Parliamentary Assembly

thanked the Assembly for its invitation. She said that it was no coincidence that Strasbourg had been described as the capital of Europe; the two parliaments meeting in Strasbourg had shaped Europe’s past and future. It was a pleasure for her to address the Assembly for the first time. The Assembly was a very special place, and the first of its sort in European history. The diversity of Europe was represented in the Assembly. The very fact that members of parliament from 47 countries held discussions gave the Assembly a credibility and importance that went beyond Europe, which was important in a time of increasing globalism. There were many differences within Europe, but diversity had to be an advantage. What happened in Europe influenced the rest of the world, and challenges were shared globally. Foreign policy became domestic policy, and vice versa – the lines between the two were blurred.

There was an increasing awareness of the common responsibility for peace in Europe, and the Assembly represented this. Throughout its existence it had made a vital contribution towards unity and common understanding. For over 60 years it had been defending the principles of democracy, human rights, peace, justice and solidarity. Europe had to aspire to those core values. There was a common wish to shape the positive future for Europe. Through the euro, Schengen and the internal market, Europe had created a different form of co-existence based on mutual trust and respect. That had led to a period of history with considerably less conflict. In the Assembly there was a common and shared goal. There was also an aspiration to bring others into that forum.

Germany had joined the Council of Europe in 1951, and in addressing the Assembly the then Chancellor had said that it was highly significant for the political development of Europe that representatives of Europe could share concerns and anguishes, wishes and hopes, and make common progress in the spirit of fairness. In the Council of Europe, he had said, we had the conscience of Europe. For some 60 years the Council had been the European conscience, based on the dignity of the individual. The Council of Europe had helped to ensure that governments acted according to the dignity of human rights. Human dignity was indivisible and of equal value across Europe. The translation of human dignity into reality differed, but was vital.

Pope John Paul II had told the Assembly in 1988 that European identity was not an easily grasped concept. Since then, Europe had changed considerably, and had gained a much clearer European identity. With the fall of the iron curtain and the end of the Cold War, the unnatural division of Europe had ended. Europe had a shared identity for the first time.

The Chancellor said that she had lived in the former German Democratic Republic when there had been no facility for challenging discrimination in the European Court of Human Rights. The situation had changed dramatically with the fall of the Berlin Wall. During the 1990s, many countries in central and eastern Europe had managed to shift from dictatorship to democracy, with multi-party systems, effective oppositions, independent judiciaries, division of powers and free media. Those changes were hard won and had to be defended to the hilt.

She had great personal conviction that change was possible. Many of those in the Hemicycle were a living testimony to that. She was personally convinced that the success story of the Council was a signal to the rest of the world; to regions where stability seemed impossible, it should be a vision and should become the reality.

Europe was a perennial challenge and needed to strive continually to improve; European states would be more successful the more they shared. The German presidency had worked on the issue closely: the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome had been celebrated in Berlin with a declaration that underlined the values that brought Europe together and on which Europe wished to build its political future. Europe needed to make sure that it acted according to its words. It needed to give globalisation a human face: it needed to stand up and combat climate change decisively. Trade should not outweigh human rights: economic issues and human rights issues were not in opposition. An example was the need to make sure that European values were applied in the ground-rules of business dealings. European values must not be abstract; they had to be applied. Europe had to revisit its challenges daily, and the Council of Europe would continue to serve as the independent guardian of Europe’s values.

The Chancellor gave two examples: the fight against terrorism and the protection of minorities. She said that ever since the terrorist attacks on Madrid and London the need to extend the fight against terrorism had been clear, but there was also a clear need to protect the rights of individuals: security and legal precepts had to be balanced, including through participation. It was crucial to find a way ahead. An important role was played by the Human Rights Commissioner. The Commissioner’s visit to Germany in autumn 2006 had showed the importance of constructive criticism. Shortcomings had to be ironed out to make the good even better. The duty in Europe to become involved in the business of others was good, especially in human rights; there was no such thing as internal matters when it came to human rights, which had to be applied universally. Supranational institutions such as the Council of Europe had a special role, and the Council was very conscious of that. There was a system of mutual oversight which did not shy away from pointing the finger. The Council guaranteed that ordinary people could bring their complaints before the Court. The decisions made regarding security needed to be the right ones, without excessively curbing freedoms. The common commitment to the values of Europe had to be carried out seamlessly.

The treatment of minorities was a huge challenge throughout the world, which still saw a number of unresolved conflicts. There was no ready-made solution to the problem of balancing separatism and national cohesion but violence could never be the correct response. Only dialogue would lead to greater agreement, but that was easier said than done. The number of migrants in Europe was increasing and society was accordingly becoming more diverse, making it necessary to include new members of society in the mainstream, including those people who were religious. She had appointed an adviser on migration and the German Government had begun a dialogue with citizens involving an open exchange on both expectations and criticisms. She welcomed the intercultural dialogue that the Council of Europe had launched. Combating terror and integrating communities were two examples of difficulties on which the Council of Europe provided common values and a platform for discussion.

The European Court of Human Rights was unique in allowing some 50 000 people a year to bring cases involving the violation of rights, and that number was an impressive testament to people’s confidence in the Court. The Court’s President had spoken of the work done by judges but had said that the Court had reached its limit. The Court needed to be reformed and there must be no hold-up in that reform. Those who sought delay questioned our common values.

During Germany’s presidency of the EU, talks had been held with President Putin and the Speaker of the Duma on Protocol No. 14. Assembly representatives from the Duma had lobbied for its ratification. The European Convention on Human Rights had existed long before the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but the EU would have been inconceivable if the Council of Europe had not paved the way. All EU members had first been members of the Council of Europe, and the two bodies were complementary. The German presidency of the EU had obtained a new memorandum of understanding and there were many connections between the two bodies.

The Lisbon process had sought to give the EU a legal personality that would allow its accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Citizens of the European Union would be able to lodge complaints against Brussels.

The Council of Europe was a huge success story, with significant achievements on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. People believed these things to be self-evident, but new generations needed to be aware of what had been done in the past, which in turn showed what needed to be done in future.

She made a plea to all to continue to shape the debate and set the pace for a Europe based on peace, freedom and democracy. Europe could set the world an example when it came to resolving intractable conflicts and it could help others to do so in the rest of the world.