Parliamentary Assembly

Madam President, distinguished members of parliament, I thank you and your predecessors for your invitation to come here to the parliament of the Council of Europe. I consider it a great honour to be able to appear before this body, the first Parliamentary Assembly in the process of European integration.

The charter accords the Parliamentary Assembly an advisory role only. Yet I have noticed that, with the ability characteristic of parliamentarians, you have assumed a considerably more important role, which has manifested itself above all in the skill with which you have piloted the Council towards true pan-Europeanism.

More than fifty years ago, with the second world war still in progress, Winston Churchill spoke of a council that should be created once the war had ended and which, as he put it, “must eventually embrace the whole of Europe, and all the main branches of the European family must some day be partners in it.” Today, we are already close to that goal.

When Finland joined the Council of Europe just over six years ago, after nearly three decades of close co-operation with it, we became its twenty-third member country. Today the membership is already thirty-eight, and by the time this session ends I hope that it will de facto be up to thirty-nine.

That enormous change in the membership has naturally meant new challenges for the Council. It has stretched resources to the limit, but it has also given the Council the opportunity to perform its original task – that of spreading the European values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights to every part of our continent.

Tomorrow, when the Council deals with Russia’s application for membership, I am certain that it will be conscious of the historic significance of the decision. We have all followed with dismay the drama in Pervomayskaya and the resulting tragic loss of lives. There is no justification for hostage-taking and terrorism. But innocent civilians must be protected in all circumstances, and excessive force must be avoided. The crisis in Chechnya can be resolved only through peaceful means. It needs a political solution, not a military one.

We know that Russia’s civic societies were to a large extent destroyed during the communist era. It is evident that the democratic process needs time to take root. Russia is undergoing a wrenching change. The recent elections attracted a fair participation and reinforced the democratic process.

In its post-cold war form the Council of Europe has become an important part of the European security structure. Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe will advance democracy in Russia and stability in Europe. Exclusion of Russia will not advance those aims.

I welcome the interest that the United States has shown towards the Council of Europe. It is important that it has become an observer here, and we expect a lot of that arrangement.

Europe has changed, and change continues. The traditional perception of security emphasised military factors. Today we should consider security in broad terms, including democratic aspects and the dimension of individual rights. First, security should be based on co-operation not on confrontation.

The revolutionary political development in Europe has opened a new channel for preventive action. No longer must we necessarily be confined to solving crises after they have erupted; instead, we can consciously try to prevent them from happening.

The concept of democratic security, adopted at the Vienna Summit as the Council’s guiding principle, is not an empty phrase but a reality that should be given more content. The Council’s programmes, by means of which democracy, the principle of the rule of law and the implementation of human rights are supported in member countries are the best possible form of preventive diplomacy. By creating an area where the values represented by the Council prevail, we shall build a stable and predictable Europe.

In this building work, the so-called Halonen Order, developed within the framework of the Parliamentary Assembly, has its own central function. When I commend you for your initiative, I recognise that this activity has been a central inspiration to the Committee of Ministers to create its own monitoring system. The monitoring systems created under the auspices of the Council are internationally unique. They provide an opportunity for the development of a real dialogue with member countries, a dialogue through which development can be influenced and real changes accomplished.

Rather than shying away from this opportunity to develop monitoring systems into genuine instruments of change, we should grasp it. We now have a unique opportunity to build a European area of common values and we may not be offered that opportunity a second time. By that, I do not mean that we should create a single common culture, but that we should create an area where democracy and human rights prevail, and where we respect difference and understand each other – an area that all people, both minorities and majorities, find a good place to live in.

In the work of the Council, the Human Rights Commission and the Court of Human Rights are of central importance by virtue of their defence and promotion of citizens’ rights. However, enlargement of the membership is posing completely new challenges for the Council. The development of the system – that is, merging the Commission and the Court to create a new court – will indisputably add to the efficiency of the system. Nevertheless, one can ask whether this will be sufficient in the face of the new challenges.

Just over five years ago, as we were entering a new decade, the combined population of the member countries of the Council of Europe was just over 400 million. With Russia’s accession, the total will reach almost double that figure – more than 750 million. I find it quite understandable that there is concern in the Commission and in the Court. Can one really assume that the system will cope with such a large expansion without special measures? Should, after all, new means and alternatives be given fresh consideration? Might it be time to revive the question of a Council ombudsman, an ombudsman who would work in close cooperation, especially with the ombudsmen in the new member countries? I know that this matter has been discussed by the Parliamentary Assembly on several earlier occasions.

The events in Bosnia have certainly not left any of us indifferent. Ethnic cleansing and mass murders should not belong in the Europe of today.

The Council of Europe has striven to solve problems by developing legal instruments for managing them. The Organisation’s achievements are considerable. There is, nevertheless, the minority question, an area in which the results achieved to date are not adequate.

Europe has always been a place where different cultures and peoples meet, a home of creative minds and open debate. The diversity and multiplicity of expression that we encounter in Europe has always been a cause for pride. The same multiplicity of expression can be seen in all the Council’s member countries. There is not a single country in Europe whose culture is not the product of different and colliding influences and one could hardly find a country that does not have some minority or other.

For that reason, I am convinced that we all share the concern that the importance of resolving minority questions be recognised. I do not believe that it is an exaggeration to say that the future of Europe depends on how we are able to solve this problem. We must be able to show that citizens speaking different languages or belonging to different ethnic groups are capable of living together within the same state.

The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, both drafted by the Council, and the principles set forth in relation to minorities by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe are important steps in the creation of a Europe that is secure for all, but they are not enough. They simply do not define with the requisite clarity and in sufficient detail minority rights and how those rights should be protected. We should strive to discharge the task that the heads of state gave the Council in Vienna in 1993 – the task of drafting a separate protocol on the cultural rights of minorities.

I have taken the liberty of speaking about the minority question at some length because I believe that we know something about the matter in Finland. There have been problems in our country too, but we have been able to solve them. Our country is bilingual. We consider it self-evident that the Swedish speaking part of the population has the same rights as the Finnish-speaking part, and we are convinced that this is a wealth for us. We have solved the Aland islands question by guaranteeing the islands an advanced degree of autonomy, which has demonstrated its vitality over the past seventy-five years. We have guaranteed the Sami population in Lapland the right to use their own language in education and in their dealings with the authorities. The Romanies and their culture are constitutionally protected. All those solutions speak for themselves and indicate that it is possible to solve questions relating to minorities and that solving them lies in states’ own interests. Only a minority that feels secure and believes it is accepted as part of a nation can participate wholeheartedly in the work of nation-building.

I know that the Parliamentary Assembly – all of you – have been concerned about how the Council of Europe will be able to cope with the challenges facing it. The tasks with which the Council must deal are enormous, but the resources available for that work are, it must be admitted, modest. I share your concern. Building a new, secure Europe will require resources. I hope that we shall be able to find them in order to implement the mandate approved in Vienna.

Finland has been a member of the European Union since the beginning of last year. The decision to join was preceded in my country by an extensive debate. It cannot be argued that the outcome was a foregone conclusion, even though I was among those who argued for a positive decision. One thing that was never questioned in the course of the debate was our commitment to building a unified Europe.

The Council has the same goal. We should together strive to build a Europe that is undivided, safe and open, which respects citizens and their rights and which shoulders responsibility for our common future.