21.01.08

OPENING STATEMENT

OF MR LLUIS MARIA DE PUIG

PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

JANUARY 2008 PART-SESSION

(Strasbourg, Monday, 21 January 2008, 11h30 a.m.)

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have a saying in Spain “showing gratitude is a sign of good manners” and so before anything else I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have made my election as President of the Assembly possible. It is a great honour and huge responsibility for me. First, my thanks go to the members of the Assembly for your confidence in me and your support. I shall endeavour to live up to the trust you have placed in me and represent you as worthily as possible. My thanks too to the socialist group which elected me as candidate for the presidency. I would like to say thank you to my colleagues of today, but at this time I spare a special thought for those who have now left. I cannot forget how I have been influenced by people such as Karl Ahrens, M.A Martinez, Peter Hardy, Rudolf Bindig, Miko Elo, Tarja Halonen, Peter Schieder, Tony Lloyd and Terry Davis, who was my predecessor as Chair of the Group.

And of course many others too numerous to mention. Not only were they colleagues and friends, but to a large extent they were also my mentors.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues in the Spanish delegation, for their statesmanship and at the same time their Europeanism, for the support I have always received from them in my work and, of course, for their friendliness and generosity towards me, making them I am sure personal friends for life.

My thanks too to the leaders of the groups with whom I have worked over the last four years, who have been sincere in their friendship even though we have on many occasions differed politically. I am grateful to all of them without exception.

Nor can I forget the debt I owe to the Secretariat of the Assembly for its work alongside me for so many years, its advice, its expertise and its unfailing willingness to co-operate.

I have a great deal of respect for the Secretariat and for the work it does here in the Assembly. I think we have to acknowledge this. We are fortunate to have a team of public servants of the highest order. I will not name all those who have helped me on so many occasions and who are now among my friends; there are too many of them. But I would just like to mention Bruno Haller with whom it was a pleasure to work for so many years. It was a constructive and close collaboration which continues today with his successor Mateo Sorinas.

Now that I am taking up my duty as President of a key institution in Europe, you will understand that there are some personal thank-yous that I must not forget. First of all, thanks to my family, and especially to my wife and two daughters who have stoically supported my dedication to the Council of Europe for 25 years and the absences and working hours which have impacted on our family life. As you know, such support is priceless.

As President, I shall be taking over from René van der Linden. It would be ungrateful of me if I failed to acknowledge the work he has done at the head of our Assembly. He has shown extraordinary dedication. His presence in all forums, his constant initiatives and his personal readiness and commitment have given both the Council of Europe and our Assembly much more visibility. We should also remember a large number of achievements of which he was the instigator such as the annual debate on the situation of democracy and human rights and inter-faith dialogue. Bringing key religious figures to our Assembly Chamber was his idea. Internally, he has pushed through reforms to the regulations and the way we operate which are now a standard part of our rules of procedure. I think that I can also say that the Juncker report, the memorandum of understanding with the European Union and the agreement with the European Parliament all owe a great deal to Mr van der Linden. At all times he staunchly defended the Assembly’s positions before the Committee of Ministers, even though this was not to the liking of many of them. And he was unflinching in his efforts with the European Union to defend our structures devoted to human rights, so often ignored by our friends in Brussels. He has been a committed and tenacious president, dedicated heart and soul to the Assembly over which he presided. And you are aware of how important the soul is to a Christian Democrat. For all this and on behalf of the whole Assembly, a huge thank you to René van der Linden.

You have just elected a president who believes in Europe and who believes in the Council of Europe. I am a convinced pro-European and optimistic about our future and that of our institutions. As some of you are aware, I am a historian by profession, involved in both research and teaching. As a result, my vision of Europe is heavily influenced by the sequence of historical events. And it is for this reason that I am optimistic. Europe’s past is a narrative of wars, confrontations, tragedies and suffering, endless oppression, fratricide, destruction and death. All that is well known, much of the history of Europe, as of the whole of humanity, is indeed tragic.

The historian Ramón Carande was once asked to describe history in three words. In just three words. His answer was “too many repetitions”. This could apply to the history of Europe with its bloody wars of religion, imperialism, fascism, ultra-nationalism, ethnic cleansing, genocide, dictatorship and totalitarianism. There have indeed been too many repetitions.

But that is not all of the history of Europe, just the worst part. The other part is what interests us. The history of a Europe able to bear aloft the flag of freedom, emancipation, human rights, democracy and progress. Because Europe has managed to do this as well. This is why I claim to be optimistic. We have to be critical of our past, but at the same time we have to pay tribute to the Europe which also brought us humanism, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, liberalism, democratic socialism, free-thinking, religious and secular humanism, democracy, universal suffrage, the separation of powers, political pluralism, the welfare state, the European Convention of Human Rights, and almost sixty years ago, the Council of Europe.

The history of Europe has been at times appalling, but the advances made have also been significant. If we take the image of the half-full, half-empty glass, when we look at the Europe of today, we have to acknowledge that it is half full and that the best alternative is to continue to fill it up.

I would like, if I may, to say that I disagree with George Steiner and his definition of Europe in his well-known book “The Idea of Europe”, in which he states his belief in the irreversible decline of our continent. First of all, his description of the unitary components of Europe – the coffee houses, the landscape, the Greek heritage, monotheism, town-planning which bears witness to our past – is partially acceptable as complementing many others. But I cannot accept his pessimistic exposition of ethnic conflicts and cultural impoverishment as the inevitable cause of Europe’s ruin.

Europe is a mixture of cultures, a real congregation of similarities and diversity, giving an overall picture of variety: of languages, cultures, customs, landscapes, climates, populations, natural resources and traditions. Similarly, one can say that the economy is becoming increasingly more uniform, that new technologies reach the furthest corners, that most societies are open to science and progress, and that Europeans share many lifestyles, legal foundations, individual freedoms, ethical and moral values, democratic systems and common institutions, all of which constitutes a European identity in terms of culture or civilisation.

I do not believe that this identity and institutions such as the Council of Europe are heading for an irreversible decline. On the contrary, I believe we are in a process of cohesion, of perfecting our ideas, instruments and objectives which sooner rather than later will bear fruit in terms of progress, humanism and equality.

I mentioned that I believe in the Council of Europe. I truly think that it is a wonderful instrument and platform for progress - and not only for Europe.

I should like to tell you how I see the Council of Europe today. As you know, I am the oldest member of this Assembly. You have, as it were, just elected a tribal elder, and this not lacking in historical tradition. I arrived in 1983, when the Organisation had 21 member states. In fact, in that time our institution not covers Europe as a whole, but only part of Europe, namely Western Europe.

Since then, with the changes in the countries on the other side of the Berlin Wall and their gradual incorporation into the Council of Europe, our Organisation has grown enormously and has finally succeeded in achieving its founding purpose, which was to become a great Europe-wide institution.

When the time came, the Council of Europe did some extraordinary work. It was necessary to welcome our friendly neighbours from central and eastern Europe, and the Council of Europe received them with open arms. In doing so, it was doing Europe, and all these fledgling democracies, a great service. The arrival of so many new countries undoubtedly changed the dimension and profile of the Council and our Assembly. There are now 47 estates members, and we cover Greater Europe, in other words the whole of Europe.

With the new situation in recent years, we have tried to continue to work in accordance with our founding Statute, even though much of our work has been disturbed by the crises in the Balkans and world events with which you are familiar. Be that as it may, the Council did not give up, but continued to do its duty in pursuit of peace and stability in Europe and elsewhere.

In recent years we have returned to calmer seas; we have reviewed our priorities and introduced numerous reforms enabling the Council and the Assembly to operate more effectively.

As for our political objectives, I see a mission entrusted to us by the Heads of State and government at the Third Council of Europe Summit held in Warsaw in 2005. That mission is to have the Council of Europe come closer to its citizens, not least by making it more transparent and efficient.

We should think of the priorities decided in Warsaw as being in constant motion, priorities that we must show ourselves capable of permanently adapting to, in a Europe which itself is in constant change.

I am thinking not only of our common fundamental values: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. For however vital these values are, they cannot be safe unless we at the same time know how to make this continent of ours more humane, a Europe where all our fellow citizens feel secure.

We have to have a Council of Europe fully committed to such a human, and humane, Europe.

A Europe where social values are respected and strengthened.

A Europe which does not rest until violence against women and children are a thing of the past.

A Europe that fights resolutely against the abominable trafficking in human beings.

A Europe that sees its minorities as the true asset that they are.

A Europe which combats with determination any and all forms of corruption.

A Europe which takes proper care of its environment and comes down firmly on the side of sustainable development.

A Europe which recognises and really does something about climate change.

A Europe which sees immigration as a chance for the future, rather than as a danger.

A Europe which gives education its proper, prominent place in society.

And, finally, a Europe which turns the intercultural dialogue that we so badly need into a tool for the struggle against racism, xenophobia and intolerance.

The time has come to refer to the Council of Europe's relations with its close neighbours. In almost sixty years, Europe has changed, and so has the wider world.

Today more than ever, in a globalised, constantly changing world, Europe has to face new concerns. Globalisation of the economy, population growth, climate change, energy supply, and the new threats to the security of our societies, all these are challenges to be met by 21st century Europe.

Singly, the member states are no longer equal to all these new challenges that know no borders. By a combined effort, we can address them and respond to the concerns of the citizens. To do so, however, Europe should not become a fortress. We must endeavour to make our values count with our near neighbours in the Mediterranean and Central Asia. We should think about pragmatic methods enabling us to cultivate an institutional dialogue with our neighbours in specific fields of co-operation.

Furthering our relations with the other agents of European policy, especially the European Union, should remain one of our goals. Being well-acquainted with this institution, I am convinced that the European Union should make better use of Council of Europe experience, expertise and instruments. We now have the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe the European Union which I hope will form a fresh basis for co-operation.

I an gratified that the treaty of Lisbon reforming the European Union has paved the way for this institution’s accession to our European Convention on Human Rights. All citizens of the European Union Member States will thus be protected against any violations of their rights by the institutions of the European Union. Through this measure, a significant step has been made towards the creation of a common European legal area.

Where the European Parliament is concerned, I welcome the signature of the co-operation agreement between our Assembly and the European Parliament, which occurred this past 28 November. The agreement constitutes the fulfilment of one of Mr Jean-Claude Juncker’s recommendations.

Lastly, with the OSCE and the United Nations, we must emphasise our respective comparative advantages and keep looking for a complementary relationship so as to lessen the risks of duplication.

I wish to make a people’s Europe the keynote of my term of office.

I consider that the Assembly’s role is to make its contribution to a Europe built for Europeans and by Europeans. From the outset, this was the goal which guided the architects of the European political design. The founding fathers, all of them, De Gasperi, Schuman, Spaak, Churchill, Adenauer and Monnet, knew full well that the success of their enterprise depended on the ability of women and men in politics to heed and respond to the aspirations of the peoples. It behoves us to bring the Council of Europe closer to the citizens of Europe.

In this respect, it is imperative that the themes with which we concern ourselves are in keeping with their preoccupations and their expectations.

We must debate the issues of real interest to our fellow-citizens, however controversial, and thus target our Organisation’s activities more satisfactorily. This presupposes that we leave aside for a certain time the questions bearing purely on our internal operation. In the last few years, at the instigation of our President and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, we have introduced a number of changes to the functioning of the Assembly. The concern now is to master these changes and evaluate the suitability and feasibility in the context of action.

The work of the committees is crucial in that respect. I shall endeavour while in office to give them a say so that their role as the driving force of this Assembly is more widely recognised. One must be aware that it is often easier to intervene and to influence the debate in committee than in plenary sitting.

We should also take account of the work done by other international parliamentary institutions such as the Panafrican Parliament or the Latin American Parliament. Our relations with them afford us a platform for dialogue on the values that we wish to promote.

Concerning the place of the Parliamentary Assembly in the Council of Europe, I attach great importance to the harmonious institutional relations between our institution’s two statutory organs, namely the Committee of Ministers and our Assembly. It is imperative that we work together in the interests of our Organisation although we, the Assembly, should at all times and in all circumstances defend our position and try to convince the Committee of Ministers of the propriety of our arguments and demands.

Concerning the European Court of Human Rights, we should support it and do everything to prevent it from collapsing under the weight of its own success.

We must also work in close co-operation with the Secretary General, we must support the work of the Commissioner for Human Rights and gain maximum benefit from our co-operation agreements with the Venice Commission and the North-South Centre. I invite the committees to do this whenever it proves necessary.

We must all unite our efforts in order that the Council of Europe can be better known and appreciated by our citizens. In opposition to the burgeoning of “liquid” societies and institutions, as Zygmunt Bauman has defined them, the Council of Europe must stand very firm; against a flexible, changeable, uncertain postmodernism, we must raise the permanent stability and the strength of our convictions and our vision of the future.

I shall end with an except from the famous speech by Winston Churchill delivered in Zurich in 1946: “The [League of Nations] did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It faded because those principles were deserted by those States which had brought it into being, because the Governments of those States feared to face the facts.”

Today more than ever, we must face the facts and proclaim loudly and strongly the values upheld by the Council of Europe throughout Europe and beyond.

It is a struggle to be waged at each instant, which I intend to pursue with you for my entire term of office!

Thank you for your attention.