Doc. 7987

20 January 1998

Second Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe (Strasbourg, 10-11 October 1997)

–What prospects?

Contribution

Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations

Rapporteur: Mr Paul Staes, Belgium, Group of the European People’s Party

I.       INTRODUCTION

      The report which is currently being prepared on celebration of the Council of Europe's 50th anniversary is intended to spark discussion of the Organisation's role in building Europe, and particularly of activity fields which would give it a clearer public profile and highlight the ways in which its contribution to European integration differs from, and complements, the efforts of other organisations pursuing the same goals.

      At our last meeting, we agreed to flesh out the draft report with any ideas suggested by the conclusions of the Second Summit of Heads of State and Government, as set out in its Final Declaration.

II.       DECLARATION OF THE SECOND SUMMIT

      The Declaration comprises two parts: the first concerns the role of the Council of Europe, and the second sets out an action plan.

1.       The role of the Council of Europe: political organisation or specialised agency?

      The Declaration confirms the Council of Europe's traditional standard-setting role, which it terms essential in the human rights field and complementary (it speaks of a "contribution") where international law is concerned.

      It also - and this is relatively new - stresses the Council's role in promoting social cohesion in Europe, and sets out to give the Organisation a fresh impetus on that basis.

      It again expresses full support for the Council of Europe's role in helping to secure cohesion, stability and security in Europe; the nature of this support is not spelled out, but the Council is to step up (how?) its contribution to these aims, which are also being pursued by other organisations.

      It is certainly gratifying that forty heads of state should affirm the Council's role in its various aspects, but one notes that this expression of commitment says nothing about increasing the resources currently available - the paucity of which is causing many problems - and also that the Organisation's political role goes unmentioned. This emphasis on standard-setting and this omission of the political aspects were strangely echoed by the OSCE representative, Mr Helveg Petersen, when he said: "We share the same aim..., our efforts complement each other. The framework of the OSCE is of a political nature. The OSCE is able to react quickly and flexibly to crisis situations. The Council of Europe has a legal framework, well suited to deal with individual rights and to promote institutional development".

      An organisation with a Committee of Ministers and an elected Assembly thus seems to be divested of the political function inherent in those two bodies.

      Of course, we must not over-dramatise. Successful implementation of many of the activities set out in both the Declaration and the Action Plan depends on political will-power. But if care is not taken, phrases like this may take root and gradually colour the way in which the Organisation's role is perceived.

      The political role written into the Council's Statute might be replaced by a technical role of the kind assumed by specialised agencies. A change along these lines would certainly be no disaster in a world where anything can change, but is it desirable in a Europe which is moving towards making a firm distinction between countries inside and outside the Community Fifteen? A third Summit is being held in Budapest in May 1999 on the very special occasion of the Council's 50th anniversary. But is it likely that forty or more Heads of State and Government could be mobilised again at regular intervals to discuss the work of a specialised agency, however noble? And could we expect to go on mobilising the Assembly's members in those circumstances? It is, of course, true that the Assembly's members control their own agenda and can tackle a wide range of subjects from a political angle. But political discussions, however stimulating, must influence the political decision-makers. Standard-setting is necessary, but it is not enough.

      In fact, not only the Statute, but Europe's situation, make it necessary for the Council to play a political role - for reasons of sound common sense.

      The European Union, let us hope, will succeed in developing its political role, but it will certainly be unable, for a long time to come, to accommodate more than twenty or so states - in other words, half or slightly more than half of Europe. And that half will mainly comprise the more prosperous countries. We have known for centuries that relations between affluent and poorer countries are prone to tensions and conflict. Indeed, the speeches at the Summit contained a clear signal: while most of the western speakers stressed the Council's role in the human rights field, some of the eastern speakers were more inclined to emphasise its role as a forum for large-scale co-operation. Any far-sighted policy should take account of this.

      The Council of Europe is the only platform where all the countries of Europe can meet, talk and co-operate. Even if there is a transatlantic platform which can operate along the same lines, the Council's specifically European character gives it advantages which cannot be ignored. The fall of the Berlin Wall was followed by enlargement of the Council, described by President Jacques Chirac as a "symbol of the recovered unity of Europe". But unity is something which has to be forged, and this can only be done politically. Logic thus requires that the Council of Europe's role be first and foremost political.

      Having served as a backdrop for numerous bilateral political negotiations, the Council can just as easily serve as a multilateral political forum. This was the reason for which it was set up, and this should be its raison d'être in the new Europe.

2.       Action Plan

      The Declaration is followed by an action plan. This lists projects already in the work programme, with two exceptions, both of them important - "the setting up of a specialised unit for monitoring, comparing and handling issues linked to social cohesion" and the appointment of a human rights commissioner.

      The importance of the prospects opened up by the first of these proposals should be stressed. The role which the Council should play in helping to solve social problems has often been highlighted in the past. Its being affirmed and backed by a practical action proposal in a text signed by forty Heads of State and Government was one of the notable features of this Summit.

      The positive response to the Assembly's proposal for the appointment of a human rights commissioner confirms the usefulness of the Council's taking on new tasks.

      Other Council activity sectors are not mentioned.

      Perhaps we should welcome this since, when the report I submitted to you was discussed, one of the principles it laid down was generally accepted - namely that we should have fewer activities and a higher profile.

      Four main fields are referred to: democracy and human rights, social cohesion, citizen security, and democratic values and cultural diversity. A fifth field concerns reform of the Organisation's structures and working methods and implementation of the other four.

      The fact that the Organisation needs to reorient its activities cannot be disputed. But it is debatable whether this should be done at the expense of fields in which it has often played a pioneering role (eg the environment).

      There is thus a danger that reorientation - in itself a worthy aim - may become synonymous with reduction, while keeping the budget at a level rendered inadequate by the Organisation's soaring expansion in the space of a mere five years may also send the wrong signal.

III.       CONCLUSIONS: PROSPECTS AFTER THE SECOND SUMMIT

      The Declaration adopted at the first (Vienna) Summit asserted the Organisation's political role more clearly: "The Council of Europe is the pre-eminent European political institution capable of welcoming, on an equal footing and in permanent structures, the democracies of Europe freed from communist oppression. For that reason the accession of those countries to the Council of Europe is a central factor in the process of European construction based on our Organisation's values".

      Although it does not refer to the Vienna Summit, the Strasbourg Declaration should form part of a coherent political context, guaranteeing the practical viability of a project for the building of Europe on a truly continental scale. One of the things which such coherence presupposes is a link between the two Declarations.

      Structural reforms creating rapid decision-making machinery are essential for the Organisation’s credibility in times of crisis. The Assembly’s appeal for action on these lines is echoed in the Final Declaration under the heading “Structures and Working Methods". Everything will depend on how the Committee of Ministers responds.

      Before deciding, the Committee of Ministers will have to consider the proposals of the Committee of Wise Persons whose establishment was announced at the end of the first week of January 1998. This committee will be looking not only at structures and working methods but also at the overall role of the Council of Europe. The proposals of the Parliamentary Assembly, a number of which have been taken into account in the Final Declaration, are still not enough to fulfil the role of the Council of Europe as defined in its statute and in particular Article 22. It is essential to go back to the original definition of the Council’s role which was rapidly and deliberately abandoned by the governments. Under this Article, the Assembly enjoys deliberative powers and therefore shares the standard-setting powers of the Committee of Ministers. These provisions lay the foundations for a confederate institution. The nationalist tendencies fuelled by the Second World War, the Cold War and the emergence of the ECSC and then the Common Market temporarily obscured this interpretation, which had been the whole point of the Council of Europe in the minds of its founding fathers.

      This vision, which was ahead of its time when it first emerged, should be reviewed in the current context and all the more so because it is clear that the European Union will not be able to extend its plans for European integration to the whole continent for quite some time.

      To ensure long-term peace in Europe, there is no alternative but to involve all of its countries in a joint political project.

      While we await the creation of a partially integrated Europe and, prior to this, an integrated economic and monetary zone within the European Union, it is vital to prevent Europe from being divided between those who are members of the Union and those who are not, and promote a Europe which respects national sovereignty while creating a certain degree of political unity and solidarity through new institutional links.

      The Europe which ranges from the Atlantic to Vladivostok is a reality which must be consolidated in the interests of peace. To achieve this European project, we need the inspiration and momentum which characterised the European Movement in 1948.

      Let us hope that the Committee of Wise Persons will go back to the ideas first expressed by the European Movement to enliven its discussion on the role of an Organisation geared to the new demands of Greater Europe.