|
|
13 September 1994
Doc. 7148
1403-13/9/94-1-E
OPINION
on the enlargement of the Council of Europe1
(Rapporteur: Mr ATKINSON,
United Kingdom, European Democratic Group)
1. During the Parliamentary Assembly's January 1994 part-session, Mr Reddemann presented an initial report on the enlargement of the Council of Europe (Doc. 6975), which ruled out the possibility of the three Transcaucasian republics, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, becoming full members of the Council of Europe.
Many members of the Assembly disagreed with this position during the debate and the issue was referred for report to the Political Affairs Committee and for opinion to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries.
2. In its second report on the issue (Doc. 7103), the Political Affairs Committee stated that "in view of their cultural links with Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia would have the possibility of applying for membership provided they clearly indicate their will to be considered as part of Europe". I welcome this development as it is in keeping with the conclusions of the Bureau of the Assembly as approved on 22 April 1992 and the opinion of the members of the Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries who on 18 March 1994 approved the following contribution which, in my capacity as Rapporteur, I have had forwarded to Mr Reddemann:
"3. The draft recommendation suggests that, according to the generally accepted geographical limits of Europe, the Caucasus is part of Asia. To support this assertion the explanatory memorandum only quotes the 1984 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
4. Thus, the aspirations of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to become full members of the Council of Europe, would be rejected without any consultation as to their interpretation of location and, more importantly, without considering the political implications of denying these countries all the positive influences of full membership.
5. This approach is unworthy of the Parliamentary Assembly. The Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries urges the Political Affairs Committee to take account of the following considerations.
The Encyclopedia Britannica
6. This is not a European encyclopedia. It has been published in the United States since 1922, and has been based in Chicago since the 1940s. The Britannica definition of Europe is that of Soviet geographers which is arbitrary and is suspiciously close to the borders of long-standing Russian and Cossack settlement.
Other encyclopedias
7. Those that are genuinely European, such as the British Everyman and the French Larousse; both say that the eastern boundary of Europe is formed by the Caucasus mountains which are composed of the Greater Caucasus and the Lesser Caucasus. If the Lesser Caucasus mountains are taken to be the edge of Europe then the whole of Georgia and Azerbaijan and part of Armenia would be on the European side. The rest of Armenia is adjacent to Turkey which, of course, is a member.
The clearest geographical definition
8. This can surely be obtained by looking at a map. If the Ural mountains are accepted as the eastern boundary of Europe, then logic suggests that the Ural river which flows into the Caspian Sea extends this natural boundary southwards. Thus the Caucasus, being west of the Caspian Sea, is European.
The CSCE definition of Europe
9. For the purposes of the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty it was agreed that the area of application of the treaty in the case of the (former) USSR 'includes all territory lying west of the Ural river and the Caspian Sea', a description which clearly includes the three Caucasian states.
It is surely desirable to coincide the Council of Europe's definition of Europe with that of the CSCE.
The United Nations definition of Europe
10. All three Caucasian republics are members of the Eastern European Group in the United Nations, not the Asian Group.
It would surely make little sense if the Council of Europe definition of Europe did not coincide with that of the United Nations.
Historical and cultural dimensions
11. Historically, the Transcaucasus has been the meeting point and sometimes the battleground between the three major regional powers: Russia, Turkey and Persia (Iran) of which the first two are and remain primarily European.
12. The history of both Georgia and Armenia is traced back directly to the adoption of Christianity early in the fourth century AD. The Georgian nationality is distinguished by an Ibero-Caucasus language and script. Both countries have retained their direct links with "Christendom" which is almost synonymous with Europe and the associated traditions of art, architecture and music.
13. Azerbaijan is more difficult to link with European history and culture until it was conquered by the Russians early in the nineteenth century. However, the fact that there are no natural boundaries separating the Azeris from the Georgians and the Armenians suggest a strong case for including the entire Caucasus region in Europe.
The political case
14. To exclude the Caucasian republics from the potential benefits of Council of Europe membership would be illogical, unjust and lacking in foresight. They are small states that do not naturally belong to any other regional association. Their larger Turkish neighbour to the south has already fully been accepted as a member and is also an applicant for European Union membership. Their even larger neighbour to the north, the Russian Federation, is regarded as a European state as far as the Urals which are well to the east of the Caucasus.
15. The Council of Europe should be encouraged that the three Caucasian republics are willing to follow the path of western parliamentary democracy and to implement our standards of human rights and minority rights. This would do much to counter those ethnic tensions which are causing the current conflicts.
16. To exclude them permanently from full membership of European institutions would be to leave them isolated and without alternative links. Such a vacuum would, once again, encourage the regional powers to intervene. Indeed, they already are. That is a future which is neither in the interests of the Caucasus, nor of Europe. It can be avoided by wholeheartedly encouraging the three countries to become full members of the Council of Europe."
Conclusion
17. I cannot but welcome the fact that the Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee has taken account of the arguments set out above. I therefore wholeheartedly endorse the provisions of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 7103.
18. However, with regard to Mr Reddemann's explanatory memorandum, I believe that there is a need for clarification of the last sentence: "In any case, the Rapporteur considers that no difference must be made between [these states] in this respect". Although no difference should, in fact, be made as regards their belonging to Europe, it should be quite clear that the applications by Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia for special guest status and any subsequent applications on their part for membership of the Council of Europe will have to be examined on the basis of each country's respective merits and of the progress it has made on the road to democracy, respect for human rights and the establishment of the rule of law.
* *
*
Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 7103).
Committee for opinion: Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries.
Reference to committee: Doc. 6975 and Reference No. 1920 of 28 January 1994.
Opinion unanimously approved by the committee on 9 September 1994.
Secretary to the committee: Mr Dufour.