Doc. 7968

16 December 1997

Second Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe (Strasbourg, 10-11 October 1997)

Report

Political Affairs Committee

Rapporteur: Mr Miguel Ángel Martínez, Spain, Socialist Group

Summary

      The Assembly welcomes the results of the summit. Its ultimate success, however, will depend on the implementation of the decisions taken. Adequate funding will be indispensable. Important additional proposals made at the summit should be considered in the context of the follow-up. National parliaments should debate follow-up to the summit.

I.       Draft recommendation

1.       The Second Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe, held in Strasbourg from 10 to 11 October 1997, brought together the highest political representatives of the Council’s 40 member states and of four states which have requested membership.

2.       The summit originated in an initiative launched by the President of the Assembly in March 1996, and became possible by the French President’s willingness to host the event.

3.       The Assembly welcomes the results of the summit. The Final Declaration and the Plan of Action, which reflect most of the Assembly’s proposals, reaffirm the Council of Europe’s fundamental values and its specific role, confirm member states’ determination to comply with their commitments and obligations, and set fresh priorities and tasks.

4.       The Assembly considers that, besides the Action Plan, the Final Declaration also constitutes a series of formal undertakings, to which a follow-up must be given.

5.        Certain decisions taken at the summit require action at national level, others need to be implemented by the Organisation itself, while some are to be put into effect in partnership with other international and non-governmental organisations. The ultimate success of the summit will depend on the implementation of the decisions taken. Adequate funding will be indispensable.

6.       The Assembly considers it encouraging that the summit has already led to certain concrete measures. The Committee of Ministers, on 6 November 1997, adopted an additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine prohibiting the cloning of human beings, as well as twenty guiding principles to be applied in national legislations for the fight against corruption.

7.       The Assembly welcomes the decision of the Committee of Ministers to set up a « follow-up committee on the second summit » and a « committee of wise persons » to prepare proposals for a structural reform. It notes the subsequent setting up of an ad hoc working party (GT-SUIVI) to supervise both the follow-up to the Final Declaration and the implementation of the Action Plan. It considers it a positive development that this working party will be open to participation by the Assembly.

8.       Important additional proposals, not contained in the final texts, were made at the summit. These include several issues already proposed by the Assembly , notably the call for new legal instruments, such as a European convention on refugees and asylum seekers, as well as a call for further analysis of the respective roles of the Council of Europe and the OSCE. These proposals should also be considered in the context of the follow-up to be given.

9.       The Assembly considers that national parliaments should receive precise information, debate the decisions taken at the summit and actively contribute to their implementation. It therefore calls on all national delegations to initiate the holding of a debate on follow-up to the summit in their own parliaments.

10.       The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers 

i.       enable the Assembly to participate fully in the work of the ad hoc working party on the follow-up to the summit (GT-SUIVI);

ii.       ensure that the « committee of wise persons » on structural reform take due account of the Assembly’s proposals in this field;

iii.       take into account the additional proposals made by the heads of state and government in the follow up to be given to the summit;

iv.       to make available the necessary funds to enable the Council of Europe to implement, in a responsible way, the tasks and priorities set by the summit.

II.       Explanatory Memorandum by the Rapporteur

1. This report aims at providing the Assembly with a political evaluation of the Second Summit.

2. The Second Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government, which took place in Strasbourg 10-11 October 1997, was a highly important event. It brought together, for the first time at the Council of Europe’s headquarters, the highest political representatives of the Council's 40 member States and of four states which have requested such membership, virtually the whole of Europe.

3. The Summit resulted in a Final Declaration and a Plan of Action (distributed separately), which reaffirmed the Council of Europe's fundamental values and its specific role, confirmed member States' determination to comply with their commitments and obligations, and set fresh priorities and tasks.

4. The Summit also created the momentum for a number of ratifications, which enabled important legal instruments such as the Protocol No. 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights, setting up the single Court, and the Framework Convention on National Minorities to enter into force.

5. Numerous bilateral meetings contributed to the impact of the Summit. The over 1300 registered journalists gave the Council of Europe extensive coverage in the European media.

6. The Summit was the direct result of an initiative launched by President Fischer in March 1996. In September 1996, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Recommendation 1303 proposing that a second Council of Europe Summit be held in Strasbourg. In November 1996 the Committee of Ministers agreed on holding of a second Summit, following President Chirac's willingness to host the event.

7. The Assembly adopted two further recommendations (Rec. 1324 in April 1997 and Rec. 1342 in September 1997) containing many specific proposals. The majority of those were included in the Final Declaration and the Plan of Action, also thanks to the excellent co-operation between the Assembly and the ad hoc Working Party of the Ministers' Deputies, chaired by Ambassador Warin of France.

8. In his opening address, President Chirac paid tribute to the Assembly's particular role in preparing the Summit.

9. Finally, the excellent organisation by the French authorities and the Council of Europe Secretariat very much contributed to the Summit's success.

A. Attendance

10. The importance of the event was demonstrated by the fact that all member States and four candidate States attended at the level of Head of State (24 states) or Government (19 states) or both (France).

11. Only two European States were not invited: Belarus following the suspension of its Parliament's Special Guest Status with the Parliamentary Assembly and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

12. The Observer States (Canada, Japan and the United States of America) were also represented – and conveyed written messages from their governments, and President respectively -, as well as the Holy See. The European Commission and the OSCE were represented at the highest level.

13. In addition to President Fischer, who made the third introductory statement (see annex), the other members of the Assembly's ad hoc Committee on the Second Summit also participated. The Assembly was continuously represented on the Presidential rostrum.

B. Final Declaration and Action Plan

14. The majority of the Assembly's proposals (in Recommendations 1303, 1324 and 1342) were, either fully or partially, included in the Final Declaration and Action Plan.

15. Among the Assembly’s proposals, reflected in the Action Plan, are the following:

a) Democracy and Human Rights:

      - prohibition of cloning of human beings;

b)       Social cohesion:

      - European Social Charter: a call for ratification was included .

b) Security of citizens:

      - fighting corruption;

d)        Democratic values and cultural diversity:

      - an initiative for education for democratic citizenship was decided;

      -new information technology : a European policy is to be developed.

e)        Structures and working methods:

      - structural reform : structural reforms are to be carried out (Committee of Wise Men).

16. The Assembly very much insisted that the Action Plan be consistent with the Final Declaration. However, it is to be noted that a number of items were only included in the Declaration and not the Action Plan. Consequently, no immediate concrete measures are envisaged on the following issues raised in the Declaration only:

a)       Human rights and democracy:

      - universal abolition of the death penalty,

      - prevent and combat torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

      - equality of opportunities between men and women,

      - the fundamental role of the institutions of local democracy,

      - support of democratic development.

b)       Social cohesion:

      - common and balanced approach to questions relating to refugees and asylum seekers,

      - protection due to victims of conflicts,

      - protection of the rights of lawfully residing migrant workers.

c)       New threats to democracy:

      - improve the quality of life in disadvantaged areas.

d)       Education and culture:

      - the role of sport in promoting social integration,

      - encouraging understanding between the citizens of the North and the South.

17. The Action Plan is clearly less ambitious than the Final Declaration. Furthermore, no additional funding was decided. It is clear that without additional resources, it will not be possible to carry out all the action decided. The ultimate success of the Summit will, of course, depend on the follow-up to be given to the Declaration and the implementation of the Action Plan, both by governments and through national parliaments.

C. Additional proposals

18. In addition to the Final Declaration and the Action Plan, participants, in their speeches, made concrete proposals for action. These included:

      - a call for new legal instruments, such as a European Convention on Refugees and Asylum Seekers, a Framework Convention on Racism and a Framework Convention on the Immunity of Members of Parliament and Civil Servants and a Code of Ethics for Civil Servants;

      - a proposal to include member States' "scores" in terms of ratification of Council of Europe conventions in the monitoring procedure;

      - an enhanced role of the Secretary General in the monitoring procedure.

19. As regards the future role of the Council of Europe, proposals were made to establish a Charter of European Security, setting out the tasks of European institutions. Further analysis on the specific roles of the Council of Europe and the OSCE was also called for. Moreover, the Council of Europe's role in encouraging sub-regional integration, notably among the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Sea was stressed. Furthermore, the proposal was made to create within the Council of Europe a mechanism for preventive humanitarian diplomacy.

20. Finally, several speakers recognised that present resources are insufficient to meet the Council of Europe's goals and obligations and recalled that words had to be matched by deeds.

21. These proposals should be taken into account in the follow-up to be given to the Summit.

D. Bilateral meetings

22. The Summit also provided an opportunity for bilateral meetings, of which at least 120 took place. For instance:

- France, Germany and Russia announced that they would hold annual Summits to co-ordinate policies;

- Russia, following the award of the 1997 Peace Prize to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), indicated that it was prepared to adopt a ban;

- Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to continue searching for a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict;

- Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine issued a joint statement on increased co-operation ;

- Spain and the United Kingdom announced further talks on the Gibraltar issue.

E. Follow-up

23. At its meeting on 6 November 1997, the Committee of Ministers decided to set up a follow-up committee on the second Summit as well as a Committee of Wise Persons to prepare proposals for structural reform. This Committee of Wise Persons should be asked to take due account of the relevant Assembly proposals. Subsequently the Ministers’ Deputies created an ad hoc working party (GT-SUIVI) to supervise both the follow-up to the Final Declaration and the implementation of the Action Plan. It is a very positive sign that the Deputies decided that this working party, to be chaired by the Permanent Representative of France, would be open to participation, in accordance with arrangements still to be decided, by the Parliamentary Assembly and the CRLAE (see annex 2).

24. The Assembly should ensure that it will remain very closely involved in the follow-up to the Final Declaration and implementation of the Action Plan, just as it was in the preparation of the Summit.

25. A specific follow-up was already given to the Summit : the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, prohibiting the cloning of human beings, will be open for signature on 12 January 1988. Moreover, at their meeting on 6 November 1997, the Ministers adopted twenty guiding principles for the fight against corruption.

26. These examples of a rapid implementation are encouraging and clearly underline the importance attached by member states to the decisions taken in Strasbourg.

F. Conclusions

27. As demonstrated by the level of attendance, the Final Declaration and the Action Plan, the results of the bilateral meetings and the coverage it received, the Summit came at the right time. It clearly gave the Council of Europe new political impetus and set concrete tasks, many of them to be accomplished before the Organisation's 50th anniversary in 1999.

28. The Assembly's role, both in taking the initiative and in making a major contribution to the final texts, was publicly acknowledged by many participants in their addresses, notably by President Chirac.

Several specific tributes were made to President Fischer.

29. Most of the Assembly's proposals were in fact included in the Final Declaration and/or the Action Plan. The few that were not should continue to be advanced by the Assembly. The Action Plan is clearly more limited than the Declaration. However, the Final Declaration also constitutes a series of formal undertakings, which require a follow-up. Even so, additional financial resources were not pledged, although several participants recognised that existing means are insufficient.

30. It is essential that national parliaments be properly informed, debate the decisions taken at the Summit and contribute actively to their implementation. Consequently, national delegations should initiate the holding of a debate on the follow-up to the Summit in their own parliaments. This follow-up should also be considered in the context of the debates on the budget, notably that of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, out of which our Organisation is funded.

31. The Assembly should ensure that it will remain very closely involved in the follow-up to the Summit, just as it was in its preparation. The decision of the Ministers’ Deputies that their ad hoc working party on the follow-up to the Summit [GT-SUIVI] will be open to participation by the Assembly is an extremely positive development. The Assembly should use this possibility to the full.

Annex 1

Address by Mrs Leni Fischer MdB

President of the Parliamentary Assembly at the Second Council of Europe Summit

Strasbourg, 10-11 October 1997

Your Excellencies,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am naturally very pleased to be here to pass on the greetings of the Parliamentary Assembly. We would extend special thanks to our hosts, President Jacques Chirac and the city of Strasbourg. Thank you all for attending today. Your presence demonstrates your personal commitment to the Council of Europe.

Our aim is peace and security in a united Europe. Europe is an imposing construction, but it needs a solid foundation. This foundation is provided by democracy and human rights in a pluralist society governed by the rule of law. These are the principles defended by the Council of Europe.

Our meeting today is somewhat like a European "family reunion", because the Council of Europe is a pan-European association in which 40 member States are currently defending common values. Four further States which would like to join our family are also represented here. This does not apply to Belarus, for reasons of which we are well aware.

Another absentee is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, where the general situation is very disturbing.

The Strasbourg Summit is an opportunity for giving fresh top-level impetus to the Council of Europe.

This means that it follows directly on from the Vienna Summit, where the Heads of State and Government mandated the Council of Europe to provide the political structure in which the European States can work together on an equal footing towards democratic security. However, we now need new, clear guidelines for the future. This was one of the reasons why the Parliamentary Assembly suggested organising a second Summit, and why we are expecting concrete decisions from it.

What is the Assembly's main preoccupation?

First of all:

The enlargement of the Council of Europe has made it the defender of human and civil rights in the whole of Europe. Its main strength comes from its legislative authority in the field of human rights and democracy. This profile must be preserved and intensified. The new Single Court is a milestone, and a whole series of comprehensive conventions protecting human rights and minorities, social rights and human dignity have been devised.

The next step is to ensure that the member States keep their word and transpose the Council of Europe's principles into their legislation.

Secondly:

Unfortunately our Organisation's principles are not always universally respected. That is a matter of common knowledge. There are constant violations of human rights in our member States, and even torture and executions. The separation of powers continues to be infringed, the press is muzzled, minorities are oppressed, freedom of religion is flouted and opposition parties are the subject of undemocratic attacks. We cannot just sweep such facts under the carpet in order to retain "family harmony". Families must be able to speak the truth, and the truth sometimes hurts. This is our approach in the Parliamentary Assembly, and it should also be possible at this Summit.

An essential means of implementing the Council of Europe's principles and thus preserving its credibility and authority is the monitoring process, to which all member States are subject. No country can be allowed "static membership" of the Council of Europe: all members must continue to develop and honour their commitments. Monitoring provides the relevant critical dialogue to that end.

The Assembly has made great progress in the area of monitoring. However, we must aspire to even greater effectiveness, and sometimes greater clarity. The Council of Europe has very strict limits which cannot be overstepped with impunity. In fact, I get the feeling that we need to make good certain shortcomings in this crucial area of international relations. The participants at this Summit must move the monitoring process forward by undertaking formally and personally to co-operate actively in the process, in both the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly.

Thirdly:

In the past the Council of Europe was known as the "club of the western democracies". Nowadays we have members which have yet to construct and strengthen their democratic institutions. We must ensure compliance with our principles not only by threatening possible sanctions but also by providing practical assistance. This means decisively reinforcing the co-operation programmes, including those shared with the European Union.

Fourthly:

All organisations operating in Europe must be considered as equal partners. No single body can claim sole responsibility for co-ordination. The respective executive committees must decide on the practicalities of co-operation through consultation procedures. Greater use should be made of the experience and possibilities of the Council of Europe for such co-operation, particularly that with the European Union and OSCE. For the past eight years the Council has been conducting the preliminary political and legal work in the new member States which is vital for their subsequent admission to the EU. Would it not be sensible to fall back on the Council of Europe's experience and the outcome of its monitoring procedures in the European Union's discussions on enlargement?

In fifth place:

The Council of Europe must provide responses to the urgent problems of modern societies.

Top of the agenda is the protection and promotion of social rights. Much greater use should be made of the possibilities of the highly efficient Social Development Fund in the social field.

Another very important issue is the security of the citizen and therefore the fight against crime.

We must also deal with public concern in the fields of biomedicine and information technology.

We must firmly reject xenophobia, racism and intolerance of persons holding different opinions.

Greater attention must be paid to protecting the individual, particularly children and young people, as the most vulnerable members of our societies.

This also applies to equal participation by men and women in political, social and economic life. Perhaps more than one woman will be able to speak at the next Summit.

In sixth place:

The current conditions and challenges facing the Council of Europe require a corresponding degree of structural reform. This is one of the resolutions adopted at the Vienna Summit which has unfortunately not yet been implemented. In a situation where fixed costs remain high, the enlargement of the Council of Europe and the increasing numbers of new tasks cannot be catered for unless additional resources are made available.

I consider that it is more than high time the Assembly was granted the most obvious of all parliamentary rights, namely the right to control its own budget. In recent years the Parliamentary Assembly has proved to be the real driving force behind the Council of Europe. The Assembly demands the right to give an opinion on new draft conventions, on a mandatory basis and not optionally, as has been the case hitherto.

Now that the Committee of Ministers has 40 member States, we need to introduce ongoing political dialogue on topical issues. The relevant procedures must be expedited so that we can act quickly in crisis situations.

I would appeal to the Heads of State and Government of our member States to sustain their commitment to the Council of Europe and set the course for our future development. I would ask you, as our highest democratically elected representatives, to make full use of the Council of Europe, because the whole of Europe, united around law and democracy, is our shared destiny. In pursuing this goal you can rely on our support as parliamentarians.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention.

Annex 2

Committee of Ministers  Follow-up to the 101st Session (Strasbourg, 6 November 1997)

Decisions

The Deputies:

1.       took note of the information communicated by the Permanent Representative of France concerning the opening for signature on 12 January 1998 in Paris of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, prohibiting the cloning of human beings;

2.       took note of the information provided by the Secretariat concerning the action to be taken following adoption by the Ministers of the twenty guiding principles for the fight against corruption and instructed it to keep them regularly informed of the progress of the activities of the GMC and its working groups;

3.       bearing in mind the decision taken by the Ministers at their 101st session to set up a "Follow-up Committee on the Second Summit", decide to create an ad hoc working party (GT-SUIVI) open to all delegations, to experts from capitals and to the European Commission (following the model of GT-SOM2), with the task of supervising the follow-up to the Final Declaration and the implementation of the Action Plan adopted at the Summit, in liaison with the various sectorial rapporteur groups and the other Council of Europe bodies concerned, and which will report back to the Deputies (as appropriate) and with a view to each session of the Committee of Ministers until the 50th anniversary. This working party would be chaired by the Permanent Representative of France and open to participation, in accordance with arrangements still to be decided, by the Parliamentary Assembly and the CLRAE. It would hold its first meeting on 25 November 1997 when it would examine, among other things, the Secretary General's document on the procedures for implementing the Action Plan (document CM(97)163 rev.) and the arrangements for enabling the Parliamentary Assembly and the CLRAE to take part in its work;

4.       having regard to the Ministers' decision to set up a Committee of Wise Persons, with a limited membership reflecting a geographical balance of the member states, to be chaired by an eminent political figure, responsible for drawing up proposals for structural reform, and reporting back to the 103rd session of the Committee of Ministers, instructed the GT-SUIVI to prepare for their 609th bis meeting (26-27 November 1997, A level), draft terms of reference for this Committee of Wise Persons and proposals regarding the procedure for appointing its members.

Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee.

Budgetary implications for the Assembly: to be assessed.

Draft recommendation adopted by the committee unanimously on 4 December 1997.

Members of the committee: Mr Bársony (Chairman), Mr van der Linden (Vice Chairman), Mrs Ojuland (Vice-Chairperson), MM Antretter, Atkinson, Mrs. Belohorska, MM Belyaev, Bergqvist, Bernardini, Björck, Bloetzer, Chircop (alternate: Mr de Marco) , Chornovil, Davis, Deasy (alternate: Mr Gregory), Diacov, Dokle, Domljan, Evangelisti, Galanos, Gjellerod, Hornhues, Irmer, Iwínski, Kalus, Mrs Kautto, MM Kirilov, Kuzmickas, Mrs Lentz-Cornette, MM Lopez-Henares, Lupu (alternate: Mr Kelemen), van der Maelen, Maginas, Martínez, Medeiros Ferreira, Meier, Melescanu, Mota Amaral, Mühlemann, Musto, Mutman, Nallet, Oliynik (alternate: Mr Tsybenko), Pahor, Palmitjavilo Ribo, Popovski, Prusak, Mrs Ragnarsdóttir, Mr Risari, Mrs Roudy, MM Schieder, Schwimmer, Séguin, Selva, Sinka, Mrs G Smith (alternate: Mr McNamara), Mrs Stepova, Mrs Suchoka, MM Tan,Thoresen, Toshev, Urbain, Vrettos, Woltjer, Ziuganov (alternate: Mr Zhebrovsky).

N.B. The names of the members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries of the committee : Jan Kleijssen, Matjaz Gruden.