Parliamentary Assembly

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I can assure the honourable Representative that the Committee of Ministers is aware of the need for measures to be taken to enable the Council of Europe to operate effectively.

Indeed, as I mentioned in my communication, the working party on the Organisation’s institutional role established by the Committee of Ministers has already begun its work on redefining the Council of Europe’s role in the changing Europe in which we live.

This working party will also consider substantial changes to the Organisation’s Statute, a task being undertaken in parallel with an ad hoc committee of this Assembly.

Moreover, in terms of the Organisation’s budgetary resources, I would like to add that the Committee of Ministers recently adopted an ordinary budget for 1992 that represents an increase in nominal terms of 14,64 % with regard to 1991. This, moreover, followed an increase in 1991 of 18,56 % in nominal terms as compared with 1990.

Furthermore, in view of our Organisation’s crucial role as a directly available structure for reception of and co-operation with the emergent democracies of central and eastern Europe, the Committee of Ministers voted an increase for 1992 of 100 %, compared with 1991, for budgetary appropriations under Vote IX – Co-operation with the countries of central and eastern Europe – to cater both for the enlarged number of beneficiary countries and for the increased number of fields in which the Council’s assistance is being sought.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I leave responsibility for his opinion concerning institutional confusion in Europe with the honourable parliamentarian, Mr Hunault himself. For while it is true that there are a great many institutions, I note that each of them has its own role to play and has seen its work increase since the upheavals in central and eastern Europe.

With the Maastricht Agreements, the European Community, the hard core of European integration, has undeniably taken a decisive step towards European union. It is now preparing for enlargement and concluding association agreements with a number of central and eastern European states.

The dynamic of the European Community and the lessons learned from the Gulf war have lent WEU a new interest in the specific field of European defence.

After the meeting of foreign ministers in Prague last week, the CSCE now comprises forty-eight states. It will certainly continue to play a part in the matter of security and the settlement of disputes. I would also emphasise that, at the meeting in Prague, the ministers instructed their Bureau to co-operate closely with the other institutions active in developing democratic institutions and human rights, particularly the Council of Europe and the European Commission for Democracy through Law.

EFTA is trying to establish, with the European Community, a European economic area.

It thus seems to me that the roles of the various organisations working in Europe are reasonably clear. The Council of Europe’s own role is expanding and being strengthened.

May I simply remind you that, at its meeting in November, the Committee of Ministers emphasised the need to continue developing the Council of Europe’s role as a rallying point and forum for cooperation in today’s Europe.

It pointed out that the Organisation had been conceived to gather together the peoples of Europe on the basis of values – pluralist democracy, human rights, the rule of law – whose respect is the prime guarantee of stability and peace on our continent, and that it constitutes a directly available structure for reception and co-operation, of which the countries of central and eastern Europe have an immediate need and in which they are showing a strong interest.

In what I said earlier, I stressed the Council of Europe’s pan-European mission, now well established within the international community, which corresponds perfectly to our Organisation’s potential, objectives, and to the universality of its values.

Events in recent years have shown how hard it is to make long-term forecasts, and those political scientists who have risked doing so have been overtaken by the events which have shaken the European continent. Personally, however, I think I can agree with those who see the Council of Europe as the crucible of a future European confederation.

Your Assembly will certainly have a significant role to play in this context.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I shall answer Mr Hunault’s second question in a few words.

The institutions were as surprised as the European politicians by the quickened pace of events in Europe. Nevertheless, – and this point seems to me crucial – they have taken stock of the need for inter-institutional co-operation. That is the path we intend to follow today.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

The honourable parliamentarian has put a series of highly pertinent questions concerning the Council of Europe’s relations with what was the USSR.

With the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) at Minsk on 8 December 1991, the Alma-Ata agreements of 21 December 1991 and the disappearance of the old Soviet Union, it is true that the question of relations between the Council of Europe and the countries which are succeeding the USSR must be put in new terms.

The Ministers’ Deputies have begun an in-depth examination of this issue and will be continuing it next week. I cannot anticipate their conclusions. It is, however, clear that the Commonwealth of Independent States is neither a state nor an international organisation with external relations. The recent Davos meeting with state leaders fully confirmed this impression.

The question is thus that of relations between the Council of Europe and the individual states which make up that Commonwealth.

It can also be said that the Russian Federation has taken on the succession of the former USSR in the Security Council of the United Nations, but only there and not in relation to any other agreement.

As for the other republics in the Commonwealth of Independent States, these have already been recognised by a large, if variable number of states in the international community. It will now be up to the Ministers’ Deputies to decide with which states’ relations should be established and what form those relations should take.

It is not for me to anticipate their decisions and to suggest geographical or other criteria. It would seem, however, that we shall soon be able to authorise the Secretary General to initiate contacts with the governments of certain republics, with a view to starting work on the planning and implementation of selected projects as part of the co-operation and assistance programme for the countries of central and eastern Europe.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

In reply to Mrs Grendelmeier, I would say that I am not aware of any individual minister, or representative for that matter, in Europe today who would be able to provide me with a clear, legally acceptable and internationally recognised definition of Europe’s boundaries.

Traditionally, the Urals have been regarded as the boundary.

What I do know, however, is that, irrespective of the geographical situation in one or the other continent, all the countries that make up the Commonwealth of Independent States are in need of help and contacts, and are interested in the work of our Organisation. It will thus be for us – at the international level, of course – to decide where the true boundaries of Europe lie, not forgetting that a country as vast as the Russian Federation extends far beyond those boundaries, even though the majority of its population is European. That is the problem.

We must now seek bases for co-operation other than mere definition of belonging to the continent. That is one of the main problems facing us.

As for the resources available to the administration, and to our organisation, they have partially been found through budgetary channels. That they are insufficient is undeniable! But all the resources available in all countries, in all the organisations, are insufficient to meet the needs of the new republics of eastern Europe and the new democracies of central Europe.

We must make do with those resources. The staff of the Council of Europe administration has also been increased slightly.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I fully agree with the honourable parliamentarian that the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe has an important role to play in developing co-operation with the countries of central and eastern Europe. Co-operation at intergovernmental and parliamentary level must be supplemented by developing close co-operation between locally and regionally elected representatives throughout Europe.

Since the changes in the countries of central and eastern Europe, the CLRAE has amply shown that it can make a major contribution in this area. The various initiatives taken so far include missions by CLRAE observers, who have visited several central and east European countries to follow local elections.

The CLRAE has also helped to train people from local and regional authorities in these countries and has invited elected representatives to several recent seminars and conferences.

By continuing to involve locally and regionally elected representatives as extensively as possible in its traditional activities and in the development of these training programmes, the CLRAE is playing an important part in developing local and regional democracy. The CLRAE is also helping implant and develop associations of local and regional authorities in those countries.

Amongst the CLRAE’s current major activities, the following deserve a particular mention: the draft Urban Charter and the implementation of the Charter on Local Self-Government, as well as co-operation in specific areas of local or regional authority competence such as education, culture, transportation, urban development, security and the question of drugs in the cities, co-operation between given regions, such as in the Mediterranean, in frontier or island regions, and North-South co-operation.

At the same time, this forum, which was set up in 1957 as the first platform for European co-operation between local authority representatives, is in need of substantial reform, first to give the CLRAE an increased political influence and weight, and secondly to give it a genuinely regional dimension by associating with it, if possible, the political leaders who are at the forefront of this movement today. I know that this task is not an easy one and that your Assembly declared its views last year on the proposals made in this area by the CLRAE.

This highly important reform, which deserves our full attention, has been under consideration by the Committee of Ministers for a short time. One of the aims currently pursued is to allow the regions to organise their co-operation at European level and to devise a structure for this purpose.

I can confirm to the honourable parliamentarian that the Assembly will be kept informed as to the results of our work, and it is my hope that the Council of Europe, which did pioneer work in this field, will be able to provide an ideal structure for the development of genuine co-operation both at local or municipal and regional level.

For its part, Switzerland is determined to make a major effort to complete this reform as soon as possible.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

As the honourable parliamentarian emphasises, protection of the environment and co-ordination of trunk connections in Europe are questions which go well beyond the twelve European Community countries and concern the whole of Europe.

At the Council of Europe, environmental issues are considered with specific reference, firstly, to the management of space and the natural environment within a committee of governmental experts, and secondly, under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats in Europe, the so-called Bern Convention.

While allowing for the work of other international and European organisations, the Council of Europe’s role in the natural environment field should take practical shape in the second pan-European Conference “Environment for Europe” which is to be held in Switzerland in late 1992 /early 1993, following the holding of the first ministerial conference at Dobris (Prague) in June 1991.

In this connection, I would remind you that my country played an important part in paving the way for the fusion of the Council of Europe’s initiative for a pan-European forum on the environment with this second ministerial conference. The Council of Europe will contribute to the report on the state of the environment which is to be presented at this conference; this will allow it to assert its European role in respect of the natural environment.

With regard to transport, I would remind you that the Council of Europe’s intergovernmental programme of activities includes no specific activities in this area. The question of transport, and particularly the question of infrastructure co-ordination, are dealt with as such only within the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and within your Assembly.

So far, the Committee of Ministers has never designated transport as one of the Organisation’s priority sectors. These questions are in fact dealt with particularly by the European Community, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Your Assembly is actually very well informed about the work of the ECMT and I note that there will be a debate on the subject during this session, in the presence of Mr Gelestathis, Minister of Transport and Communications of Greece, and Chairman of the Council of ECMT.

I should nonetheless like to recall that, at the Committee of Ministers’ last ministerial meeting, some delegations did suggest that the Council of Europe’s competence should be extended to the transport field.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

Perhaps I was too brief in my answer to your question, but the Committee of Ministers is aware of this issue. With regard to your desire to see progress made in this area, I think I can reply in the affirmative.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

In answer to the first part of Mr Rathbone’s question, I would assure the honourable parliamentarian, as the Committee of Ministers itself has already done in its reply to the Assembly Recommendation 1168 (1991), that the Committee of Ministers intends to take due account of the Assembly’s contributions in connection with work to revitalise the European Social Charter, as it has done so far.

In this connection, I would recall that, immediately after the Informal Ministerial Conference on Human Rights in Rome on 5 November 1990, Assembly Representatives took part in the work of the Committee for the European Social Charter; this Assembly participation will continue as the work of this committee, whose terms of reference have just been extended by the Committee of Ministers until 1992, goes on.

I would remind you how quickly the initial work on revitalisation of the Charter was concluded, leading, on 16 October 1991, to adoption by the Committee of Ministers of the protocol amending the Charter, the main aim of which is to clarify the respective powers of the supervisory bodies. The adoption of that protocol lent particular emphasis to the ministerial conference, which was held in Turin on 21-22 October 1991 to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the Charter, and at which eleven member states signed this instrument, one with no reservations pending ratification.

This naturally brings me to the second part of the honourable parliamentarian’s question. He will certainly agree with me that these important results would not have been achieved as quickly if the Committee of Ministers had adopted an unduly legalistic stance.

It goes without saying – this has always been, and will always be the Committee of Ministers’ consistent approach – that work on revitalising the Charter must have the flexibility needed to increase that instrument’s potential, to involve all the member states and persuade them to accede, particularly at a time when – as the honourable parliamentarian emphasises – the family of democratic countries within our Organisation is growing. Here, I would point out that the new member states are participating fully in the work of the Committee for the European Social Charter.

I would also emphasise that, immediately after the ministerial meeting in Turin, the Committee of Ministers acted on the appeals and recommendations made at that meeting, particularly by calling on the governments of the member states to accede to the protocol, so that it could come into force as soon as possible.

The Committee of Ministers also asked the states party to the Charter and other supervisory bodies to envisage certain measures provided for in the protocol, even before it had come into force, insofar as the text of the Charter permitted this. This last appeal provides proof, if any proof were needed, of the Committee of Ministers’ flexibility on this question.

I, therefore, have no doubt that all the questions concerning the supervisory procedure, the material content of the Charter, the draft protocol providing for a collective complaints system and the proposals on ways of improving the supervisory machinery without amending the text of the Charter, which the Committee for the European Social Charter is at present considering, will be given the pragmatic attention they require, and that decisions will be reached which will win this Assembly’s approval.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a number of problems are still unresolved. Extra resources should be available under the 1992 budget to facilitate the implementation of some of these mechanisms.

That is all I can say at present in answer to the supplementary question.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I shall give a wholly extempore reply to Mr König’s question.

The Swiss Federal Council, the government of my country, stated its position very clearly on 22 October. I shall recapitulate it here for the benefit of those who may not be aware of it, particularly as it came as a surprise to a number of you.

Firstly, the Swiss Government accepted the outcome of the negotiations leading to the Treaty on the European Economic Area.

Next, noting that this treaty was not totally balanced, particularly in the institutional sphere which introduced relations between EFTA countries and the European Community, the Swiss Government took the view that if this treaty and the European Economic Area were a necessary, worthwhile and enriching phase, it must lead to Switzerland’s accession to the European Community; such was to be the aim of its integration policy.

These, Mr König, are the implications, since you speak of implications. A few years hence, the European Community will have an additional member.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I am no prophet!

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

As the honourable parliamentarian has himself noted, the Committee of Ministers actually decided, on 8 October 1991, to suspend co-operation with the Yugoslav authorities.

It is also true that, in November 1991, the Ministers’ Deputies authorised the Secretariat, as part of the assistance and co-operation programmes for the countries of central and eastern Europe, to pursue contacts with individuals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Yugoslavia.

On 19 December, taking account of the European Community’s positive action in favour of certain republics, but not wishing to diminish the political scope of their October decision, the Ministers’ Deputies authorised selective and pragmatic co-operation with certain Yugoslav republics.

Since then, many member states have recognised the republics of Slovenia and Croatia and, at their next meeting, which is due to start on 10 February, the Ministers’ Deputies will consider the question of intergovernmental co-operation with those republics.

I also note that your Assembly, Mr President, has just awarded special guest status to Slovenia and that applications from other republics, including Macedonia, are still being considered by the Assembly bodies concerned.

It must be said that the question of recognising Macedonia still remains vague.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is essential not to confuse the forums involved. The Council of Europe is not called upon to pronounce on the recognition of any given republic. That is entirely the responsibility of the member states of our Organisation.

Nevertheless, we think it important that, when the majority, if not all, of the Council of Europe’s member states have recognised a particular republic, regardless of which it may be, the Council of Europe should be allowed to attempt to establish relations with that republic.

That is the only reply I can give you at present. The general political debate on the recognition of other states can take place only within the Committee of Ministers and at a very general level. It cannot result in a decision by the Council of Europe. In any case, that debate will certainly take place, as has already happened within the European Community and other forums.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

In answer to the honourable parliamentarian, I would emphasise that our Organisation has made considerable efforts to assist the countries of central and eastern Europe in fields where it has special and recognised competence, particularly the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The Council of Europe has also provided ad hoc assistance in the fields of health and education. The appropriations set aside for this aid in 1992 are twice those provided in 1991.

However, and although the field mentioned by the honourable parliamentarian deserves our full attention, it must be said that the Council of Europe does not have the infrastructure needed to provide aid by way of foodstuffs, and that many other organisations, such as the European Community and the G24, as well as many states operating bilaterally, are active in this very field.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

Mr President, first of all I wish to stress that the Committee of Ministers remains committed to the principle of the removal of visas between all Council of Europe member states. The principle of eliminating visas is embodied in the European agreement governing the movement of persons between member states of the Council of Europe, ratified by thirteen member states.

I am aware that such an affirmation may seem unsatisfactory to the honourable parliamentarian who represents a country whose nationals are often obliged to have visas if they want to visit other member states. This is not only true with respect to the host country of this Organisation – and I would like to seize this occasion to pay tribute to the spirit of generosity and the effectiveness with which the French authorities have always fulfilled their role as a good host of the Council of Europe – but also with respect to other countries like my own. When we last discussed this subject in the Committee of Ministers, the delegations of the countries concerned stated the reasons for their having been obliged to resort to supervisory measures of this kind. Some of them made it clear, however, that these measures were a response to exceptional circumstances and I hope that they can be abolished as soon as possible.

Coming now to the specific group of persons to whom you refer, that is, Turkish nationals wishing to attend the debates of the Parliamentary Assembly, I have the utmost sympathy for such a wish. Of course, it is very difficult to adopt general rules on the persons authorised to enter a specific country which take into account all possible justified reasons for the wish to enter the country. The Committee of Ministers is not aware that any Turkish national who has expressed the wish to attend debates of the Assembly has been refused the right to enter France.

Nevertheless, I repeat, we recognise the validity of your concern.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I have neither the authority nor the capacity to resolve this problem. It is first and foremost a question of bilateral relations. However, I shall of course take note of it, and we shall draw it to the attention of the Committee of Ministers if the occasion arises.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I can only confirm to the honourable parliamentarian, Mr GUI, that the Committee of Ministers has not so far discussed the recent events in Algeria. I note that your Assembly has not commented on them either.

This does not mean that we take no interest in the situation in that country. On the contrary, our governments are following developments in Algeria closely and several of them have commented on this matter.

Personally, I very much hope that the Algerian authorities will do everything possible to secure a return to normal institutional life and to ensure that a peaceful dialogue can develop between the parties concerned so as to continue the democratic process.

Mr Felber, President of the Swiss Confederation (translation)

I am not going to open a political debate on the recent events in Algeria, since your Assembly has decided to debate it at this session.

I would simply repeat that the Committee of Ministers, too, will certainly be discussing this problem. Who has not done so? So I cannot, in any case, speak on its behalf.