Parliamentary Assembly

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe today on behalf of Portugal, at the invitation of its illustrious President, Miguel Angel Martinez, who is also a close friend.

I have ties with the Council of Europe by virtue of old memories linked to my country’s recent history and my own political career. I had my first direct contact with the Council in April 1970, when Portugal was still a dictatorship. At the invitation of the Socialist Group, led by the late Mr Czernetz, I had occasion to provide the group with information. In my capacity as a member of the anti-fascist resistance living in exile, I subsequently attended the debate on the situation in Portugal and the human rights violations that were occurring in the country and the colonies it had at the time. My involvement with the Council of Europe prompted the dictatorship to bring criminal proceedings against me and call for a sentence of two to five years’ imprisonment.

Some four years later – after the Revolution of Flowers in September 1974 – I was able, in my capacity as Foreign Minister of the first provisional government, to address your Parliamentary Assembly in order to request that Portugal be granted observer status immediately, as the first step towards full membership, which did not materialise until 1976.

I remember that during the debate which followed my statement at that sitting, on 28 September 1974, I was asked by one member of the Assembly whether I was still a minister at the precise moment I was speaking, for on that day the first serious crisis of the revolution was taking place in Lisbon and undermining the democratic course on which Portugal had embarked. It heralded a particularly troubled political period, which did not end until the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic was adopted on 2 April 1976.

I addressed the Council of Europe again in April 1977 – by which time Portugal was fully constitutional – as Prime Minister of my country.

Fortunately, the circumstances in which I am addressing your illustrious Assembly today are much more pleasant for Portugal. Over the last twenty years, the Portuguese have experienced a difficult and traumatic decolonisation process, established a properly functioning democracy governed by the rule of law and embarked on a new stage in their relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, by becoming fully-fledged members of the European Community, now known as the European Union.

Our chequered history and all the problems we have had to face are familiar to all, as are the serious political, economic, financial and social crises we have had to overcome. As I have before me so many representatives of states which have recently embarked on the road to democracy, with all the problems and contradictions that entails, I feel it is appropriate to outline again the approach chosen by Portugal and the irreplaceable role which such institutions as the Council of Europe played in preparing the new framework for my country’s international integration, in particular its European integration.

I am well placed to understand what the countries going through the complicated adjustment to the post-communist era expect of us, and I am particularly aware of the contribution that is required of us, as Europeans, when it comes to devising a political framework that is realistic but open and based on genuine solidarity, and that will enable them to find their place in a Europe no longer governed by the mentality of the eastern and western blocs and by a balance based on terror, and which was constantly on a knife edge.

At first sight one might tend to think, taking a simplistic approach, that the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the radical change which it symbolised and sparked off in the political world order would have made the Europe-wide integration process easier. We now know that this is not at all the case.

The first reason is that the disappearance of the rationale underlying the eastern and western blocs did not, unfortunately, do away with the super-powers’ claims to control their spheres of influence or with their interests and powers in this respect.

The second reason is that the necessary reorganisation of multilateral institutions which have decades of history behind them and have simultaneously affected politics, the economy and security either directly or indirectly, has been slow and raised thorny problems. This is particularly true at a time like this when certain states which have taken on extra responsibilities are faced with very complex internal challenges.

The third reason is that the countries embarking on reform are in very different situations as regards recent history, the pace of change and the scale of their resources and ambitions, which makes it impossible to devise uniform solutions from the outset.

As other heads of state and government have already said in this Assembly, I think there is an urgent need for clear ideas and a definite plan for the restructuring of Europe. This does not necessarily mean setting up new multilateral organisations: there are already too many. The European Union, Nato, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the WEU and even, on a wider scale, the OECD itself, provide us with a sufficiently varied and sometimes even overlapping framework for us to be able to meet the expectations in terms of solidarity and integration of the new democracies, without undermining the stability and effectiveness of these organisations.

It is now obvious that the European Union and Nato can no longer ignore the new situations in central and eastern Europe. But it is also clear that it will not be easy to establish conditions for the integration of the many potential candidates in these organisations, either by setting admission conditions or through the inherent and difficult process of internal restructuring. Pragmatism suggests a policy of gradual rapprochement, we need to proceed slowly, perhaps, but surely and with determination. To my mind this means following two approaches simultaneously: – on the one hand, it means strengthening the machinery for political and economic co-operation between these states and the European Union, through existing associate membership schemes or other worthwhile schemes; – on the other hand, it means taking integration a stage further and broadening the role of institutions engaged in wide-ranging multilateral consultation, such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE, and taking advantage of their greater institutional flexibility to consolidate various integration circles, which need not be concentric, and to launch new initiatives from which no-one is excluded.

As I see it, organising Europe means pursuing an overall approach to the reform of each of its institutions, co-ordinating their functions and creating opportunities for mutual co-operation. I believe that this co-operation is an important factor in the process of European integration, particularly with regard to one essential aspect which, I am sure, is of concern to you – devising and organising a new security policy to which the entire continent will be committed, with due respect for the commitments of individual states.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Council of Europe is the oldest multilateral political institution to have been instrumental in the process of rebuilding post-war Europe. It has a truly unique heritage in the defence of freedom, the right to be different, tolerance and dialogue. It is the institution which, more than any other, represents what could be called “the Europe of principles and values”, as is so aptly expressed in its founding instrument, the European Convention on Human Rights.

I firmly believe in the principles and values which have always lain behind the Council of Europe’s actions: freedom, human rights, the rule of law and their corollaries – democracy, solidarity, tolerance, the fight against exclusion and the protection of minorities. Accordingly, I should like to say how pleased I am that I shall be able, in a few minutes, to attend the signing ceremony of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which provides for a huge range of undertakings by states in this regard. The convention is all the more important in that conflicts and signs of intolerance which we thought were things of the past are re-emerging in Europe. The Council of Europe’s contribution in this field is irreplaceable and the adoption of this instrument is an important step towards the consolidation of the stability that is so necessary to our continent.

I have always warned against the illusions of those technocrats who seek to contain the design for an ambitious Europe within the limits of strictly economic considerations. It is for this reason that I would stress that the Council of Europe has an irreplaceable vocation in forging a united greater Europe, for it can avail itself of an institutional framework which welcomes cultural, geographical and political diversity, respects the equality of the different states and has developed a special vocation for dialogue and concerted action on some of the major issues of our time, including the protection of the cultural heritage and the environment, social security and bioethics, to mention but a few examples, which sometimes receive scant attention in other assemblies.

We must not, however, respond to what is still a somewhat illusory project by cherishing other illusions. If the Council of Europe is to perform this function, which is in keeping with its vocation and its aims, it needs the commitment of its member states so that it has the energy and the operational capacity to pursue new integration initiatives and ensure that practical, specific forms of co-operation and co-ordination are developed among the various institutions concerned.

In a nutshell, this means that we must agree on a political vision of European integration, we must be clear about the framework within which the organisations in question operate and about their functions. We must know the limits and the composition of the famous integration circles to which we are all referring today, which are very different from one another and very imprecise. We must be clear about the forms of co-ordination between national and supranational authorities, about the means whereby citizens can express themselves and about the machinery for the democratic security of institutions. Lastly, we must know what limits are imposed by Europe’s geography and understand its relations with the outside world, not forgetting the special case of Russia, on which Europe must try to take a clear stance.

It would certainly be useful – as many responsible people have argued – if Europe could be forged with Russia. If it became a member of the Council of Europe, this would be a first, very significant step in that direction. But Russia’s accession, if it takes place, must be accompanied by full respect for the principles and values which, as we have seen, form the core of the Council of Europe’s achievements and sustain its activities. Accordingly it is for Russia, not the Council, to create the conditions needed for future integration. It is Russia, not the Council, that can in truth facilitate or prevent the taking of this fundamental step by pursuing a policy which provides credible confirmation of its commitment to the values of peace and the democratic principles that underpin this Organisation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is impossible to reflect on Europe’s future without referring to the problems of the European Union, which is the central core of the integration process in Europe. Despite the withdrawal of Norway’s application, which confirms both the democratic basis of the Union and the need for a through debate on its nature, the first enlargement since the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty must be considered a political success and a sign of vitality.

This brings to a positive conclusion an especially productive stage in the life of the community, marked by the breathtaking end of the post-war period and the vision of an outstanding European, Jacques Delors, to whose work I pay tribute. The new stage now beginning, symbolically inaugurated by a new Commission, which has my best wishes for success, presents an important challenge in the immediate future: that of preparing and organising the 1996 intergovernmental conference, which will have the difficult task of revising the Treaty on European Union for the first time.

This is a key opportunity – and perhaps the only opportunity this century – for us to agree on the conditions for achieving a politically, economically and institutionally strong, united and coherent Europe. To this end, it is essential that we transcend the vision of a Europe organised exclusively around fundamental economic freedoms and concentrating on the unification of markets and the standardisation of financial policies.

Let there be no misunderstanding: I am not unaware of, and am not underestimating, the importance of unifying the internal market and of economic and monetary union as a means of bringing the grand European design to fruition. I also know how difficult it has been to obtain the results already achieved in these fields, and I am aware of the sacrifices that will be needed in view of what still remains to be done. But nor do I doubt that an economic Europe is unlikely to be sufficient or even feasible unless it has a strong political dimension upheld by the institutions and given democratic legitimacy through effective parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions taken in Brussels.

I have never concealed my views on the matter. The European Union will always, given its historical background and essential objectives, be a new kind of political entity, different from the models of the past. But I find it difficult to see how it can abandon certain federal and confederal components, which are still given so little means of expression – despite the looming spectre of supra-nationalism – and are still far from being a reality, since the joint budget is less than two per cent of the domestic product of the Twelve.

I firmly believe that the main danger at this stage of European integration lies not in further political and institutional “deepening” in itself, but rather in the Union’s inability to pursue this deepening successfully, in that it is becoming further removed from the public, whose legitimate aspirations are being undermined, and in that responsibility for shaping the processes of social change and the balance of power between states is being left to the mercy of a relentless trend towards economic globalisation.

I do not think this is the right approach for a Europe that is internally united and based on solidarity and is externally active, politically adult and autonomous. That is the kind of Europe we should be interested in constructing, a Europe that is now prepared to complete on the political front the long reconstruction process that began after the war.

This political dimension does not, as many claim, mean establishing a continental super-state – a prospect which, fortunately, may well be unfeasible. The aim is quite different: it is to ensure respect for the diversity of nations, which is one of Europe’s assets, in a context of real political co-operation and security in Europe. This means giving substance to the principle of subsidiarity, which should be the bedrock of the European Union and its first line of defence against any perverted tendency towards hegemony, centralism and bureaucracy.

We need to strike a new balance in the process of European construction. The new situation created by successive enlargements and the globalisation of markets will increasingly vindicate the arguments of those who criticise the excessive application of European rules applied in a uniform manner to completely different national situations in the various production sectors. At the same time, it will also highlight Europe’s shortcomings in areas such as citizenship, defence and security policy, science, culture and social cohesion, where inadequate multilateral agreement is seriously limiting the possibilities for common development.

I hope that the discussion on the revision of the Treaty on European Union will help us to find positive responses to these concerns. Above all, I hope that it will move us away from the unavoidable temptation to destroy the balance between small and large states for the sake of reconciling the deepening of European integration with the progressive enlargement of the Union to the whole continent. That approach would be unacceptable and would undermine the unique nature of the union we are trying to achieve in Europe which is, and must continue to be, an alliance of freedom and a community of equal partners in which the weight of individual states is not merely proportional to their relative power, and is not reflected in absolute terms in their institutional standing.

The balance of relations between small and large states has played a decisive role in launching, sustaining and developing the process of European integration over the last forty years. Understandably, however, the present institutional structure, which basically retains the features of the original model, will not be able to cope easily with a community of twenty members – in a future phase – whose aims are to bring about economic and monetary union and absorb a succession of new members, unless fundamental institutional reforms are carried out.

Nevertheless, although institutional reforms are essential, they will be self-defeating if they undermine the fundamental principles of the European Union, factors that must not be forgotten in the changes which have to be made. In my view this does not really have much to do with the great debate about a multi-speed or variable-geometry Europe or a Europe of concentric or superimposed circles. The existence of different rates of integration – which are in fact inevitable – will always at least partially reflect the room for manoeuvre which individual states will wish to retain in their integration strategies. In my view, what must be avoided is for the different speeds to be taken as a pretext for differences in status, leading to a situation where individual states’ relative power is determined directly by their size or wealth and level of development.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to conclude by making an urgent appeal for us to reject conformism. Instead we should champion the innovative spirit, creativeness and faith in the European ideal which enabled the first steps to be taken almost fifty years ago to rebuild a divided and dependent Europe that had been tom apart by war.

The challenges facing us today are perhaps no less difficult and demand just as much energy. Despite all the problems, however, the conditions are much better. As you try to find new solutions to the new problems facing us as the century draws to a close, I suggest that you look again at the values of humanism which inspired the generation of the founding fathers.

And I call on you to try and build a Europe closer to its citizens and their concerns, while respecting their opinions, their objections and their role in decision-making, even if this sometimes means advancing more slowly. Europe will succeed only if it is a citizen’s Europe. You must fight Europessimism and short-sighted expressions of national self-interest so that we can build a Europe of solidarity – between nations and between peoples – and a Europe of science, culture and environmental protection, which is open to the outside world and able to play its rightful role on the international stage by defending the rule of law, justice and peace.