Gaston

Thorn

Prime Minister of Luxembourg

Speech made to the Assembly

Wednesday, 25 January 1978

All speechesQuestions and answers

Thank you, Mr President, for your kind welcome. I would also like to pay my tribute to your own work, both as President and member, in this Assembly of which you have been one of the leading figures for so many years. By your personal endeavours you have contributed very largely towards improving what I would, if I dared, describe as the cohabitation within our organisation of this Assembly and the Committee of Ministers – a co-habitation which, as we know, is not always easily established between two bodies whose outlook and means of action are not necessary identical. You have done everything possible to avoid useless friction and to promote fruitful co-operation between the organisation’s parliamentary and intergovernmental sectors by insisting not on what divides us, but on what we have in common: a close union between the member countries based on democratic principles and the rule of law, on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Mr President, we all recognise and admire the depth and sincerity of your personal attachment to those ideals which have been the guiding principles of your whole life and action, even in what I know to have been the darkest and most difficult hours for you yourself and for your country. Europe has need of men like you, Mr President, and I trust that, even when you have ceased to preside over the Assembly, she may be able to count, for many years still, on your interest and counsels as a senior statesman.

Mr President, honourable members, before presenting the Communication from the Committee of Ministers, accompanied by some comments of my own as Foreign Minister of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, I wish to pay a deeply felt tribute to the memory of a man whose loss has been a grievous blow to your Assembly, to the Committee of Ministers and to all who are and remain believers in the cause of European unity.

Count Sforza, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who died a few weeks ago, had, I need not tell you, devoted the major part of his life to that great cause and made a lasting impression on our organisation by his character, his wisdom, the spirit of conciliation he always showed, his discretion and with it all, his efficiency. That impression I like to believe will not die. A great artisan of Europe is dead but his work, like our own, will live on.

Mr President, members of the Assembly, I have no intention of wearying you by reading out even part of the written Communication from the Committee of Ministers which has already been distributed. I shall content myself with drawing attention to one or two of the more striking aspects of our work since my predecessor in the Chair, my colleague and friend, Mr Arnaldo Forlani, reported to you last October.

The most important event that has occurred since your last part-session is certainly one of the most outstanding in the Council’s recent history. I refer, I need hardly say, to Spain’s accession to our organisation. At a time when, all over the world, the number of states measuring up to the criteria we here regard as representing democracy is steadily diminishing, the frontiers of democratic Europe are actually being extended and the organisation which groups the states belonging to that Europe is becoming larger. In 1974, Greece rejoined us after the unhappy eclipse suffered by democracy in the very country which had given that term to the world. In 1976, Portugal, freed at last from the yoke of a dictatorship that had lasted for nearly half a century, took her place in our family of European democratic countries. Finally, last year, thanks to the wisdom at once of her people and of her political leaders, Spain in her turn achieved what only a short time before we had hardly dared to hope for and passed smoothly, peacefully, without undue disturbance from dictatorship and authoritarian rule to democracy.

I know that during your last part-session you had a moving debate with the representatives of the chief political movements of the new Spain who, at the time, were here as observers only. What they were able to tell you was no doubt a decisive factor in the speed with which you recommended that the Committee of Ministers should invite Spain to join the Council of Europe. The Committee did so at its meeting on 24 November last, at which we were able to welcome, for the first time, the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, my friend and colleague Mr Oreja Aguirre. During the present part-session, it is now the turn of the Assembly to see the freely-elected representatives of the Spanish people seated for the first time on its benches as full members. Speaking on behalf both of all my colleagues, as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, and on behalf of the Government of Luxembourg, I extend to them the warmest welcome. (Applause).

The Committee of Ministers’ meeting on 24 November, to which I have just referred, emphasised once again our Committee’s importance as a great political forum for democratic Europe and for each of the governments of the twenty member states. Our discussions centred on the various aspects of co-operation between Western European countries, the Belgrade Conference, and the work of the United Nations General Assembly.

The participation of the Chairman of the Commission of the European Communities, Mr Roy Jenkins, in our discussion on progress in European co-operation shows the wish for co-operation and the desire to synchronise activities of the Council of Europe on the one hand, and the European Communities on the other. We have noted with satisfaction the existence of real and increasingly effective co-operation between the European organisations as well as of greater solidarity between the European democracies in their relations with the rest of the world. This encouraging development is the reply to the concern expressed so frequently and so justifiably by your Assembly.

The Committee of Ministers has also considered one of the most serious problems we have to face at present and one which has often engaged your own attention, namely that of terrorism and violence. The Ministers have reaffirmed their support for increased co-operation between member states in this field, and welcomed the proposal for implementing effective, preventive, punitive and coercive measures provided, let me insist, that they are compatible with our countries’ belief in the fundamental freedoms in which we all share.

Questions of human rights have figured largely in our discussions. This is hardly surprising in an organisation whose noble aim is to defend and promote those rights. We have had before us some extremely interesting proposals by my colleague, Mr Simonet, the Foreign Minister of Belgium, for a joint study of European viewpoints on the protection and promotion of human rights as elements of international relations, and we have instructed the Ministers’ Deputies to consider the follow-up action to be taken on the Belgian proposals. The Committee of Ministers has also expressed its serious concern about torture as a continuing practice in the world and decided to contribute to an international campaign by preparing, within the framework of our organisation, proposals to put an end to torture in the world.

This year we shall be celebrating both the 30th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 25th anniversary of the entry into force of the European Convention on Human Rights which, I would emphasise, is to this day the most effective internationally agreed instrument in the field of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Despite the achievements of our organisation and our countries in this field, achievements of which we have indeed every reason to be proud, this dual anniversary should – far from allowing us to rest on our laurels – spur us on in the search for ways of developing human rights and fundamental freedoms, not only within the framework of Western Europe, but in the far wider context, first of Europe as a whole, and then of the world.

As regards the Belgrade Conference, the Committee of Ministers has emphasised the importance of maintaining the stimulus provided by the Helsinki Final Act as a whole; it has further emphasised the value of regular exchanges of views on this subject within the Council of Europe, exchanges to be held at Ministers’ Deputies level, with the assistance of experts.

As regards the 32nd General Assembly of the United Nations, the Committee of Ministers was very appreciative of the value of the preparatory discussions held between the Ministers’ Deputies and the competent experts of national administrations. We have instructed the Deputies to continue and develop this activity along the same lines. The Committee of Ministers has also expressed its determination to further co-operation between the democratic countries of Europe within the framework of the United Nations, particularly as regards human rights and other directly connected subjects.

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, you will see from the written Communication that apart from the eminently political activities I have just described, our Committee has made important progress in certain apparently technical fields, which are nevertheless of great political importance. In particular I would mention the signing by various member states of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers. And in this connection let me remind you that at our last ministerial meeting, my Swedish colleague proposed the convening of an ad hoc meeting of European Ministers responsible for Migrant Workers.

With your permission, Mr President, I will now make a few comments in my capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg which will not therefore engage the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers.

As regards the Near East, great hopes were aroused by the courageous step taken by President Sadat in going to Jerusalem. That visit and the ensuing contacts, more particularly the visit of Prime Minister Begin to Egypt, gave a new impetus to peace. For this reason, even if negotiations at present appear to have ground to a halt, we can nevertheless hope that the way to a peaceful settlement opened two months ago can never now be closed. This is my profound conviction, and it is essential that this move towards peace be given the fullest and widest encouragement possible.

I am sorry for that reason that all parties concerned did not all feel themselves able to rally round President Sadat in order to make the talks as exhaustive and promising as they should have been. I hope, however, that with time the movement will grow, since it seems to me that only an overall settlement covering every aspect of the problem and all the interested parties can in the long run usher in an era of peace for the Middle East.

The attitudes of either side are widely divergent on many fundamental issues, but it is clear that they can only be a starting point from which to move towards a gradual rapprochement. That is indeed the only way international negotiations can proceed. It would be unrealistic to expect each side to make all possible concessions right from the start, just as it would be unnatural to expect the initial positions to remain unshaken. That seems to me an essential point where the Palestinian problem or the interpretation of Resolution 242 are concerned.

On the one hand, I fervently hope that those who claim to represent the Palestinians will draw the proper conclusions and behave like acceptable and hence responsible parties to the negotiations. I hope just as fervently that Israel will show itself sufficiently pliable so that the Palestinians will not remain the only people in the region not to have a homeland. The nature of that homeland and the links it may have with other countries in the area will be a matter for negotiation between all the parties concerned. The only thing that matters is that the solution found should gain sufficient general acceptance, leaving aside only the extremists, whose demands can never be satisfied so long as they refuse to admit the right of all the states in the region to live in peace together. Failing which, a state of tension dangerous not only for the Middle East but for the whole world will be perpetuated.

Where human rights are concerned, recent events, whether in the United Nations or at Belgrade, point to a growing insistence on economic and social rights or again on a more collective concept of human rights, differing from our traditional and rather more individualistic one, and which some people would like to set up in opposition to the latter.

This trend calls for two remarks.

I should be the first to admit the importance of economic and social rights and, in a wider sense, the considerable degree to which a country’s economic situation determines its ability to apply our principles of democracy and respect for human rights. Anybody who has travelled knows that people who are ill fed, not to say half starved, and poorly educated place the right to free elections or to freedom of speech very differently from us in their list of priorities. It is accordingly important for each one of us to give full weight to these factors, specially in our dealings with the developing countries.

On the other hand, and this is my second remark, this new economic concept of human rights must be prevented from appearing as a possible substitute for the former one or as taking precedence over it. We must take care to establish a new balance by means of constructive additions and not by allowing individual freedoms to be eliminated by new demands. If such a negative trend were to prevail, which I do not think it will, we would eventually reach a point where only the nationals of developed countries could claim the right not to be tortured. The Council of Europe is capable of drawing from its long attachment to the cause of human rights the strength to encourage a movement in what is the only right direction.

Mr President, you will no doubt consider it natural for the Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers – who also represents one of the member states of the European Communities – to say a few words about the Community of the Nine as you have indeed suggested that I might.

Where the European Economic Community is concerned, I have to say that it has reached a critical stage in its development. The major purpose of the Rome Treaty – to establish a customs union – seems to me to have been accomplished. Where European integration is concerned, considerable success has been achieved, chiefly in the sphere of commercial transactions and agricultural policy; but the rapid growth both in internal trade and trade with outside countries has made the Community of the Nine the first economic power in the world. That is something to which we often point with pride, but let us admit that the statement is true only if the volume of trade is taken as the sole criterion.

The external action of our Community, thanks to its association agreements with a large number of developing countries, has also been seen to be positive. Nor has its force of attraction weakened, since recently three more countries – Greece, Portugal and Spain – have applied to join it.

There have, however, been profound changes on the international scene. The economic crisis which is rocking our Western world, inflation on the one hand and the high rate of unemployment on the other, has only served to increase the danger of the relative stagnation that has characterised European integration over these last few years, whereas I personally had hoped that the Nine would face the issue by strengthening their cohesion and advancing further along the road to integration. In order to succeed in overcoming the difficult problems confronting it, whilst at the same time avoiding the snares of reawakening protectionism and the temptation to withdraw into itself, the European Community will have to develop its ability to work out solutions at the European level.

In order to do so, and at the same time to ensure satisfactory growth and full employment as well as economic stability within the Community, it will be absolutely necessary to remedy its internal structural and regional imbalances.

That supposes, or presupposes, the full realisation of a genuine Common Market, guaranteeing the free and unrestricted movement of goods, capital and persons.

A market of that kind cannot, however, be created unless the process is accompanied by an effective policy of structural reorganisation, and I am thinking here in particular of areas as important as the iron and steel industry and the textile industry, not to mention the permanent problem of agriculture.

Now achievement of these aims depends in its turn – since everything is related – on adequate harmonisation of different economic and monetary policies. For that reason, I can only express my gratification at the recent moves initiated by the President of the European Commission, Mr Jenkins, which are designed to revive the already long-standing idea of an economic and monetary union.

At present, two opportunities are offered to us, Mr President, which might create the stimulus necessary to lend renewed impetus to the process of European integration.

First of all, the future enlargement of the Community by three new members will give rise to economic problems which are not negligible and which Europe will have to endow itself with the means to overcome, whilst at the same time respecting the famous threefold integration principle of 1969, today almost forgotten: “Enlargement, deepening and completion”.

The second opportunity is the election by universal suffrage of the European Parliament, about which Mr Kirchschläger was speaking this morning. This process whose ultimate realisation, as you are aware, has been subject to fresh vicissitudes during the past few weeks will, we still hope, make it possible to ensure the participation of dynamic forces in building up the European Communities through the introduction of democratic voting procedures at European level and the simultaneous establishment of political parties whose audience will no longer be confined within national frontiers.

In this way we shall be able to move on, from an entity whose unduly technocratic character is often criticised, to a genuinely democratic Europe, one owing its existence to the clearly-expressed will of the people.

Perhaps these two happenings will, as hoped by Mr Kirchschläger, succeed in inspiring Europe as a whole, even the Europe which extends beyond the Communities, with that new breath of life which Europe itself, and all of us here, so sorely need.

(Applause)

THE PRESIDENT

I thank you very much, Mr Thom. We are glad to have had this extensive explanation of your views of the situation. Before we come to questions, I shall make a statement in respect of the points of order raised this morning by Mr Jessel and others.