Parliamentary Assembly

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the second time within a few months that I have had the privilege and the pleasure of addressing you in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers in order to report to you on the Committee’s activities.

But I hope that my friend President de Koster’s allusion to the fact that this is the second time I have held this chairmanship will not make some of you think the pleasure has lasted all too long. (Laughter)

Allow me first of all, Mr President, both personally and on behalf of the Committee of Ministers as a whole, to congratulate you most sincerely on your election. I am sure that with the skill, the faith in the European cause and the determination you have always possessed you will succeed in carrying on the work of your esteemed predecessor, Mr Czernetz, who will always remain in the minds of all Europeans as one of the most fervent builders of Europe and for whom your own human and intellectual qualities make you, Mr President, a worthy successor. I am convinced that under your leadership the dialogue between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers will continue to be both real and effective, and I have no doubt that our co-operation will be fruitful for the cause which unites us and which we serve together, perhaps with different means but with the same ideal.

I shall not reply in any greater detail to your all too kind words: only friendship can be an excuse for the way in which you somewhat distorted the truth. Let me nevertheless say in reply, with all due sincerity, how much I have always admired not only your European faith and sense of vocation but also the courage with which you have expressed them. There used to be quite an army of such people, though it now seems to be getting smaller and the burden is becoming increasingly difficult to bear. It is not only as a friend that I say how glad I am to see a European of your calibre at the head of this Assembly.

I should also like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere congratulations and those of the Committee of Ministers over whose destiny I am briefly presiding to Mr Adinolfi on his very recent election.

I now come to the heart of the matter, and I would inform you, Mr President, and through you your colleagues, that you will find details of the activities of the Committee of Ministers and its committees of experts in Document 4142, which has been distributed to you and which I shall refrain from commenting upon or paraphrasing. I forget who once said that the best way to exhaust an audience’s patience was to be exhaustive, but I think we all agree with him and I shall try to follow his wise advice. I shall therefore confine myself to a few comments on what I regard as the most outstanding events since my last address and on the Committee of Ministers’ activities in the near future.

On 9 March, the Belgrade meeting on co-operation and security in Europe came to an end, with the results you all know about, on which varying judgments have been passed. I think it would serve no purpose to deny the disillusionment felt by those who were present at Helsinki and Geneva and witnessed the beginnings of a dialogue which they then saw degenerate at Belgrade into a succession of monologues between spokesmen for whom words clearly do not always have the same meaning but correspond to quite different realities.

While it is undeniable that the text adopted at Belgrade after long and painstaking negotiations marks a step back from the Helsinki Final Act about which so much has been said, we must not content ourselves with registering a failure: we must also analyse the reasons behind it and draw the necessary lessons, not only in the light of what happened between Helsinki and Belgrade, but also any lessons which you and we should draw for the future. I am pleased to note that you have just devoted a major debate to the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act and the Belgrade meeting, and a number of you will presently be discussing these matters with us in the traditional colloquy.

Similarly, the Committee of Ministers, at its meeting tomorrow, will be making a political evaluation of the Belgrade meeting and considering possible future action as well as the general follow-up to the Helsinki Final Act itself, which – let us hope – will lose none of its significance. I sincerely hope for my part that those responsible for the foreign policy of the twenty democratic countries which belong to the Council of Europe will strongly reaffirm the paramount importance they attach to the implementation of all the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, including those concerning human rights.

As regards the role of our Committee of Ministers concerning the CSCE, there is no doubt that the exchanges of views held at not only Deputy but also ministerial level, with the participation of qualified experts from our ministries, have been extremely useful from every point of view, in all circumstances and for all purposes. These exchanges of views should therefore be continued and I personally consider that we would be well advised to increase their frequency and depth. After our ministerial meeting tomorrow, the next exchange of views between our Deputies, assisted by experts, will take place on 29 and 30 May. On this occasion, I think, the main concern will be to pave the way together for the meetings which have been planned as a follow-up to the CSCE, namely the meeting to prepare a scientific forum to commence in Bonn on 20 June 1978, the meeting at Montreux on the peaceful settlement of disputes and the meeting to be held in Valletta next February on the more specific problems of the Mediterranean.

I have just referred to our now traditional exchanges of views on the CSCE, which have more than proved their worth. The same may be said of our discussions on the United Nations, which we owe to a felicitous initiative of my German colleague, Mr Genscher. The last of these exchanges of views between our Deputies, assisted by experts from our capitals, took place on 31 January. It provided an opportunity, firstly, for a general assessment of the results of the 32nd Session of the General Assembly and also for a special examination of the problems of human rights, terrorism and the situation in Southern Africa at which, I think, we are all concerned. The most positive conclusion of this discussion was no doubt the fact that there has been increased co-operation within the United Nations between the countries of Western Europe, not only among the Nine, who – if I may say so – serve as a kind of driving force in this respect, but also among the twenty member states of the Council of Europe as well as the countries belonging to the group of “Western European countries and others”, as it is so delicately called.

Co-operation between member states of the Council of Europe has been particularly close in the field of human rights. This is to be welcomed, even though such co-operation between countries sharing the same approach to the subject would seem only natural.

During the exchange of views on 31 January, it was agreed that the member states of the Council of Europe would do well to think more deeply together about the relationship between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic and social rights on the other, as well as between individual rights and collective rights. The importance of this problem is, or should be, obvious to everyone, and, as some will perhaps remember, I brought it to the attention of this distinguished Assembly in my address last January.

As far as the grave problem of terrorism is concerned, our Deputies and experts unanimously supported the draft convention on the taking of hostages which the Federal Republic of Germany submitted to the United Nations.

The next exchange of views in this series will take place towards the end of June, chiefly for the purpose of preparing the 33rd United Nations General Assembly. There is no need, I think, Mr President, to say how urgent this problem and these proposals, unfortunately, still are.

I should like at this point to make a brief personal comment. Whenever I go to the United Nations, it is brought home to me with glaring clarity that the democratic states are, as you all know, a tiny minority numbering only about thirty of the hundred and fifty or more states represented at the United Nations. When one sees how seriously our democratic Europe is taken elsewhere, in the third world especially, and when one observes the extent to which the ideals we have just been talking about and which you and I talk about all the time – the ideals of human rights, freedom, fraternity and equality which we uphold – are seen by everyone in the world as a ray of hope on an otherwise very gloomy horizon, I say to myself (and I would like to assert this forcefully here) that we Europeans simply have no right to keep quiet about this problem or, in so doing, to abdicate our responsibilities.

This thought leads me to say a few words about our ministerial meeting tomorrow, in which the question of human rights will loom very large. Even though I speak here in an international organisation which – let it be said in all sincerity and modesty – has, more than any other, made an effective contribution to the international protection of human rights, you as parliamentarians, will perhaps share with me a certain feeling of uneasiness at what might be called a bandying about of human rights or abuse of the concept. Human rights seem at present to be somewhat fashionable; it is impossible to read a paper or listen to a speech without finding one or more references to human rights.

If this makes us feel uneasy, it is because the current enthusiasm for what is and remains one of our civilisation’s fundamental values is, I regret to say, all too often superficial in many people’s minds and, in the end, rather than serve the cause of human rights enables those who abuse human rights to use the concept for their own ends. Are not the numerous international discussions on human rights often in flagrant contradiction with the realities of a world where human rights as we understand them are more or less consistently violated and where torture – one of the most scandalous assaults on human dignity – is more or less regularly practised – need I say so here? – in a large number of states?

What unites us at the Council of Europe is the existence not just of political and legal texts establishing human rights and fundamental freedoms, but of the very means of safeguarding those rights and freedoms effectively for the community. That is why I hope that the twenty Foreign Affairs Ministers of the states of democratic Europe will tomorrow adopt a declaration of human rights to mark the 25th anniversary of the entry into force of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that we shall set the major objectives of our future action in the essential field of human rights, including economic and social rights, even at the present time of economic and social controversy, not to say upheaval.

Since I have just mentioned economic and social rights, I should like to add a word about a problem which is of particular interest to your Assembly, namely the relations of the Council of Europe with management and labour. Following Recommendation 805 which this Assembly transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, a dialogue has begun between the Committee and the representatives of both sides of industry, who load an opportunity to express their wishes and make proposals at a meeting with our Deputies in February.

I would add that, in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, I received the Vice-President of the European Trade Union Confederation, Mr André Bergeron, in the course of the trade union campaign for full employment. Mr Bergeron presented me with a precise proposal for the attention of the Committee of Ministers: this was that the Council of Europe should organise a tripartite conference of representatives of governments, trade unions and employers’ organisations, of which the theme would naturally be the employment situation in Europe, a disturbing situation for us all if ever there was. Mr Bergeron explained that the reason for this proposal was the need to alert international public opinion to the very serious social problems arising throughout Europe and to the inadequacy, indeed harmfulness, of isolated and in some cases mutually incompatible efforts by countries to deal with them.

As Prime Minister of Luxembourg, I would add that I and my government fully agree with Mr Bergeron’s analysis, and that of the European Trade Union Confederation, concerning the importance of ever greater awareness of our interdependence and of the consequent need for joint action against unemployment on an international scale. I shall be submitting this proposal to my colleagues in the Committee of Ministers tomorrow in the hope that they will respond favourably to it.

I referred just now, Mr President, to the European trade union campaign for employment. I mention it again in order to emphasise the importance of international solidarity for solving the present difficult social and economic problems, first and foremost that of unemployment. National measures can vary in effectiveness – and I personally do not think they would be very effective – according to the resources available to each of us and the degree of freedom with which we may use them.

Needless to say, as a representative of a small, indeed very small country, I can claim no credit for being aware of the frailty of such a national undertaking, for when there is a personal or national mood of “everyone for himself” the little ones will quite naturally – if you will pardon the expression – be eaten first, then the slightly less little ones and then the slightly less big ones.

Leaving aside all national egoism, however, there are two points which need to be stressed. The first is that no country in Europe, as I am firmly convinced and would even be inclined to add “no country in the world”, can solve its economic problems and hence its unemployment problems by itself.

Embarking on the path of national isolationism in the present circumstances will inevitably lead to the final disaster, which will occur earlier for some, perhaps a little later for others but is undoubtedly unavoidable for all of us. What is an immediate and glaring truth for a very small country, namely the absolute inadequacy of national resources, is also true of medium-sized countries and even of bigger ones, even if it should take some time to materialise.

A cumulative effect in a negative sense – and this is my second point – will or would still further accentuate the disadvantages or dangers of “going it alone” at national level. Such is the interdependence of economies that a crisis in any of our industrialised countries will inevitably create or aggravate difficulties for other countries through the very commonplace phenomenon of a loss of customers and a loss of markets, due either to a fall in purchasing power or to protectionism, often – alas – to both. The snowball effect of such a situation will undoubtedly lead to a major crisis for all countries.

It is therefore undeniable that the premonitory signs of national self-rescue policies, or at least of professedly national self-rescue policies, which quite simply are uncontrolled reflexes of fear, are already to be seen. I greatly fear this resurgence of protectionism, despite all the professions of faith in the virtues of free trade, as many countries are on the point of giving way to the temptation of seeking an apparently easy but in fact illusory remedy to their own difficulties through the closing of their frontiers or through administrative pettifoggery which has the same effect. I nevertheless believe that it is not yet too late for all those responsible to become aware of the need for international solidarity, not only in the abstract but in terms of practical realities.

It was therefore in the hope of helping to achieve that aim that I assured the European Trade Union Confederation of my government’s full sympathy and support. I shall be informing the Committee of Ministers of this tomorrow, in the belief that I shall thus be making my own and my government’s contribution to the establishment of an international solidarity which must be more durable and hence stronger.

The European Economic Community has been concerned with these economic and social problems for a long time. I would nevertheless emphasise that this should in no way be taken as a pretext for not tackling them and discussing them in the Council of Europe. Indeed, everyday experience shows that the effectiveness of international solidarity is directly proportionate to the number of countries taking part in it, genuinely acting together at international level.

It would, however, be a grave mistake to think that these problems arise solely between industrialised and developed countries or solely within such countries. Undoubtedly, there are already very substantial differences between the levels of development of the Council of Europe member countries, and they can be seen to become even bigger the further one moves from the centre of Europe. It is our duty – the duty of all of us – as well as in our interests to try to reduce these inequalities. To speak of morality may seem out of place in a political gathering. However, it would, if you will pardon the expression, be shamefully immoral to regard as natural the state of under-development which most of the countries of the world are in. An organisation like ours, statutorily based as it is on democracy, respect for human rights and justice in the world, has a duty to heed and disseminate the moral considerations underlying development aid. It is thus in our own interests to endeavour to eradicate economic inequalities in the world. On this depend peace and security, economic balance and development.

Thanks to modern mass media, we can see for ourselves what the situation is anywhere in the world. While the separation of economies and levels of development may possibly be continued for some time yet, it is far less possible to count on the separation of wishes and even less on the separation of demands. It is surely inconceivable that large masses of people fully aware of the riches accumulated in a minority of countries would agree indefinitely to wallow in relative and often, indeed, absolute poverty. Not to do everything humanly possible to provide all countries with a decent level of development would be to run the certain risk of creating serious social tension at world level and prejudicing peace and security, not to mention our economic future.

I therefore welcome the progress recently made in what is generally called “North-South dialogue”, at least as far as the problem of indebtedness is concerned. It is now important to put rapidly into practice the decisions of principle taken in this connection as well as to make further progress in the search for solutions concerning other aspects of the dialogue.

In this Assembly, composed as it is of parliamentarians who are in continuous contact with public opinion in their countries, I would like to emphasise that efforts on behalf of the third world cannot be painless for us. Whether it be a question – and the realities should be fully appreciated – of cancelling or reducing debts, stabilising raw material prices or supplying actual aid, the decisions taken or to be taken are resulting or will result in practice in a shrinking of our budgets or of our countries’ production and purchasing power. Each of us should realise that the transfer of technology denotes – as we are indeed aware today – increased competition at world level. A great effort of education is still necessary, I feel, to drive home to every individual in our countries the fact that aid supplied by his country is not provided by some abstract, remote entity with which he does not need to concern himself. In the short term, a better international distribution of resources will result in fewer of those resources being available in the richer countries. We must accept this, and we must realise what our acceptance implies. However, it may seem difficult to accept at a time of fairly low, even zero growth, for it is easier to share a surplus produced by rapid expansion than to draw on what might possibly be called our reserves.

The reason why I maintain that we must nevertheless carry on and even step up our aid or our efforts to assist development is that I am convinced that world peace and our own economic future depend on this in the long run. In terms of economic advantage, it is also clear that in the long run a healthy world economy – not necessarily a perfectly balanced one, but at least a rather better balanced one – will be far more beneficial even to the richer countries than an economy suffering from ineradicable pockets of poverty and from distortions which most of the world’s population regard as intolerable.

I am particularly anxious to rebut the simplistic and somewhat demagogic view that the transfer of modern technologies to the developing countries should be prevented merely because their industries could then compete with our own. What would the alternative signify? In purely economic terms – which is the standpoint adopted by those who hold this view – it would mean trying to deprive many countries quite simply of the possibility of increasing their exports and thus obtaining the resources they need in order to pay for their imports from our countries. The only good customer – as everyone must be aware here – is a solvent one, and we cannot therefore aspire to sell our own products to the developing countries unless we are also prepared to buy theirs or at least enable them to pay for ours.

At the same time, however, I should like to emphasise here, at the birthplace of the European Convention on Human Rights and on the eve of its twenty-fifth anniversary, that while a certain amount of economic development is no doubt necessary, perhaps even essential, for the effective observance of our ideals of democracy and freedom, we cannot regard it as a substitute for or an alternative to respect for human dignity. Ensuring or trying to ensure a decent standard of living cannot be an excuse for delaying or withholding the introduction of the elementary rights of the human person or of people’s elementary right to self-determination. The fact that many black people in South Africa live better than black people elsewhere is no justification, in my view, for the hateful system of apartheid. The standard of living achieved in Rhodesia or Namibia (assuming the statistics do not cover up any inequalities; but statistics are made to say a lot of things) cannot serve as a pretext for maintaining power in the hands of a minority. We have not accepted this in any of our countries; how could we accept or endorse it elsewhere? My government accordingly supports all efforts to ensure a peaceful transition in Rhodesia and Namibia to a regime enabling the populations concerned to choose freely their own governments for themselves. This, too, seems to me to be a matter for international solidarity, and I should like to pay tribute to the efforts made in this direction by some of my colleagues, particularly Dr David Owen.

Human dignity cannot be fully safeguarded unless all people have a certain amount of economic and social well-being. Human dignity cannot be fully safeguarded unless all people – I repeat, all people – enjoy elementary rights and freedoms. Human dignity cannot be fully safeguarded unless all people enjoy, as we have demanded, the right to self-determination. These three factors, all three together, seem to me to be indissociable, and I would like to express the hope that our Council of Europe, particularly in this anniversary year of the Universal Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights, will, so to speak, give itself an anniversary present by contributing to their effective implementation through far greater solidarity between all its member countries.

(Applause)