ADDRESS BY MR MEVLÜT ÇAVUŞOĞLU,

PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, AT THE OPENING

OF THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS OF PARLIAMENT

(LIMASSOL, 11 JUNE 2010)

Mr President, Fellow Speakers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great honour for me to open this conference, held for the first time on this beautiful island of Cyprus, a crossroads for civilisations over the millennia. May I thank you, President Garoyian, and through you the Parliament, for hosting this European Conference of Presidents of Parliament, uniting speakers from nearly all the 47 member states of the Council of Europe around themes of the highest relevance.

We are only a few miles away from the rock of Petra tou Roumio, where Aphrodite, the Goddess of Love, arose from the foam of the sea – the fruit of a union between Uranus, the Father of the Heavens, and Gaea, the Mother of the Earth. Looking out over the expanse of the Mediterranean from here, I feel that there must be some truth in the legend.

The first theme of our Conference is “Rights and Responsibilities of the Opposition in Parliament”. This, I am sure, will have a particular appeal for you. For, during the often long careers that preceded your present role as Speakers most, if not all of you, will have spent time in opposition. In those days, you must have been eager to present opinions contrary to those of the government of the day. You were waiting for the time when your party could be in government and realise your political goals, perhaps also wishing you had more rights as opposition than you did.

And now, as Speakers - presumably from the governmental majority as is normally the case in our parliaments - you are in a position to reconcile this memory with your present supreme obligation, namely that of impartiality. You must often perhaps even bend over backwards not only to be objective – neutral and rule-bound - in your running of the business of your parliament, but also, equally important, to be seen by your peers and the public as being impartial. You may even occasionally have to be impartial to the point of favouring the minority, in order not to be blamed for any perceived partisanship in favour of the majority.

With all this sensitivity acquired over a long career - first as ordinary members of parliament and then as Speakers - you have certainly given much thought to our first theme, which covers not only the rights, but also the responsibilities, of the opposition. Add to this the very detailed background document in your files and I am sure we will have a very good discussion, and be able to identify various areas where we can do better than we have so far in safeguarding the rights and responsibilities of an opposition in parliament.

For what is government - what is indeed democracy - without a lively, constantly questioning, irksome, irritating opposition? How can we sharpen our arguments unless others, whom we want to convince, question them? It is no coincidence that in the best functioning democracies, the end result of the process ‘thesis versus anti-theses’ is ‘synthesis’, in which majority proposals incorporate at least some elements advocated by the opposition. Political life seems to be best when there is at least a degree of compromise between the majority and the minority, and this presupposes a certain give-and-take between them. When the opposition feels that its views get heard and it is respected, it will also feel greater responsibility for the business at hand.

I wish to add that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has been the first international parliamentary assembly in the world to demand that its delegations ensured a fair representation of the political parties or groups in national parliaments. This requirement reflects the importance that our Assembly attaches to political pluralism and the interaction between majority and minority groups, between political forces supporting the government and those opposing it.

I am sure we will have a very good discussion about this theme.

The second theme is about how we may better implement, at national level, the principle of non-discrimination as defined in international human rights law. Here, you are also very well placed as speakers, for what is non-discrimination if not impartiality?

We are asked to consider ways in which we may ensure non- discrimination not only in the life of our parliaments, but in any set of legislation that we vote. Again you have a very interesting paper in your files suggesting ways in which the situation may be improved, such as via ratification of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Here I am fully aware that we come close to the political terrain, where it may be difficult for some of you to pronounce yourselves on policy options. Indeed, only 17 out of the Council of Europe’s 47 member states have ratified Protocol No. 12, 20 more have signed but not ratified it, and several countries have expressed reservations. But it is important that we examine together what might be done more generally to embody human rights principles of non-discrimination within our national legislations.

For me, the increasing intolerance and discrimination in our societies are one of the biggest challenges of the era of globalization. With the consequences of the economic crises, these problems have become even more acute.

As I declared in my speech when I was elected President of the Assembly last January, the foundation of our common European home must be built on an open society based on respect for diversity, not on exclusion, not on discrimination, not on fear and certainly not on hatred.

In order to fight discrimination, legal instruments are, of course, necessary. However, we must also strive to improve the general climate in our societies. Therefore we must enhance inter-cultural dialogue including its inter-religious dimension. We must eradicate racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, Islamophobia and all kinds of similar phobia leading to discrimination and intolerance.

The Council of Europe has a leading role in all of these areas, including the Parliamentary Assembly. The Assembly has also been active in combating gender-based discrimination and equal opportunities for women and men. I might add in this context the pioneering role of the Assembly amongst international assemblies: under its rules of procedures, national delegations should include the under-represented sex at least in the same percentage as is present in their parliaments, and in any case one representative for each sex.

There is one more subject I would like to raise. I have referred to the beauty of this island. We also know that the Island had a tragic past. The Council of Europe - including its Parliamentary Assembly - has returned to the Cyprus issue on many occasions and with many initiatives. The aim has been, and still remains - if I may use the words of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Resolution 1628 of 2008 - to find “a lasting and comprehensive solution for a peaceful and united Cyprus, which would guarantee the legitimate rights of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, in full compliance with the values and principles of the Council of Europe”.

We are heartened that talks between the two sides are now again in progress, and we hope and trust that they will bear fruit as soon as possible. As President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I can only reiterate the words of the United Nations Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki Moon, when he stated his conviction, a few days ago, that “a settlement is within grasp and the opportunity must be seized”.

One of our initiatives towards this end is the Council of Europe’s “European Forum Cyprus”. This Forum, which is co-financed by the European Union, provides a platform for young Cypriot leaders from all walks of life in the two communities on the island. It is meant to foster the social contacts and discussion between the two sides, and thereby contribute to mutual respect, confidence and co-operation between future generations of Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders – a necessary condition for a peaceful and prosperous Cyprus and the region.

One of my predecessors, Mr Rene van der Linden, former President of the Parliamentary Assembly, was at the origin of setting-up this Forum. I am very pleased and honoured that we will meet with Forum participants in the margins of this Conference to exchange views and give our encouragement to this initiative.

Speaking about initiatives of the Parliamentary Assembly, may I recall that we are also the only European assembly in which elected representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community participate on a regular basis. I also recall that the leaders of both sides addressed our Parliamentary Assembly during the same session, in October 2008, at which time our Parliamentarians also had the opportunity to exchange views with them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning of my speech I referred to Aphrodite, the Goddess of Love, sprung from a union of heaven and earth. As we know, heaven and earth are part of the same universe. By the same token, the two parts of this island are also parts, not only of the same universe, but also of the same earth, indeed of the same island. So may Aphrodite, legend or not, inspire us all, not only in working in close unison together at this Conference, but also in the task of bringing the two parts of Cyprus closer to each other.

I thank you for your attention.