Parliamentary Assembly

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

I certainly share Mr Hofer’s view that the flow of information between East and West is one of the conditions for real co-operation in Europe, which is the aim of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

As regards the second question concerning the Swiss proposal to convene a meeting of experts following the Belgrade Conference, Austria has supported it. But I would like to point out that in my opinion we should first try to come to an agreement on this question within the Council of Europe.

As far as I know there already exists a Council of Europe draft convention. I have, however, heard nothing about it in Vienna at least for the past year. It seems to me that this draft, as it existed about a year ago, is so good that we should first of all agree on it among ourselves and then – and I believe this would be a sphere in which to exert our efforts – once the twenty of us are agreed, we can present a united front to our discussion partners at Belgrade.

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

It is a major concern of Austria to arrive at an agreed document. That was so in Helsinki, it was so in Belgrade. We have done our best to make our contribution to this and we are still doing so. We have always tried to take account of all points of view in our activities.

Personally, it has always seemed to me a great pity – I felt this as far back as the preparations for Helsinki – that the representatives of Council of Europe member states were not prepared to hold joint preliminary discussions before the start of the official meetings of the CSCE. I tried at the time in Helsinki, at an informal dinner to bring about such joint meeting of all the representatives of Council of Europe member states but I did not succeed.

These efforts are my answer to you. I think an exchange of views in the Council of Europe is necessary and should take place as occasion requires, not merely during the six-monthly meetings of the Committees of Ministers in connection with one of the five, six or eight items on its agenda.

I think that for Austria’s occasional efforts at mediation during these conferences in Helsinki or Belgrade, contacts with the representatives of individual groups, whether from EEC or from the Eastern European states are necessary. But I do not believe that Austria as such needs to have direct contacts with EEC or with NATO for the purpose of an exchange of views. The Council of Europe is the appropriate body for this and it should be active not only in Strasbourg but also in Helsinki and Belgrade.

As to the second question, that of bilateral relations with Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia, let me say that towards the end of the 50s it was Austria that pointed out that the problems of relations with the countries commonly known as Eastern European countries could not be tackled en bloc, but that they too were individual countries, for which individual treatment and bilateral solutions needed to be found.

In general we are of the opinion that bilateral relations between Austria and Hungary have already gone further than the CSCE decisions prescribe and have in many ways improved. Not in all, but in many.

With Czechoslovakia we had bilateral problems to solve which found no settlement at the CSCE, and we are now trying to improve our relations.

I believe that the CSCE is also beneficial to relations with Yugoslavia, though not decisive. What is decisive is once again a bilateral question, namely the minority question, for which a reasonable solution must be found.

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

Mr Boucheny is right. Austria has always attached particular importance to Basket 3 because since 1946-47, and still more since 1955-56, it has been Austria’s policy to pay special attention to individuals and the fate of individuals.

Throughout these decades we have pursued this policy in which the emphasis is on the individual and we are still pursuing it in the conviction that our policy will only be credible if we really guarantee the right of each individual to the freedoms we call human rights – fundamental freedoms – and if we shelter those about whom we believe that they clearly do not have these rights.

It is on the basis of this policy that Austria grants asylum. And I am convinced that Basket 3 was correctly described in Helsinki as a package that will help to further peace and co-operation in Europe.

Contradictory views will inevitably be expressed in political discussions between representatives of different social systems. In Austria we have always adopted the principle: no verbal confrontation, but practical assistance for those who need it. This continues to be our attitude, and in Belgrade too we proceeded on those lines.

I believe I have answered the essential points of your question.

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

I think they would be most annoyed with me in Austria if I anticipated the decision as to whether there should also be direct elections to the Council of Europe, since, as far as Austria is concerned, that is a decision for Parliament and the National and Federal Councils, and certainly not for the President.

But under the Austrian Constitution the decision on the other questions I have answered today does not rest with me either. I have merely given you my personal opinion.

As I was trying to say in my speech from the rostrum, we must see the direct elections to the European Parliament as something which does not come from us but at whose stimulating effect we ought to rejoice. I hesitated to say that we should simply decide to do the same thing in the Parliamentary Assembly but, it seems to me – though I am not the adviser of the members of the Assembly – that we ought to work out a way that suits ourselves. As long as on the grounds of its powers as defined in the Statute the Parliamentary Assembly depends on national parliaments to translate its ideas into reality, since it can make no legislation here, it seems to me advisable to preserve a personal link between the members of the Assembly here in Strasbourg and the members of national parliaments.

That is – I stress – my personal opinion and not my country’s opinion, but I think a Federal President can sometimes have a personal opinion.

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

The agreement between the neutral countries has the advantage that it is easier for us to find our bearings but is not a binding agreement. We have no wish to form a bloc of neutrals, but we believe that it is useful to exchange views from time to time in the process of détente and that we must necessarily seek to follow the same or at least a similar path.

As far as disarmament is concerned I do not think that Austria can do much. I personally always believe that the prerequisite for disarmament is a relationship of trust – trust between those partners who are really competent to discuss military matters. Moreover, this relationship of trust must not be an emotional one, but one founded on facts.

A neutral country like Austria can at most offer its very modest services in establishing a relationship of trust. At present, however, when the big blocs have direct contact with each other, there is no part the neutral states can usefully play.

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

By its very nature EEC is a supranational organisation. In other words when EEC is fully operative, the decisions are taken by its organs.

In our opinion this would not be compatible with the duties of permanent neutrality, for the permanently neutral state must also be in a position to make its own decisions, in any case at a time of armed conflict, and indeed to take decisions on all questions – even in the economic field for which it has responsibility vis-à-vis the warring states.

It is above all the supranational nature of the European Communities which prevents Austria from becoming a member. I also believe that the special task and role of permanent neutrality assumed by Austria on the basis of its geographical position would be endangered by such membership.

We are very glad that, in contrast to the period between the first and second world wars, we have a task to fulfil which is based on our neutrality. We believe that this is also the guarantee of our existence and of our security. But I do not believe that this is a problem that can be done away with by a clause in the Treaty of Rome.

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

I am glad that Mr Grant has happy memories of his visit to Vienna. I am sorry we did not have a chance to meet there.

I find it difficult to answer his question. I am no futurologist and I am very much afraid that there are so many “ifs” in his question that I cannot answer it with a clear “yes” or “no”.

Perhaps I might just say this. We do not live in a static world. If we cast our minds back, we shall see that much has changed in the past twenty years. Inside Europe, inside the European Communities and inside the Council of Europe, ideas and practice have not always corresponded.

We do not know how things will develop. But one thing is certain. That is that Austria will, on the one hand, do everything possible towards European integration while preserving her neutrality, and on the other, the qualified independence which in the joint discussions between Switzerland, Austria and Sweden we considered the condition for neutrality will be preserved. Precisely where the way lies, I do not know.

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

In principle Austria has always favoured specific treatment for the problems of transport and the environment because we are convinced that we should build as many bridges as possible between countries with different social systems and that we should spin as many threads as possible on which to hang firm and lasting cooperation. It is then a matter of personal choice whether these specific problems are dealt with at a separate conference or whether the existing and excellent institutions of EEC are used for the purpose. In my view this is of secondary importance. But Austria will certainly always ' favour discussion of the widest possible range of questions of international, I might almost say, daily life.

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

During my visit to Hungary last year we quite advisedly described, in a communiqué, relations between Austria and Hungary as exemplary – indeed we could have said a “pattern” – for relations between states with two different social systems. And I think we were right to do so because in our dealings with each other the strict formalities often customary in dealings between states with different social systems were hardly in evidence.

But I would hesitate to suggest that all the countries of the West should copy Austro-Hungarian relations in dealings with all the countries of the East, or simply adopt the same pattern. This does not seem possible to me because we all know that international relations – even relations between the countries assembled here in the Council of Europe – depend on many things, on history, geographical situation and in human terms on family ties. Relations between Austria and Hungary are, I believe, exemplary, but I hesitate to say that they can be copied lock, stock and barrel.

It seems to me that the positive development we have encountered in Hungary may also be encountered elsewhere to a lesser extent, sometimes even to the same extent, in other Eastern European states. But it may be that bilateral questions have more force and carry more weight than an overall trend.

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

I take it that Mr Lewis’s first question was a rhetorical one. Naturally I agree that every individual should have the right to leave his country, provided he has not committed a criminal offence.

As regards the second question, the question on human rights, I tried to make it clear in my speech that we need to begin by setting an example. To wage a campaign for human rights without providing a shining example of respect for human rights in one’s own country will be seen as political propaganda and will have no real effect. All of us, whatever our office, must be the guardians of human rights in our own countries. We can then offer to relay them to other places.

Moreover, I believe that Brecht’s words: “Es gibt nichts Gutes, außer man tut es” (There is nothing good unless you do it) apply to human rights as they do to all matters about which there is much discussion.

I also believe, particularly in respect of human rights, that we must guarantee them, we must respect them, we must guard them in our own countries. A shining example – once it exists – will shed its light in all directions. Thank you.