Doc. 8277

3 December 1998

Yiddish culture

Recommendation 1291 (1996)

Reply from the Committee of Ministers

adopted at the 650th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (24-25 November 1998)

The Committee of Ministers has taken note of the constant interest shown by the Assembly in the question of "dispersed ethnic minorities" since the adoption in March 1996 of Recommendation 1291 on Yiddish culture. This interest, which is reflected, inter alia, in the successive adoption of Recommendation 1333 on the Aromanian culture and language and Resolution 1171 (1998) on endangered Uralic minority cultures, meets the concerns of the Committee of Ministers.

With regard to the proposals made by the Assembly in Recommendation 1291 relating to the Council of Europe's programme of activities, the Committee of Ministers refers to the interim reply it adopted on 20 June 1997 (to which the opinion of the CDCC on the question was appended), and to the opinions of the CDMG, the ECRI and the CDDH, set forth respectively in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 of the present reply.

Concerning the proposal to set up a "laboratory for dispersed ethnic minorities" under the auspices of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers informs the Assembly that a "European Institute for Dispersed Ethnic Minorities" (EIDEM) was set up in July 1998 in Vilnius, on a private initiative, with the support of the Lithuanian Government. This initiative followed, inter alia, the "Lost Europe" Conference held in Vilnius on 2 and 3 December 1997.

The Committee of Ministers consequently decided, on 25 November 1998, to grant Council of Europe auspices to this Institute. The Assembly will be kept informed of any subsequent developments concerning the "dispersed ethnic minorities" question in the Council of Europe as addressed in Assembly Recommendation 1291 and the other texts mentioned above.

Appendix 1

LABORATORY FOR DISPERSED ETHNIC MINORITIES

(Recommendation 1291 (1996) on Yiddish culture)

Opinion of the CDMG

The Ministers' Deputies have asked the European Committee on Migration (CDMG) to give an opinion on paragraph 9.vii of Assembly Recommendation 1291 (1996) on Yiddish culture. In the paragraph in question the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

"set up under the auspices of the Council of Europe a `laboratory for dispersed ethnic minorities' with a mandate, inter alia:

The Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC), in the opinion it has already adopted on the same text, stated that the proposal to create a "laboratory" deserved close consideration and that "it is evident....that [it] could benefit also from and put to the best possible use the results of the Council of Europe's activities concerning Gypsies."

Given, therefore, that Roma/Gypsies are clearly one of Europe's main dispersed ethnic minorities, the Ministers' Deputies have asked the CDMG to express an opinion on the proposal.

Being of the opinion that the CDMG did not have the competence to express a view of its own on this subject, the Bureau of the CDMG decided to consult the Specialist Group on Roma/Gypsies(MG-S-ROM). At its meeting in Ploiesti from 13 to 16 October 1997, the
MG-S-ROM expressed the following views:

"1.       The proposal to take a new initiative to promote the language and culture of dispersed ethnic minorities is of considerable interest for Roma/Gypsy minorities. Not only is this the largest dispersed ethnic minority in Europe but it also has the most pressing practical needs in the field of culture and language. Governments seeking to introduce Romani language teaching and to develop other initiatives to assist with the development of Romani culture would find a centre or laboratory of great practical value.

2.       This being said, it is clear that the Assembly's Recommendation reflects mainly, indeed almost exclusively, a concern for the Yiddish language and culture. It would need to be made clear whether a "laboratory" would in reality be concerned with other dispersed minorities as well.

3.       The MG-S-ROM has also been discussing plans for a Roma/Gypsy cultural route. It could be that the two ideas could be merged. A centre for dispersed ethnic minorities could take responsibility for a Roma/Gypsy cultural route; this would primarily imply extensive networking in order to support and to set up links between the numerous more localised initiatives for promoting the development of Roma/Gypsy culture.

4.       Finally, the MG-S-ROM strongly advocated avoiding the word "laboratory", which may be felt to have sinister historical connotations. A more neutral term such as "centre" should be preferred."

      The CDMG has agreed to forward the above views of the MG-S-ROM to the Committee of Ministers.

Appendix 2

Opinion from ECRI on Recommendation 1291 (1996)

of the Parliamentary Assembly

1.       ECRI has examined with great interest Recommendation 1291 (1996) on Yiddish culture.

2.       Concerning in particular paragraph 9.vii of the Recommendation, on which ECRI was requested to provide an Opinion, ECRI wishes first of all to stress that it welcomes the proposal to set up the special institution of a "laboratory".

3.       ECRI wishes however to stress that the word "laboratory" might have negative connotations and might be misinterpreted in this context, and that it would be preferable to use another word. ECRI also wishes to stress that the paragraph dealing with the "laboratory" seems to confuse "dispersed ethnic minorities" with threatened minority cultures and languages.

4.       ECRI wishes finally to stress that it supports the main thrust of the text and would welcome the extension of the measures which are foreseen in the Recommendation in its entirety for the Yiddish culture, to other threatened minority cultures which are considered to fulfil appropriate criteria determined for this purpose.

Appendix 3

Opinion of the CDDH on Recommendation 1291 (1996)

of the Parliamentary Assembly

on Yiddish culture

1.       The Ministers' Deputies instructed the Steering Committee of Human Rights:

" To give an opinion on Recommendation 1291 (1996) of the Parliamentary Assembly on Yiddish culture and in particular on 9.vii of the Recommendation on the setting up under the auspices of the Council of Europe of a "laboratory for dispersed ethnic minorities".

2.       The CDDH requested the Committee of Experts on Issues Relating to the Protection of National Minorities (DH-MIN) to prepare a draft opinion which was prepared by the DH-MIN at its first meeting from 17-20 March 1998.

3.       In preparing the opinion due note was taken of the Interim reply to Recommendation 1291 (1996), adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 June 1997 at the 596th meeting of Ministers' Deputies and in particular paragraph 7 thereof and the opinion of the CDCC appended thereto.

General comments:

4.       The CDDH notes that the Recommendation focuses on Yiddish culture and language, which, it is recognised, are in a critical situation in Europe. In this context other manifestations of Jewish culture in Europe could also be mentioned in respect of which European states equally have a particular responsibility.

5.       The CDDH however points out that other languages and cultures also find themselves in circumstances which are not dissimilar and would equally merit attention. The CDDH therefore favours a broader approach.

6.       The CDDH notes that, as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Recommendation, the main centres for Yiddish culture are nowadays outside Europe, in particular in Israel and the United States of America. It suggests that these two countries might be approached to see whether they would be willing to actively support measures taken in Europe to encourage and develop centres for Yiddish culture, research and language.

Specific comments concerning paragraph 9 of the Recommendation are as follows:

7.       (9ii.) The CDDH recognises the closeness of the Yiddish and German languages and recognises that this, as well as recent historic events, may be the basis for a special relationship between the German-language member States and the Yiddish language. However, it considers that it would probably not be appropriate to envisage them as acting as trustees. In this respect the CDDH underlines the common responsibility of all countries, European and other, with links to Yiddish culture and language.

8.       (9iii.) The CDDH refers to the opinion of the CDCC on this item but notes that a system of scholarships, if it were to be set up, should not necessarily be limited to descendants of Yiddish minority groups, but rather be open to all persons wishing to undertake work in this field.

9.       (9iv.-v.) The CDDH takes note of the opinion of the CDCC on these items.

10.       (9vi.) The CDDH notes the opinion of the CDCC on this item but agrees that the freedom of expression may limit the extent to which Ministries of Education can influence the content of publications which are not under their responsibility. Nonetheless it agrees that the aim of promoting awareness of the history of European Jewish culture is a valid one and suggests that where such publications are being prepared or when rules concerning their preparation are being drawn up by the Ministries of Education participation of the Jewish community be ensured.

      It furthermore underlines that the concept of manuals on European history include, in its view, also manuals on national history relating to historical events of European significance.

11.       (9vii.) The CDDH recalls that is has been asked in particular to give its opinion on this item of the Recommendation. It took note of the fact that since the adoption of the Recommendation a conference was held on this subject in Vilnius in December 1997 and that a proposal was made by the Government of Lithuania to provide support for such an institute.

12.       The CDDH generally welcomes the idea that a laboratory for dispersed minorities be established, possibly under the auspices of the Council of Europe. This question should be considered in detail keeping in mind the work which is already being carried out in the member states or by other European or international organisations or countries outside Europe, because duplication of work must be avoided. The CDDH shares the view of the CDCC that the word "laboratory" is not an appropriate one. For the time being it would suggest the term "institute" would be better. It recognises that the establishment of such an institute raises a great number of complex technical questions, which it is not in a position to fully address at this stage. Therefore the CDDH recommends that a feasibility study be carried out and proposes that, should such a decision be taken, the DH-MIN address the questions in the required detail.

13.       A first main question is that of scope. As indicated above the CDDH welcomes that the proposal is not limited to Yiddish language and culture, as other languages also find themselves in similar situations. The recommendation uses the term "dispersed ethnic minorities". It is noted that it has no (agreed) definition in international law because of the complexity of situations that would be covered by it. Furthermore it is noted that persons of Yiddish language and culture would not necessarily define themselves as belonging to a minority. For these reasons it is suggested that rather than seeking to arrive at an abstract definition or a definitive catalogue a pragmatic approach should be taken to the question of which cultures and languages are to fall within the scope of the institute. Factual information could be submitted, as appropriate, by the members of the DH-MIN in respect of their countries identifying languages and cultures in a similar position. This would give a good starting point for the work of such an institute, without excluding possible additions at a later stage.

14.       A second item to address would be the mandate of the institute. The CDDH notes that items c. and d. of the mandate suggested in the Recommendation lie in the cultural domain, whilst items a. and e. aim at promotion. Item b. pertains to the carrying out of surveys. Whether some or all of these functions should be taken up or whether others should be added requires further consideration. Again the members of the DH-MIN could provide information, as appropriate, which could give the necessary insight into, not only the work of the public sector, but also of the private sector as indicated in item 9.ix. of the Recommendation. The results and analysis of this work might, for example, lead to the conclusion that a main function of the institute would be to connect all ongoing work in the form of establishing one or several European networks. In examining ongoing work due account would of course also be taken of activities in the Council of Europe.".