern Europe has given the citizens of these countries access to a freedom which had been denied them for several decades. This peaceful revolution provides irrefutable proof that man can only recover his dignity through freedom and that the problems of society can be solved only through dialogue and solidarity, not confrontation and oppression.

The transformation of the political systems has gone hand-in-hand with that of the economic systems. It has cost a great deal in social terms, not to mention the psychological effects, which are hard to quantify. However, while the transition from the state economy to the market economy is painful, it is none the less indispensable.

The inevitable restructuring of economic activities has, at least temporarily, caused unemployment and an occasionally dramatic drop in living standards.

The effects of such upheaval and the economic depression which prevails in both the east and the west of our continent are accentuated by the tragic conflicts raging in the former Yugoslavia and the Caucasus.

It would be illusory to believe that the radical political, economic and social changes affecting our neighbours in the East will have no impact on the West. We live in an increasingly interdependent Europe and world, the whole of which is hit by the shock waves of regional upheavals. One of the major problems facing us is the risk of a huge upsurge in migration, not only in the east but also in the south.

Thousands of individuals are prepared to leave everything behind and emigrate in order to escape social pressure, poverty or even armed conflict.

I do not wish to be unnecessarily alarmist, but the combination of the factors I have just mentioned, to which I might add the “restored freedom of movement throughout the continent”, cannot leave us indifferent.

We have had to cope with a large number of refugees from the former Yugoslavia. Special efforts have had to be made to accommodate them in terms of the ability to absorb and integrate them into our societies.

Cultural arguments are increasingly being advanced against continuous immigration. The presence of different cultures is often considered a nuisance. Fear of the foreigner is cunningly exploited to political ends. Extreme right-wing demagogues blame immigrants for all the country’s ills, stirring up nationalism for mainly electoral purposes.

What should we do? While I agree that only a purposeful policy of providing the economic wherewithal for populations to remain in their countries of origin can prevent a mass exodus, we must not, for the time being, yield to the temptation to use increasingly repressive means of preventing all types of migration.

We might also note that on the economic front immigrant labour helps create our wealth. In demographic terms, it offsets declining west European populations. Where culture is concerned, the encounter between the indigenous and immigrant populations is a factor for mutual enrichment, the value of which should be recognised.

In Vienna, we recalled that “the diversity of traditions and cultures has for centuries been one of Europe’s riches, and that the principle of tolerance is the guarantee of the maintenance in Europe of an open society respecting the cultural diversity to which we are attached”.

The evolution towards a multicultural society is a phenomenon which we in Luxembourg experience on a day-to-day basis as 30% of our population is made up of foreigners. Faced with a choice between the development of a two-tier society and forced assimilation, we have opted for gradual integration of the immigrant community. The national education system has thus been adapted to enable foreign children to be taught in their national language, alongside their normal education.

We are well aware that encounters between different cultures can cause tension. However, we must not tolerate manifestations of racism. Children must very early on be educated in the school of tolerance.

The temptation of nationalism and xenophobia, with their retrograde mentality, is one of the greatest dangers for Europe today.

The situation in the Balkans and the former Yugoslavia shows us the extremes to which excessive nationalistic thinking can lead and its consequences for ordinary people.

It is our duty not to ignore such threats, and to have the courage to face them with determination and clear-headedness. There is, however, no standard response. We must answer chauvinism and nationalism, populism and protectionist rhetoric with all the resources provided by the workings of democracy.

The declaration which we adopted in Vienna and the action plan against intolerance which we have launched are weapons against the resurgence of the ills of racism, anti-Semitism and exacerbated nationalism. I can assure you of my country’s support for such initiatives, especially for the European youth campaign.

In Vienna, we confirmed the Council of Europe’s pan-European destiny and underlined its essential contribution to creating a vast area of democratic security in Europe.

This definition of the Council of Europe’s role leads me on to a number of remarks on the enlargement of our Organisation, the relations between member states, democratic security, the place of the Council of Europe and its relations with the other European institutions.

First, enlargement. While confirming its openness to all European countries which have opted for democracy, the Council of Europe must ensure that the criteria for membership are respected.

The Parliamentary Assembly, which has a decisive role to play in the accession procedure, has particular responsibility in this connection.

Without discouraging young, fragile democracies by setting the pass mark too high for membership, we must maintain our requirements on respect for the principles and values on which all democratic systems are based.

We have to strike this delicate balance, bearing in mind that it is in the interests of peace and security on our continent to integrate into the democratic system those countries which might be tempted to embark on a different road, particularly under the influence of exacerbated nationalism.

Here we come to the particular question of Russia’s accession to the Council.

In a Europe whose geographical contours are hard to locate, Russia is destined to become a member of the Council of Europe. It will shortly be linked to the European Union through a partnership and co-operation agreement.

Nevertheless, the following paradox still subsists. While the collapse of the Soviet ideology led to an extraordinary bloom in democratic life, it also caused a formidable revival of particularism and nationalism.

We must use all the means at our disposal to help the democratic forces in Russia. The programme of activities drawn up jointly by the Russian Federation and the Council of Europe will also help to reinforce the process of democratization. I would suggest that priority be given to its implementation.

At the same time, it should be clear that Russia can draw closer to the Council of Europe only if its foreign policy unambiguously respects the principles of international law. The stationing of its troops in neighbouring countries without the latter’s agreement is contrary to these principles.

My second remark concerns the relations that must be established between new and old members, between small and large countries. The Council of Europe, the democratic institution par excellence, has always ensured equality among all its members. The Europe we wish to construct is a Europe which draws its riches from our diversity and respect for individuality.

During a visit to Luxembourg about a year ago, President Mitterrand expressed an opinion with which I wholeheartedly concur: “everyone has the same rights, and we are working with equal dignity... in a status which accords the same rights to very different and differently-sized countries.”

In a rapidly expanding Europe we must perhaps consider the institutional changes which will be needed if the existing organisations are not to grind to a halt. These changes can only come about if we respect the basic principles which form the richness and originality of European integration.

This is the subject of the current debate which the European Union is holding on its enlargement. We must avoid the pitfall of only considering the number of seats to be filled. The challenge lies elsewhere. We must provide the resources and procedures to enable every country, in the near future, to participate fully in the construction of the common edifice.

At the end of the day, the rule of law is the surest guarantee of individual freedom as well as equality between states. We have everything to gain from developing a law-based Europe – an area where law wins over force.

This is the Europe which the Council of Europe can help to create by establishing democratic security and implementing the values which we all share: pluralistic democracy with free elections, human rights, respect for minorities, tolerance and solidarity.

The Council of Europe is called on to accept all European democracies on an equal footing – it may well be the only organisation capable of doing so in the short term. Are we really making the most of this unique forum? I am not sure we are.

The attraction exerted by the European Union occasionally throws the Council of Europe’s work into the shade, the Council often being considered as a mere stepping stone towards membership of the Union. But the fact is that this Organisation has its own raison d’être, its own specific role; the Council of Europe is the framework for co-operation in the new Europe. The biggest challenge it will have to face in coming years is the successful integration of, and the consolidation of democracy in, the countries of central and eastern Europe.

This is a matter to which the Organisation must give priority, stepping up its co-operation programmes with the new democracies, possibly to the detriment of more traditional activities, which, although important, are not quite so urgent.

How will the European edifice look in the future and what are the key ideas and guiding principles for constructing tomorrow’s Europe?

Will the Council of Europe be the nucleus of this European structure, this “European confederation” earnestly desired by President Mitterrand, in which all members will address common issues on an equal footing?

There are still too many uncertainties for any definite prediction of the institutional future of our continent.

What we can do is to make the most of the established institutions, provide them with the requisite human and financial resources to perform their tasks, and encourage any initiative liable to increase the cohesion of Europe.

We must therefore step up co-operation and identify and concentrate on sectors where complementarity is possible between the various institutions to which our countries belong: I am thinking particularly of the European Union, the CSCE and the Council of Europe.

Let us take the example of protection for national minorities; this issue is a potential threat to peace and stability in Europe. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the efforts to find appropriate solutions should produce results as quickly as possible: an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, a “stability covenant”, action by the CSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities.

We must also avoid overlapping and promote the better use of resources. It would also be in our interest for the Council of Europe and the European Union to consult each other more for the sake of greater co-operation between the PHARE and Tacis programmes of the Union and the Council’s Demosthenes, Themis and Lode programmes. Fuller co-operation should also be pursued between the Council of Europe and the G-24 in the field of assistance with the establishment of democratic institutions.

The important thing is that these efforts should be complementary and that the various institutions should be able to rely on each other for support, each of them making their own contributions to the search for common solutions.

That being the case, the question is what lines of action should be followed in the years ahead? I have already outlined some of the kinds of action we could undertake within the Council of Europe.

They can succeed only if other action is taken in parallel. I shall talk about some other kinds of action, more specifically relevant to the European Union, while bearing in mind the potential for interaction between our two organisations.

The first task, of course, will be to do everything possible to combat unemployment, which is reaching dramatic proportions in some of our countries.

New hope and new motivation must be given to the millions of Europeans who have lost their jobs or are afraid of losing them. The White Paper put out by the Commission of the European Communities has shown the approach to be adopted in restoring economic growth, making business competitive once again and substantially reducing unemployment.

Of course, the White Paper does not contain any miracle solution. Indeed, there is no miracle solution to the problem. But the plan of action adopted as a result of the White Paper is designed to banish the mood of resignation and mobilise energies in order to create the largest possible number of jobs. The turnaround which we hope to bring about soon should benefit not only the Twelve but the whole of Europe.

The measures to be taken must do nothing to undermine the social model we have built up, which is the foundation of cohesion in European societies.

Secondly, it is for the member states of the European Union to ensure the full-scale application of the Maastricht Treaty, which came into force on 1 November last.

The objective of bringing about economic and monetary union (EMU) was confirmed on 29 October 1993 by the heads of state and government of the Twelve.

The start of the second phase of EMU, on 1 January 1994, provides a new framework for consultation and co-ordination in monetary matters. The creation of an area of monetary stability at the heart of Europe will certainly be to the advantage of all the countries of this continent.

The other major objective of the Maastricht Treaty is the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). This should enable the European Union to respond to the hopes raised by the end of the cold war and to the challenges generated by the upheavals that have occurred on the international stage.

Of course, a common foreign and security policy cannot be imposed by decree. Situations change, new developments arise, and the CFSP has to be constantly reworked. Nor will it provide a magic wand to solve the regional conflicts involving age- old enemies. But the increased effort which the Twelve will make through their “joint actions” will undoubtedly bear fruit.

The member states of the Council of Europe will have an opportunity to influence the substance of the European Union’s action, and indeed to be associated via the political dialogue envisaged in the association agreements. In this connection, I would also mention the possibilities opened up by the institution of political dialogue within the Council of Europe.

The “partnership for peace” that was decided on at the Nato summit on 10 January 1994 will for its part make it possible for the security needs of the countries of central and eastern Europe to be taken into account without erecting new barriers in Europe.

Another result of all this will be to make it easier for the Council of Europe to perform its new function in constructing a wide democratic security area.

Consolidating democracy also implies economic development in the countries of central and eastern Europe. Several of these countries are still suffering from economic recession, with very painful social effects. In others there are signs that production is again moving upwards, bolstered by a rapidly expanding private sector.

The western countries, and particularly those of the European Union, are conscious of their responsibility in this connection. They are devoting substantial resources in an effort to help all the countries concerned to transform their economies successfully, despite their own economic difficulties which are at present placing limits on their scope for action.

Moreover, as President Delors recently observed, the main effort to help central and eastern Europe is being made by the European Union, which provides 60% of all the assistance that is going to those countries and imports 78% of all the goods purchased from them by the members of OECD.

There must be no let-up in our economic co-operation efforts. But we can do better still. I would point out, by way of example, that access to our own markets remains a vital factor in the success of this immense undertaking.

We are living in a historic period, full of challenges and promises.

Europe has not been standing still in recent years. The yoke of communism has gone. Yet history has not stopped moving forward. A new European order is in the process of emerging.

After the second world war, Luxembourg deliberately chose the path of European integration. That choice was the result of economic necessity, the need for a steel-producing country to join its neighbours and principal trading partners in order to set up the coal and steel community. It was above all a political choice, for that bold venture on the part of six states offered the prospect of ending the Franco-German rivalry which had already set the continent ablaze on several occasions.

Contrary to what might have been feared, the move towards integration has not destroyed national identities. In the case of Luxembourg, where the concept of nation state was still new, it has probably protected that identity and enabled it to develop: for the European Union has given Luxembourg political weight quite disproportionate to its size.

I am convinced that institutions are the best safeguard of sovereignty for all states.

Uniting Europe successfully means taking full account of the wealth of different identities it encompasses, in the underlying spirit of the following extract from the Vienna Declaration:

“To bring about a democratic and pluralist society respecting the equal dignity of all human beings remains one of the prime objectives of European construction”.

The Council of Europe has a quite special responsibility in this connection.

Thank you for your attention.