Parliamentary Assembly

Mr President, distinguished members, Secretary General, your excellencies and distinguished guests, many thanks for your very warm welcome. You have been so kind as to invite me here and to grant me all the latitude that any speaker could wish for. Today, we are not bound by a strict parliamentary protocol that would restrict what I might discuss: there is no set topic, and there is no pre-determined, limited freedom of negotiation, set before the first sentence is uttered. It is a tremendous privilege to be able to speak freely and for one such as me, given my age and my origins, it is indeed an historic gift. I wish to use that gift of speaking freely to thank you, members and partners of the Council of Europe, for your work.

I also wish to fortify you for politically uncomfortable discussions. I am concerned by the following question: how can we help this precious, but sadly often under-estimated, institution to emerge from the shadow of the European Union and be appreciated for its true worth? After those thanks, I wish to explain that I have come as a friend and advocate of the Council of Europe. I believe that the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly deserve greater attention and greater support, so that you may discharge your remit to the full. I stand here as your ally.

My visit to Strasbourg has, of course, an overarching theme – human rights – which is why I wish to address one of my chief concerns at the outset. We continue to need the Council of Europe – we need it more than ever – as a critical forum for human rights. I stand before you because human trafficking and forced prostitution must stop. Members of opposition groups should not have to fear persecution or to fear even for their lives. People should not face discrimination, whatever the reason.

"We should never seek to economise on human rights"

May I begin by thanking you for your achievements? I speak to this body, the oldest political organisation of Europe, as the President of Germany. The Council of Europe came into being as a reaction to two dreadful wars that claimed the lives of millions of people and split the continent for almost half a century. Article 1 of the Statute of the Council of Europe states: “The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members”. Ladies and gentlemen, as you may imagine, or as you may know, that was tremendously significant in 1949. There was a tremendous longing for peace. It took courage to work together and co-operate politically, and the idea was difficult to get across then: bringing together the peoples of Europe more closely in economic, social and cultural terms.

The Council of Europe embodied the vision of a political Europe way before the European Union developed into a formal political community through economic interdependence and the adoption of a common currency. The Council of Europe has always been in development, and it held a particularly strong attraction at the end of the Cold War. Many people, including me, remember that with deep gratitude.

Here in this very Chamber, in the summer of 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev was the special guest, and he set out at the lectern his idea of a common European house as an aspiration for the whole continent. That was three months before Hungary opened its borders and four months before the fall of the Berlin Wall. History has recognised that Gorbachev was right on that point. Ideological opponents became partners. Over a good 10 years, with two exceptions, all the former communist States of Europe joined this Organisation. Human rights, democracy and the rule of law are therefore a paradigm for central and eastern European States.

Today, more than 800 million citizens from 47 countries are represented in the Council of Europe. There can be no doubt that the Council of Europe is the largest house that we have ever built on this continent. It is distinguished from all other European institutions by virtue of that pan-European character. The Council of Europe expands our view to the whole continent and is the guardian of our values and founding principles far beyond the borders of the European Union. Therefore, it is indeed an honour to be with you today.

As I said, there are 47 member States – a large and multifarious group. The Council of Europe constitutes a community from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Northern Cape to the Bosphorus, but it is perceived differently from different points of the compass, used in differing ways and often valued in differing fashions. The western European public usually discuss European issues in relation to the institutions of the European Union and very rarely discuss the Council of Europe. In the east of our continent and in the Mediterranean area, the Council of Europe has and still enjoys a much stronger significance.

I remember very well that during communist times the Council of Europe was, in addition to the United Nations, an important beacon for human rights activists and opposition groups. Later, it afforded support in building the new national democracies of central, eastern and south-eastern Europe. It is easy for me to act as an advocate for an institution with that history and that political and ethical basis. In addition to that, I also put my shoulder to the wheel and fought alongside you. Before I look to the future, I emphasise that it is important to understand our own identity and how we build on that going forward. For me, that is linked to the expectations that I have of the Council of Europe.

Rights and freedoms on paper do not suffice; they must be guaranteed in practice. Accession to the Council of Europe has always been voluntary; however, the commitment made at the moment of accession must be lasting and reliable. Council of Europe members commit themselves to the values and legal standards of the Council of Europe. In addition to the European Convention on Human Rights, we have a further 211 conventions – an impressive number. Member States are pledged to transpose those conventions into their national legal order as swiftly as possible. National bodies may not undermine that shared canon of values.

That applies in particular to the guarantees offered by the European Convention on Human Rights. In my view, the credibility of the Convention relies on our viewing it and dealing with it in practice as a shared asset. I recently signed legislation that became necessary because the European Court of Human Rights had found Germany to be in breach of human rights standards, and it was necessary to guarantee that national law and the actions of public bodies were human rights-compliant. All 47 member States have to draw the relevant consequences from decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

I emphasise these perhaps obvious points because, prior to 1989, my experience, living in the east, was of a State that did not consider itself bound by its own law or by international conventions. This was an era when the letter of the law bore no relation to reality. Therefore, I particularly value the fact that we now enjoy a Europe where, in addition to a national legal area, there is a European area. That reduces the danger of abuses of fundamental rights going unrecognised or being dismissed. We are able to address that which is of concern to us.

I was particularly concerned last year when the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture reported ill-treatment in European prisons. I am always concerned when agreed standards remain a dead letter or are consigned to the bin because arbitrary behaviour, corruption and cover-up prove stronger than the courageous Council of Europe or NGO voices of admonishment.

We need to insist tirelessly on the values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law; otherwise we will lose credibility and be reduced to an empty husk. We need to engage in regular self-affirmation in each country, and we should not be prevented from so doing by a government. It is a good thing that the Council of Europe’s monitoring reports are consulted and cited, and that the work of the Venice Commission attracts so much interest. That helps all those who stand up for the implementation of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. I know that the Council of Europe, like many other institutions, is under pressure to make savings. Allow me to make a minimum demand: we should never seek to make savings at the expense of offering practical help to ensure respect for human rights.

That brings me to my second point. Politics is always about human rights policies. Fortunately, the Cold War is now behind us, and yet we are astonished and afraid when we see that there is still a continuation of an old conflict, albeit in nuanced form. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Germany and other western European countries found it rather hard to speak out openly about human rights violations in the eastern part of Europe. Indeed, they were afraid that by speaking out they would jeopardise the policy of change through rapprochement. In the meantime of course – we all witnessed this – the communist regimes had to yield. States of western, central and eastern Europe now all abide by the same consensus of democratic values. Having said that, when it comes to dealing with human rights breaches, there is still a fair amount of controversy, as there was in the past.

Some will argue, as they did back then, that defending human rights could in some way contradict a successful implementation of our political and economic interests. Let me just say one thing in response to that: the argument according to which good economic co-operation would necessitate compromises on human rights issues is even less convincing today than it was back then. After all, a person will decide to invest if they feel that there is certainty in planning and a stable legal framework. Around the world, reliability is a crucial factor for business. We are at a time of globalisation, when States are becoming more and more dependent on one another. If you look at the current developments in economic relations here on the continent of Europe, you will find that being critical and having a critical discourse about human rights in no way constitute an obstacle to increasing trade.

Most importantly, it should be remembered that member States of the Council of Europe have agreed to a clear framework of co-operation. In practice, that means that human rights are – I will employ the jargon used by business people – simply non-negotiable. We want to ensure that all those who enforce the rights that have been anchored on paper, in whatever country they are in, are not abandoned; we cannot abandon them.

For my generation, the key word was Helsinki – that was what saved us. For many civil rights activists today, particularly in societies that are undergoing transformation, the key words are the European Convention on Human Rights. If a member State of the Council of Europe violates its rules, bearing in mind that that member State had signed up to those rules when it joined the Organisation, that violation cannot go unmentioned or unpunished. We need to feel that we are entitled to intervene; indeed, it is our duty to intervene. We, as Europeans, have an obligation to do so on the basis of the Convention.

We also have an obligation as citizens of the world, on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights, and the responsibility for them, are universal and indivisible. This February, I attended a session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva as a guest. I met delegates from all over the world. That audience represented an incredible diversity in background and experience, and faced with them I was reminded that our human rights achievements after the Second World War were an immense civilising feat. At that time, we were gazing into the deepest human abyss, which forced us to open our eyes to what is essential. The international community of all those who signed up to human rights was born not primarily out of ideological battles, but out of existential crises. We realised that if human beings lost their rights, we would lose everything: mutual respect, dignity, our lives and our future.

I sincerely hope that in all parts of the world – many will say that human rights constitute western values, but I hope in the western world as well – we will look upon human rights as a catalogue of rights, which would mean that human rights find their sources in all parts of the world and on all continents, and that their imperatives prevail worldwide. After all, human rights are the most important global common good. Human rights are innate and inalienable, and they apply to everyone. They are premised on the irrefutable fact that all human beings, because they are human beings, are equal, whatever cultural, religious, social or other differences we may have between us. Those who strengthen human rights strengthen humanity as a whole.

My third point is that implementing human rights is a standing item on our agenda and an ongoing task. I am aware that such matters have political consequences and that societal change requires time, particularly in countries undergoing transformation. After all, those countries have a completely different political and historical background compared with other countries in Europe that have had democracies for decades if not for centuries.

That being said, sometimes the time factor may surprise us all. Look at what happened in the heart of Europe. Look at how rapidly change took place. It was quicker and more successful than some of us may have thought initially. I have been talking to the Polish President, Bronisław Komorowski, about our expectations, if not 50 years ago, then 25 years ago, vis-à-vis Europe and what has happened in the meantime. Comparing the two, we have every reason to believe in the creative power of our European societies, more so than what some politicians are wont to do.

We cannot have double standards or a two-tier system on human rights in Europe. We cannot have any differentiation in treatment between member States. The Council of Europe examines issues of human rights, democracy and the rule of law and applies the same standards across the East and the West. The Council of Europe will of course take into account the complexities of each situation, but it will uphold the same standards for all. I want to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for that work.

One of the many tasks that we are confronted with at the moment, which is of great interest to us, is the fight against racism and intolerance. The Council of Europe set up a committee to deal with that in 1993, at a time when, even in my own country of Germany and my own hometown of Rostock, there were, unfortunately, horrific racist riots and clashes. I was shocked to experience such events. A little later, a series of murders was carried out by an extremist right-wing organisation. The solving of those crimes still keeps us on tenterhooks in Germany.

Currently throughout Europe we are experiencing discrimination and violence in many forms. Some majorities discriminate against minorities, while there are minorities who discriminate against majorities or against other minorities. There is a particularly relevant issue: the exclusion of Sinti and Roma people. I welcome the fact that the Council of Europe has used that topic for a public relations campaign that speaks out against all forms of discrimination. The campaign is entitled “Dosta!”, which means “Enough!”. We need more such campaigns.

A big poster campaign is under way in Germany. For example, one poster has a picture of a famous actress, with the slogan, “If you’ve got something against Muslims, I am a Muslim.” Another poster has a prominent politician, with the slogan, “If you’ve got something against gay people, I am gay.” I do not know whether such activities can in future be rolled out in all member States of the Council of Europe. Perhaps we could have a co-ordinated campaign. That would be a positive common learning process that leads us to the same goal. The learning curve will impact on all our personal experiences and on the development of our societies.

I have been and continue to be filled with optimism when I look at the young generations in central and eastern Europe. They are growing up with a new self-image and a new identity, which they have turned into a motivation for political demands. Some young human rights activists are in the public gallery today. They know what they want and, as committed citizens, they also know who can come to their help in achieving that: the Council of Europe. Civil society needs a dependable reference or contact point where people can seek a hearing, lodge their complaints, and seek assistance and support.

We should not forget two countries in particular when talking about defending civil rights. They are on the continent but are not yet members of the Council of Europe. I hope that the domestic political situation in Belarus will change to such an extent that we can start seriously to talk about the accession of Belarus. That could happen, for instance, if the death penalty were abolished, if political prisoners were released from detention and, indeed, if democratic reforms took place in that country. That would be wonderful.

Then we have Kosovo, where the political situation is somewhat different. It is very positive that Kosovo and Serbia have recently reached an historic and unprecedented agreement. Of course, the Parliamentary Assembly has been very active. You have worked on this issue, particularly since the beginning of this year, and we know from your work that more of an effort needs to be made by Kosovo in fighting corruption and organised crime, but integration into the international community will provide an important impetus for that country’s future development. That is why I would very much like all member States of the Council of Europe to recognise Kosovo as a State. People in Kosovo and in Belarus also have the right to take part in our community of values within the Council of Europe. They are entitled to the protection of their human rights, which should prevail throughout the whole of Europe, and they should be entitled to lodge complaints before the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is often the last hope for those who are desperate and dispossessed, those who have been deprived of their rights and those whose human rights have been violated. The number of cases pending before the Court is constantly on the increase. We need to make sure that the Court can be reformed, to ensure that it does not become a victim of its own success because of the sheer volume of its enormous case load. The Court needs to be functional and it needs to save those who protest against human rights violations and who risk so much – sometimes even their lives. One of them is in the audience today.

Dear champions of human rights, ladies and gentlemen, honourable representatives of European non-governmental organisations, I turn to you because I would like to take this opportunity to speak of my great respect for you. I shall meet some of you personally a little later, but I would like to address myself to all of you who are here and all those who would like to be here. I would like to thank you. I think that I can safely say that, without your courage, some of the promises made by the Council of Europe would be only promises on paper. Without your vehement, loud and clear voices, democracy would not survive. Indeed, without your solidarity, which you show in such practical terms and which you will continue to show in the future, our demands for universal and indivisible human rights would remain just demands; they would not be a tangible reality for every human being here.

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I call on you to defend humanity and to make the Council of Europe the best possible organisation that it can be. Internally, it needs to be a strong community within Europe. Despite all differences, it needs to generate and strengthen cohesion within its ranks. Vis-à-vis the outside world, we should be a convincing example of living democracy, the binding rule of law and universal human rights. Thank you.