Parliamentary Assembly

Mr President, Madam Secretary General, ladies and gentlemen, “Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better.” The English theologian, Richard Hooker, already said that in the sixteenth century. It is not difficult to agree with that statement when we look at events in Europe in the last couple of years.

The speed and enthusiasm with which central and eastern European countries have obtained their new freedom is impressive. Although many difficulties lie ahead of us, and a wide variety of problems call for action – the appalling situation in Yugoslavia is a vivid example of this – we do have reason to hope more realistically for progress in our continent today than only a few years ago. The picture of this new Europe which we can now begin to see outlined is one of a Europe constructed upon the very ideas and values on which the Council of Europe was founded. Let me therefore first of all express my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is a pleasure and a privilege.

Let me start by declaring – and this cannot be repeated too often – that the eastern and central European people themselves brought about the dramatic changes that we have witnessed. The latest example took place only a few weeks ago in the Soviet Union. The credit for obtaining their own freedom should go to those very peoples who have tolerated lack of freedom and poor living conditions for decades.

However, the efforts that the West has made did have a positive outcome. I refer to our constant insistence on, and persistence in, exerting respect for democracy and human rights – efforts that we have not least maintained through the Council of Europe and in the CSCE. But I am also alluding to the way in which the West has structured its co-operation, thereby producing examples and visions of a different and better Europe. European Community co-operation in particular, but NATO also, should be mentioned in this connection. From such a starting-point in our structure of co-operation, we will strive for a new Europe freed from antagonism.

But, in the present period of transition, we – belonging to a more fortunate part of Europe – are responsible, individually as well as through our joint organisations, for taking charge of the neighbours that have now come so much closer to us. Success would mean a Europe whole and free. I dare not think of the consequences of failure. On this new European stage that is hopefully emerging, the Council of Europe plays an active and vital role – the vital role of promoting and developing the European identity, an identity built on respect for human rights, for democracy and for the rule of law.

The European Convention on Human Rights was signed more than forty years ago. Its institutions, the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights, constitute the most advanced machinery to safeguard human rights in the modern world. The right of individual petition and the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction are key elements in this unique system. Common human rights standards set out in the Convention are not only guaranteed and upheld, but further developed through the living impact that these institutions’ decision-making exerts on the legal systems of member states.

The developments in central and eastern Europe have already opened up a vast new field of activity for the Council of Europe. I am deeply impressed by the activities undertaken within the framework of the Demosthenes programme. It includes aid to constitutional, legal and administrative reforms. There is also the programme for advanced studies and training in science and technology, the FOR EAST programme. The Council of Europe has the expertise in these areas, and I am happy to see that it is being used also in the central and eastern European countries to assist in the process of building up the new democracies.

With an even wider base than the Council of Europe, the CSCE has come to play a significant role. The CSCE is an essential component in the new European picture. I would especially like to point out that the CSCE encourages a transatlantic dialogue as well as enabling the Soviet Union to maintain a broad relationship with the rest of Europe. It is important that we promote a continued North American engagement in Europe, but at the same time we must avoid the Soviet Union in its new shape, whatever that may be, once again isolating itself from the rest of Europe. But it is naïve not to face the limitations of this co-operation in the CSCE at present. That leads me to stress the possibilities and responsibilities of the European Community which cannot, of course, remain unaffected by the changes now going on in Europe. In some places, there is an argument about whether one should spend efforts on a widening of co-operation rather than strive towards a deepening of it; in other words, extend the member group and avoid intensifying the co-operation. In my view, that is a false outlook on the problem. What also makes the Community attractive to non-member states is its dynamic character. The answer, therefore, is that we should continue integration and, at the same time, demonstrate an outward openness as the Community has shown throughout its existence.

In the present situation, that means, first, that we must carry through and conclude the ongoing intergovernmental conferences. Secondly, we must be prepared to start negotiations with the European countries that qualify and are now applying for membership. Thirdly, we must give the countries still not qualified for membership the vision that, in the long run, they can expect to become members. That is what is happening with the so-called “association” agreements. In this respect, there is no point in giving countries aid and denying them trade access. An unhappy dependence could be the result, and I believe that it would be absurd, and even dangerous, to preach virtues on the free market and practise old-fashioned protectionism.

One may wonder why, while unions in the East disintegrate, we go on constructing them in Western Europe. What is the reason for this phenomenon? It is obvious that, during recent years, the economy has been undergoing a process of rapid internationalisation. This is the case in the West, and the East has come to the same conclusion. Those basic economic tendencies take place concurrently with a cultural movement in the opposite direction. The need for cultural and national identity intensifies and, at the same time, society must adapt to modern economic realities.

I am convinced that the communists’ denial of those facts has contributed to the disintegration we have witnessed. On top of that, we note that nationalism – in a more sinister shape – has emerged. In many cases, conflicts and contrasts which have remained “deep-frozen” for seventy-five years have now been nourished. In Western Europe, nationalism led to a catastrophe only fifty years ago. Nevertheless, today, we live in confident and growing co-existence. At the same time, each and every one of us is fully conscious of our own national and cultural identity. This is a convincing argument for the model we have chosen. That does not mean that we have found the only truth once and for all. Our belief in cultural decentralisation is growing forever more. Those tendencies are conceptually linked to the ideas of regional co-operation as well as subsidiarity.

We can now hope that the massive security problems characteristic of the European landscape throughout four decades may now play an unobtrusive role. But of course, we cannot ignore the fact that Europe will have to look after its security interests – internally and in its relations with the outside world.

NATO co-operation is still a needed and realistic security basis for member states, not least because it maintains the necessary ties across the Atlantic. But NATO, which is adapting to the new situation, also forms a strong and necessary element of stability and predictability in the entire European security picture. President Yeltsin must also have felt likewise when, in the middle of the most dramatic part of the Soviet crisis a few weeks ago, he phoned NATO head-quarters during the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Brussels.

One thing is absolutely certain: the European picture, or the European architecture, will become much more complex than what we have observed during the last decades. New states have been born, with maybe more to follow. At the same time, our existing basis of co-operation will meet with new challenges. It will be an exciting but also extremely difficult period for all of us. The history of Europe is full of sinister failures. Now, we must unite our efforts to avoid a repetition. While we are sorting out our own matters, we must face the fact that relations with the surrounding world are becoming more and more important. That is the case in trade policy, as well as in our contribution towards coping with global challenges. The world has indeed become smaller. This has also led to greater pressure on the borders, not least from desperate people from the Middle East or from countries on the other side of the Mediterranean. It is obvious that no European country can absorb unlimited immigrants. It is just as obvious that we – as part of the more prosperous part of the world – have an obligation to render various forms of assistance. We are working – within the framework of Community co-operation – at a solution to this matter. But I welcome the fact that this forum is also dealing with this important issue.

In this new and more complex Europe, it seems that many forms of regional co-operation come to life. I consider this to be a very positive trend, and, as you know, we have also predicted such a tendency within the framework of the Community. As a Dane, it is quite natural to point to the Nordic co-operation as an example of trustful and smooth-running regional co-operation. We have been able to carry out this co-operation not least because of our almost homogeneous cultural background, but also because each and every one of us has endeavoured to approach each other further. In the new European development, there are distinct tendencies that demonstrate that the Nordic countries are approaching the rest of Europe. As you know, Sweden has applied for membership of the European Community and, in Norway as well as Finland, it is a topic for debate. As members of EFTA, these countries look forward to a closer association with the European Community in the so-called EE A (European Economic Area) co-operation. I shall make no secret of the fact that, from a Danish viewpoint, it would be desirable if the entire Nordic region could one day become members of the Community. Our regional co-operation – as mentioned – will be revitalised. But new and interesting perspectives are opening up in our neighbouring area as well. I am thinking of future intensified co-operation in the Baltic Sea region. We have just had the great pleasure and satisfaction of welcoming the Baltic countries as members of the European family.

How closely can we approach each other, how intimately can we co-operate? To a high degree, this eventually would depend on our ability to reach a point where we can share the same ideals and values. Treaties and alliances are excellent and necessary measures. But the most solid foundation for co-operation is the mutual trust which springs from drawing closer in one’s concept of values. This is where I see the most important mission for the Council of Europe in the years to come. You in the Parliamentary Assembly have already done a great and valuable job.

On numerous occasions, the Assembly has demonstrated its capability of establishing contacts, and not only between the peoples of member countries. You made a valuable contribution in preparing the path that the Baltic states are now following. Only this summer, in Helsinki, you took an important initiative. I would like to stress that – as a result of its line of action – the Parliamentary Assembly fulfils important tasks and creates many opportunities, and this is indeed respected very much in Denmark.

You have the possibilities – and may I say you use them successfully – of creating co-operation and contact between people across boundaries. In those contacts, you develop and propagate the fundamental values upon which democracy is built.

I think it is very important to emphasise this particular point. It is of course possible, through assistance programmes, to help build up new structures and systems. However, democracy is built by the people of the country. The dimension which this Assembly develops and nurtures is of paramount importance to forming new democracies.

The Assembly’s ability – through its recommendations and debates – to produce new ideas to the Committee of Ministers, is also very important. Your debates on foreign policy, in particular your debates on the role of the Council of Europe in the new European context, are important sources of inspiration. They create new thoughts and ideas of how we want to organise ourselves in a new Europe where the ideals of the Council of Europe are growing ever more dominant.

The debate has been going on for some time already, and I am sure that it will continue as Europe is still undergoing changes.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me once more express my gratitude at being given this opportunity to address you by saying with Walter Hallstein: “Anyone who does not believe in miracles in European affairs is not a realist.”

That is true. (Applause)