Parliamentary Assembly

said that it was an honour to be invited to address the Assembly. He thanked the President and the members of the Assembly for that invitation. Both he and the President were champions of the European case. It would soon be time to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome. It was therefore good to be in Strasbourg, the symbolic birthplace of European co-operation. He was glad to have heard the debate on child victims, as this was an issue of importance in Belgium. Children were often vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Member states had been preoccupied with child victims elsewhere in the world, but victims also existed in European homes. This was why Belgium was happy to see that the Council of Europe was working on the draft protocol on the protection of the child.

The European Union had a commitment to freedom, democracy and human rights and was opposed to all forms of violence and terrorism. There were many different institutions within Europe, but only one Europe. He was glad to hear that the European Union, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development had all expressed their anger at recent assassinations of journalists. All these institutions were different in dimension; for instance, the Council of Europe covered almost the whole of the continent. They also had different methods: integration was essential for the European Union, intergovernmental co-operation was important for the other two. Their objectives were all to reinforce the work of each other at the very foundations of civil society.

The task of the Council of Europe was to be a guardian and promoter of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. The European Union was more concerned with governance in the overall context of globalisation. The main aim of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was to increase security, and it worked on a global scale.

The Council of Europe had an essential mission as the founding institution. Security without freedom had little value. Member states should ensure that three requirements were met. First, there was the fundamental importance of human rights and especially the work of the European Court of Human Rights. Member states should be respectful of the Court’s rulings. This could be time-consuming but would reinforce the report’s authority. Secondly, there needed to be a commitment to respect the spirit as well as the letter of the Court’s ruling, and to take account of the other bodies of the Council of Europe. Thirdly, measures needed to be set up to ensure the Court was able to operate within its present work load. There were 89 000 outstanding cases which together threatened to overwhelm the Court. It was important that Protocol No. 14 should be improved to ratify the way in which the Court functioned. He congratulated the Group of Wise Persons on yesterday’s report.

The Warsaw declaration indicated a clear way forward. The Council of Europe was dedicated to this essential mission. Through these methods, everyone present needed to support the objectives of human rights, democracy and the rule of law and spend less time on peripheral issues. An enormous task still remained. Human rights and democracy were continually being challenged. It was essential to concentrate on ensuring cultural and religious diversity in Europe.

The Council of Europe was particularly well equipped to listen to the voices of citizens. Members who sat in the Council of Europe had a double mandate to represent citizens at their national parliament as well as the Council of Europe. They were therefore in an ideal position to represent the views of European citizens.

The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe played an important role in promoting local democracy. At its next ministerial conference in the autumn, it would continue to pursue this mission.

There were also areas peripheral to the Council of Europe’s central mission which were nevertheless of significance. These areas, which included emancipation and empowerment, could create circumstances favourable to the protection and promotion of human rights. Examples of Council of Europe programmes in such areas included youth education and the promotion of tolerance and social cohesion. It was important, however, for the Council of Europe to concentrate on its key areas of responsibility.

The Council of Europe’s other peripheral responsibility was to engage in healthy and constructive co-operation with other international organisations. Cultivating coherence of action between international organisations was desirable, but absence of progress in one body should not preclude work in other bodies on other topics. In the course of its 2006 presidency of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Belgium had gained valuable experience on this issue. The 2005 Warsaw declaration had also expressed the importance of co-operation between international organisations. The political will to dissolve conflicts should be demonstrated.

Tomorrow, the Parliamentary Assembly would be discussing the subject of Kosovo. The next few weeks and months would prove crucial for Kosovo. The contribution of several institutions, including the Council of Europe, would be needed to help resolve the situation. The aid provided by the Venice Commission had been greatly appreciated.

The Council of Europe and the OSCE needed to pursue greater co-operation to face joint challenges. These challenges included preventing terrorism, eliminating human trafficking, promoting tolerance and non-discrimination and protecting minorities. Belgium had made a contribution to the improvement of relations between the OSCE and the Council of Europe in recent years, including through high level meetings held during 2006. By adopting the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Union had taken on board the core values of the Council of Europe. The European Union and Council of Europe were together preparing for the moment when they would make up the constitutional face of Europe.

He fully supported the Juncker report, which had made several recommendations relevant to the Council of Europe. It had made mention of several joint European Union and Council of Europe programmes. One laudable example was the establishment of a reliable judiciary in the Balkans.

In terms of the negotiation of the memorandum of understanding between the European Union and the Council of Europe, European Union member states were in an ambiguous position. This was because they formed a majority within the Council of Europe. The memorandum of understanding would form a foundation for the promotion of human rights and freedoms, in the cause of promoting pan-European unity. It had the potential to improve co-operation between institutions and to help embed the European Neighbourhood Policy. He hoped that negotiations would be concluded satisfactorily soon.

Much had been said within the Parliamentary Assembly about the risks entailed in the establishment of a European Union Fundamental Rights Agency. Close examination of the rules under which the agency would be established should reassure those who were sceptical. The Fundamental Rights Agency would act only within community law, and its actions would be geographically circumscribed. The agency had the potential to promote education, gender equality and intercultural dialogue within Europe. It would promote co-operation between the European Union, the Venice Commission, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe and the Human Rights Commissioner.

His speech had concentrated on the Council of Europe’s central mission and its relationship with other organisations. It had been said that the Council of Europe was undergoing an identity crisis, but he remained optimistic. The OECD, the Council of Europe and the European Union had been born in the aftermath of the Second World War, while the OSCE had been established during the 1970s in order to help finish the Cold War. Since 1989 the European continent had undergone radical change. This change had occurred in a context of worldwide upheaval, and institutions had to adjust accordingly. The task of European institutions was to defend tolerance and equality, in order that democratic values would win the day. This would take substantial effort.