Parliamentary Assembly

Mr Fischer, President of the Republic of Austria (interpretation)

There are questions that you can put in a couple of minutes that a politician could spend his whole life trying to answer. In the area of human rights, in the medium term there have been significant achievements. The Declaration of Human Rights explains what our common goal must be in this regard. Article 1 states that we are all born free and equal and should interact in a spirit of fraternity. It is such a good programme that we ensured that it was hewn into the stone over the entrance to our debating chamber back home. Now it is a question of making that come about.

I do not think that a single country anywhere in the world can claim correctly that it has achieved 100% of that. There are always differences and there is often a kind of pecking order. There is a difference in the degree to which human rights are respected. There are certain competing relations. I know that a greater effort is being made in the United Nations to work on human rights. Certainly the efforts are greater than they were 30 years ago. There is a United Nations special committee on that. However, at the end of the day it is a matter for individuals, and for politicians and their parties, to decide how to address the issue of human rights, and whether they will go along with things such as the idea I mentioned that the end justifies the means.

As a politician, one is often faced with very awkward decisions, and one has to try to find the best solution, bearing in mind human rights imperatives. These matters are imperative on all of us, but there is no panacea. I cannot say, “Well, life as we know it will change and everything will be fine from 1 January” – that will not be the case. It is up to all of us to do what we can to ensure that these things come about.

Mr Fischer, President of the Republic of Austria (interpretation)

The rulings of the Court of Human Rights should be respected, as should the judgments of any arbiter. I have noted cases where people thought that they could simply ignore the rulings of a Supreme Court. However, in a highly developed democracy someone who pursues that path should be left on the fringes and should be very much in the minority. In countries such as Germany or Switzerland, it is simply not possible to ignore a ruling from the Supreme Court. Anyone who does so is first automatically exposed to justified criticism, not least from voters. It might not hurt that much in a truly developed democracy, but if you wish to achieve consensus, the rulings of the Supreme Court simply have to be adhered to. The rulings have great ramifications, and we would transfer some rights to the European Parliament to ensure that certain red lines cannot be crossed.

Mr Fischer, President of the Republic of Austria (interpretation)

As the Austrian President, I would say, first, that we need to become very active in the bodies where we are represented, such as the European Union and the Council of Europe, in order to promote efforts within the community of democratic States and to have a positive effect in encouraging peaceful and legitimate solutions. Of course, we need to look at the economic and social basis on which we are working for these solutions. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a connection between social cohesion and concern for the weaker and more vulnerable members of a society, and that society’s solidity.

Austria has a special bilateral dialogue at the moment with senior representatives of Ukraine, who turned to us and asked if we would be prepared to provide our best offices and explain our experience, for example, of neutrality and not belonging to a specific bloc. We hope to be able to make a contribution there.

Furthermore, Austria has offered Ukraine assistance in framing a constitution. The President of the Supreme Court in Austria has just retired on age grounds and spent a week in Ukraine, where he has been talking to people there about how to create a better foundation for a constitution. This is what we can do bilaterally and what we can achieve as members of the European Union and the Council of Europe.

Mr Fischer, President of the Republic of Austria (interpretation)

According to the information that I have and my observations, the Council of Europe has already made a contribution in recent months and weeks. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe has visited Ukraine on several occasions. On two occasions, he has done so with the Austrian Foreign Minister. I am sure that that has afforded support to Ukraine, but it is also a reminder to observe certain principles. Both those things are valuable.

Obviously, Ukrainians are seeking security and support, but we need to point the finger at where things may have gone wrong in the past in Ukraine and at what they must be careful of for the future. They have to take account of minorities. They should not make mistakes in language policy. They need to develop their constitution further to address the specific features of Ukraine. One hundred years ago, the western part of the country belonged to Austria, and the situation there is very different from that prevailing in the eastern part of the country. A robust constitution would have to take account of such differences.

Yes, Russia is a member State of the Council of Europe and we must speak in plain language. In my experience, Russian politicians pay heed to plain language; they often speak it themselves. We must keep the channels of communication open. I tried to express that view in my address. The Council of Europe is fully involved in the decision-making process. A constitution is clearly needed and human rights and the rule of law must be upheld, but we must be able to engage in dialogue with the other side. We must be open as well and not take any opportunistic action.

Mr Fischer, President of the Republic of Austria (interpretation)

The Council of Europe was founded in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War – it was constituted in 1949 – and it took shape before the process of European integration took off. It is sensational to have the opportunity to exchange views in this way. Indeed, when I was three years in office, I checked when the first Austrian President undertook a foreign visit. Karl Renner, the first president, never left Austria while in office between 1945 and 1950. Körner, who was in office from 1951 to 1957, never left Austria during that period. The third president, Schärf, visited Belgium in the 1960s, as part of a universal exhibition. In 1945, we Austrians were much more inward looking, and the Council of Europe helped us to show interest in other States and open up dialogue with them.

The Council of Europe was therefore a forerunner of the whole idea of European integration. Indeed, it was a forerunner of the European Parliament, which started in an embryonic state. Of course, that was way back, and things have developed a lot since then. The Council of Europe’s unique selling point is its attachment to human rights. That message spreads much further than the European Union. We are talking about 47 member States, rather than the European Union’s 28 member States. We are very active in a number of areas, and we have an active membership with rights and duties. We reach parts of the world that the European Union cannot reach. So the Council of Europe’s role, in terms of its history and its pioneering actives, is something that we can claim as unique.

Mr Fischer, President of the Republic of Austria (interpretation)

Of course I agree that the freedom of religion is a fundamental right. Just a few weeks ago, I gave an address at Heiligenkreuz, which is a papal university. I spoke on just that issue and pointed out that, for example – I think that many of you will know this – Austria was the first country in Europe that, 102 years ago, acknowledged Islam as an equal community of belief to Christianity and alongside the Jewish faith. That was a pioneering act when it came to religious freedom, and Vienna is a centre for institutions such as those founded by Saudi Arabia and Spain, including the centre for religious freedom founded by King Abdullah. Some of you may be a little surprised to hear that Saudi Arabia takes part in that, but it has been heavily involved in founding and funding that institution to help ensure the practise and discussion of religious freedom.

Reference was made to certain events in Pakistan, and of course we must completely and unambiguously condemn such things wherever they take place, be that in China or in any of the five continents. We think that freedom of religion is a fundamental right, and such rights are indivisible.

Mr Fischer, President of the Republic of Austria (interpretation)

I think there are several conclusions here. You said one or two kind things about the Austrian position on this crisis and problem, and I have tried to set out the whole breadth of the Austrian position and its support for a peaceful solution on the basis of dialogue. Secondly, you mentioned the case of Mr Firtash. On the basis of a long-existing agreement I think the United States has applied for that individual’s deportation, and the courts are now looking into the matter to see whether the requirements have been met. That is a question of jurisdiction, so a member of the Austrian Government or the President will certainly not intervene. It is a matter for the courts in our country and everyone will have to accept whatever they decide.

On Mr Yanukovych’s stay in Russia, again one can consider that issue only on the basis of the rule of law and a ruling from our court. If someone applies for his extradition, the legal system of the country affected will have to consider that, and the Council of Europe can act as an observer and express an opinion about the ultimate ruling of the court. I do not think, however, that there is any question of the Council of Europe taking a position over or ignoring the courts.

Mr Fischer, President of the Republic of Austria (interpretation)

I am pleased that you have raised the issue of the western Balkans. That is an important issue and we think that 2013 was a year of considerable progress. Croatia joined the European Union and Serbia made considerable progress – just two or three weeks ago the Serbian President was in Vienna and left a very good impression regarding the positions he has adopted. Progress is continuing in Kosovo, and I hope that Albania will soon conclude an association agreement. Montenegro is a front runner in its relations with the European Union. Bosnia remains a matter of concern – perhaps I can put it as bluntly as that. There will be elections shortly, which is great, but it means that until well on in the autumn there will be complete inertia on the political scene. Overall, however, the western Balkans are on the right track.

On the question about extreme or nationalist right wing movements, the process of European integration as a whole is an act against chauvinism and extreme nationalism. If we consider the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that we mentioned about equality and fraternity, I think that the type of nationalism that looks down in a condescending way – or worse – towards its neighbours may be linked to some kind of racist philosophy and the idea of a hierarchy of races that are more or less important. That philosophy caused such awful suffering in the 20th century that I would certainly distance myself from it. None the less, there are such trends and an attempt to exploit certain forms of nationalism.

Time and again, however, those attempts run up against certain limits. That was the case in France, Sweden and in Austria, and the huge majority of differing political opinions are able to contain that form of extremism. Sometimes one experiences a setback in one respect or other, but overall I do not think there is any future for those nationalist ways of thinking, and in 10 or 20 years’ time we will have learned to deal better with such forms of extremism than we have so far been able to do. That is my opinion.

Mr Fischer, President of the Republic of Austria (interpretation)

It has changed considerably in recent times. At the beginning of the 1990s, Austria, Sweden and Finland, the three neutral countries, had a lot of contact with one another because of the new situation after the fall of the Iron Curtain. We discussed whether we were in a position to accede to the European Union. The issue was hotly debated in all three countries. I remember discussions with Ingvar Carlsson from Sweden, Paulo Ripponen from Finland and other friends. We decided to accede as neutral States. Since then, Sweden and Finland have considered themselves non-aligned.

Although Austria remains a neutral country and has not made any major legal changes, we have made minor modifications. Our declaration of neutrality of October 1955 is a brief text. It says that Austria is bound to perpetual neutrality, will not accept any external pressure and will not accede to any military alliance. That short declaration has remained in force unchanged since October 1955. When we acceded to the European Union we said that our neutrality would remain, but we have changed some provisions in our constitution so that we can take part in European discussions on defence. To my mind, that has proved its worth.

Around the year 2000, both major parties – the Social Democratic Party and the Austrian People’s Party – were at loggerheads. They found it difficult to negotiate to form a coalition. The Austrian People’s Party wanted a statement saying that Austria retained the right to accede to NATO. The social democrats refused that. Since then our defensive doctrine has been hammered out through a consensus between all parties. Its essence is that we are a neutral State, but we can take part in the process of European integration.

In Finland – although I am sure our Finnish colleagues can explain this better – there are discussions about potential NATO membership. Similarly, in Sweden there is a wide range of opinions on that issue. But that does not stop us going down the avenue that we think has proved best for us and that is accepted by our population. If there were a referendum today on whether Austrians wanted to give up their neutrality, a large majority of the population would vote in favour of retaining it.