1. Introduction
1. At the initiative of the Turkish Chairmanship of
the Committee of Ministers, the Secretary General appointed, in
the summer of 2010, a Group of Eminent Persons, headed by the former
German Foreign Minister, Mr Joshka Fischer,
“to prepare a report on the challenges
arising from the resurgence of intolerance and discrimination in
Europe”.
2. At the request of the Political Affairs Committee, the Bureau
of the Parliamentary Assembly authorised the committee to prepare
a report on “Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to
the report of the Group of Eminent Persons”, to be debated at the
Assembly’s June 2011 part-session, with the following committees
seized for opinion: Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee;
Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population; Committee on Culture,
Science and Education; and Committee on Equal Opportunities for
Women and Men. The Political Affairs Committee appointed me rapporteur
in April 2011.
3. The Group of Eminent Persons’ report on “Living together –
Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe” was presented
on 11 May 2011, on the occasion of the 121st session of the Committee
of Ministers in Istanbul.
4. This allowed an extremely short period of time to prepare
the present report, not least considering that four other Assembly
committees should contribute to it.
5. As a consequence, I will make some general and some specific
comments on the areas of competence of the Political Affairs Committee,
leaving it for the rapporteurs of the other four committees to comment
on their respective areas. This is all the more appropriate as the
report raises a number of important issues related to migration,
the role of the media, as well as, even if to a lesser extent, education,
intercultural dialogue, social cohesion and challenges faced by
women belonging to the groups mentioned in the report.
6. Mr Martin Hirsch, President of the Civil Agency in France
and member of the Group of Eminent Persons, was invited to the committee's
meeting in May 2011 to present the main findings of the Group and
respond to our questions. We also invited the rapporteurs of the
four committees seized for opinion who were thus able to acquire
first-hand information on the discussions in the Political Affairs
Committee and inject ideas into the draft recommendation.
2. General
comments
7. To begin with, I would like to make it clear that
I welcome the report by the Group of Eminent persons as a basis
for further reflection on Europe’s future, which should involve
politicians, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), youth organisations,
academics, as well as representatives of religions, the media and local
authorities from different backgrounds and countries.
8. Taking stock of the challenges arising from the resurgence
of intolerance and discrimination in Europe, the report analyses
“the threat” and proposes “the response” for “living together” in
open European societies.
9. Referring to the principles of the European Convention on
Human Rights, the Group highlights eight specific risks to values
upheld by the Council of Europe: widespread intolerance; growing
discrimination (especially against Roma and immigrants); rising
support for xenophobic and populist parties; parallel societies;
Islamic extremism; loss of democratic freedoms; presence of a population
without rights and the potential clash between “religious freedom”
and freedom of expression.
10. The report underlines some of the reasons behind “the threat”:
insecurity deriving from the Old Continent’s financial crisis and
a sense of relative decline; distorted perceptions of large-scale
immigration; detrimental stereotypes of minorities in the media
and public opinion; and a clear leadership deficit in shaping Europe's
present and future.
11. “The response” envisages 59 “proposals for action”, the first
17 of which are labelled “strategic recommendations” to European Institutions
and their member states. The Group identifies the main actors for change in
public attitudes.
12. Amongst its 17 guiding principles, the Group insists on the
fact that, provided they obey the law, immigrants should not be
“expected to renounce their faith, culture or identity”.
13. It is worth recalling that, in the history of the Council
of Europe, several groups of external personalities have been occasionally
invited to reflect on major challenges facing European society and
to propose initiatives to be taken by our Organisation, as did the
Committee of Wise Persons of the 1990s and the “Colombo” Commission
set up in the mid-1980s, which were also asked to identify the challenges
facing European society and which also formulated a number of recommendations.
A slightly different, albeit comparable, exercise was the 2006 Juncker
report on the relations between the Council of Europe and the European
Union.
14. We are aware that the society we live in is far from perfect.
In recent years, in particular, we have witnessed frequent displays
of negative phenomena and deeds which indicate the need not only
to reflect upon, but also to act and to do something about our common
future. The media keep reporting on displays of intolerance, racism
and xenophobia. Manifestations of anti-Semitism have also occurred.
Frequently we witness tolerance towards intolerance. Failure to
come to someone else’s aid or to attend to strangers’ needs is hardly
an exception anymore. Ethnic and religious conflicts still constitute
unsettled questions and potential sources of trouble. Egoism, egocentrism,
apathy towards social advancement and diminishing voter turnouts should
cause serious concern.
15. In 1999, in order to address these negative developments,
the Committee of Ministers adopted the Declaration and Programme
on education for democratic citizenship, based on the rights and
responsibilities of the citizens. I believe that the continuation
of their implementation could be a substantial contribution of the Council
of Europe to the development of a European spirit within the society.
In this respect, a strong impetus given to the implementation of
the Council of Europe’s Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship
and Human Rights Education, adopted by the Committee of Ministers
in 2010, could also be very instrumental in achieving this goal.
16. As Ms Brasseur pointed out recently in her report on the religious
dimension of intercultural dialogue, which I commented on in our
committee’s opinion, the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue –
“Living together as equals in dignity” of 2008 is an important contribution
by the Council of Europe to the issue of living together.
17. In preparing its report, the Group of Eminent Persons exchanged
views with different bodies of the Council of Europe, the European
Union, other international organisations and civil society.
18. A number of relevant Assembly documents are quoted in the
report, for instance
Resolution
1760 (2010) on the recent rise in national security discourse
in Europe: the case of Roma
or
Resolution 1754 (2010) on the fight
against extremism: achievements, deficiencies and failures.
Some other recent
texts are also relevant, such as
Resolution 1746 (2010) on democracy
in Europe: crisis and perspectives
or
Recommendation 1962 (2011) on the
religious dimension of intercultural dialogue,
adopted only a month before
the publication of the report of the Group of Eminent Persons, in
which the Assembly called for “a new culture of living together”.
19. The report has the merit of presenting a comprehensive approach
and concrete proposals. Many of the proposals are dictated by common
sense and should indeed be followed up. On several issues, the findings corroborate
positions taken by the Assembly, while suggesting different ways
of achieving similar goals. That said, the main challenge has been
and still is to ensure implementation
in
a situation which the Group correctly refers to as a “crisis of
leadership”. And I believe that the Assembly should in particular
play a role in this respect, that is by suggesting concrete ways
of implementing proposals in the specific areas dealt with in the report,
either by itself, the Committee of Ministers, or other actors. However,
I believe that all these steps should not be seen as reflecting
a holistic social engineering approach which, in the history of
mankind, has never produced other results than disasters. On the
contrary, any proposed measures should be adapted taking into account
local specificities, on the basis of wide acceptance, understanding
and agreement.
20. Values should be cultivated, but not imposed through administrative
means. They can be nurtured by education and training at family
level, school level and at local level, where the role of media
is also essential.
21. The challenges we face today in our society cannot be addressed
properly by renouncing the values of European culture. It is a widely
spread view that culture forms society. Therefore the society forms
citizenship and establishes freedom in its turn. Respect for culture
makes it possible to understand the culture of others and to consider
the differences as something normal, which enrich society. Respect
for the law and the acceptance of free market rules are important
elements of culture, but culture is much more than that.
22. To quote an example, among the various specific recommendations,
the Group has suggested that the Secretary General of the Council
of Europe should appoint a high-level special representative to
bring the content of the report to the attention of political leaders
and to monitor its implementation.
23. I would recall in this context that, in its
Resolution 1746 (2010) and
Recommendation 1928 (2010) on democracy
in Europe: crisis and perspectives, the Assembly had proposed that
“a high-profile personality, a sort of a Delegate for Democracy,
be entrusted with the task of leading and animating the Strasbourg Democracy
Forum, as well as disseminating, on a permanent basis, the Council
of Europe’s message on democracy-related issues of major current
interest”. I believe that the two proposals are not mutually exclusive and
that a possible way forward would be for one and the same person
to embrace both the actions proposed by the Group and those proposed
by the Assembly. The Committee of Ministers, which has not so far
taken position on the Assembly’s proposal, could reflect on this
possible way forward. In any event, the Assembly is supportive of
the idea of a Task Force to be set up by the Secretary General of
the Council of Europe for ensuring coherence in the implementation
of the recommendations of the report within the Organisation and
is ready to be associated with it.
24. The demographic crisis, which is also one of the outstanding
issues for Europe, could be addressed by pro-family and pro-life
policies – issues to which the Assembly has contributed through
numerous resolutions and recommendations.
25. Concerning the proposal by the Eminent Persons to offer a
special status in the Council of Europe to countries of the southern
and eastern Mediterranean shores and of Central Asia, I should like
to recall that the Assembly recently created the status of Partner
for Democracy for parliaments of countries in these regions and
has organised six Interparliamentary Conferences of the Mediterranean
and Black Sea basins, which offered the opportunity for a constructive
dialogue between representatives of the non-European states from this
region and the Assembly. So far, Morocco and the Palestinian National
Council have officially requested the status of “Partner for Democracy”
and the report by my colleague Luca Volontè on the Moroccan request will
be debated by the Assembly at its June 2011 part-session. In addition,
my colleague Jean-Charles Gardetto is currently preparing a report
on co-operation between the Council of Europe and the emerging democracies
in the Arab world. In view of the recent developments on the southern
and eastern Mediterranean shores, I believe that the Assembly should
support ways of bringing countries from this region closer to the Council
of Europe as a whole. The Assembly should also continue its dialogue
on these issues within the United Nations framework as part of a
dialogue between Europe and the rest of the world.
3. Multiculturalism
and integration
26. Diversity and integration policies have faced a backlash
in many Western democracies, particularly in Europe. They remain,
however, a popular idea at the international level, actively promoted
by influential international organisations, including the Council
of Europe. The European model is multicultural by definition. At
the Congress of Europe, in The Hague in 1948, the founding fathers
of Europe made it clear that the people from central and eastern
Europe had their place in a United Europe, once they were liberated
from the communist dictatorships and achieved democracy. Since the
destruction of the Berlin wall by the people of Germany in 1989,
important changes have taken place in eastern Europe, but also in
Western societies. As a consequence, the Council of Europe has expanded
to 47 and the European Union to 27 member states. Currently the
new member states and their citizens are in a process of active
dialogue with the other members of the European family. The cohesion
between Western and Eastern Europe and the North and South of the continent
is still in progress.
27. The preservation of cultural differences of the various European
nations goes hand in hand with the participation of all of us in
a common European culture, which should not annihilate national
cultures but incorporate them in a harmonious way.
28. Due to the great number of immigrants to Europe, many more
cultural traditions are present on the European territory, from
Asia, Africa and South America, which are very different from the
traditional European cultures. Radical Islam has played its role
in fuelling the fears of Europeans of little known newcomers.
29. In respect mainly to these newcomers, the political leaders
of Germany (Angela Merkel’s speech to members of the Junge Union,
Potsdam, 16 October 2010), the United Kingdom (David Cameron, speech
to the Security Conference in Munich, 5 February 2011) and France
(Nicolas Sarkozy, Interview, Paroles
de Français – TF1,11 February 2011) have, in recent times,
cast doubt about multiculturalism in almost identical terms and
in particular the perceived failure of national multicultural models
in these states, which, according to such leaders, have not led
to an acceptable state of living together.
30. In the German case, when the Gastarbeiters started
to come to Germany in the 1950s-1970s, mostly from Turkey, they
did not intend to remain there for a long time. Their plan was to
return to Turkey after 10 years or so. But the large German employers
were not keen to train their workforce over and over again and the
contracts of their workers were prolonged. This led to the permanent
settlement of whole families, which remained even after retirement,
thus forming a community. The concept of the German Greens widely
spread in Europe under the slogan “Multikulti” was based on the
understanding that the different cultures should be respected and
these people would integrate themselves in society provided the
necessary conditions were met. Therefore the previous German governments
did not pursue an active approach to integrating the Turkish community
in German society. And today some members of such communities have
formed self-isolated groups.
31. This is a clear example why a multicultural approach wasnot an adequate solution and should
be replaced by an intercultural approach comprising an active interaction
between the national society of the state and the groups which have
different cultures. Integration and preservation of cultural differences
should be promoted instead of assimilation, which is not at all
an alternative solution to the problem.
32. Refusing to assess and properly address the existing problems
might lead society to such negative developments as extreme nationalism,
populism and xenophobia.
33. The report of the Group of Eminent Persons rightly points
out that identities are multiple and that no one should be forced
to choose one, to accept one or to exclude another. People coming
to live in a country should indeed not be expected to leave elements
of their identity (faith, language, culture, etc.) behind, but they
are expected to add new elements to it, including, but not limited
to, the language of their new country. Nor should they be ostracised
within their communities of origin should they choose to change
their faith or culture.
34. European societies are rightly criticised for not performing
well in integrating members of minority groups (with a special emphasis
on immigrants and Roma). However, efforts towards living together
must come from both sides and here I see a role for education for
all.
35. The report rightly states that people coming to live in a
new country must obey the law and that neither religion nor culture
can be accepted as excuses for not doing so. Obeying the law is
the minimum expected from all those living in a country, but obviously
it is not enough for real integration in society.
36. Some immigrants, however, bring to Europe some attitudes which
are incompatible with the values upheld by our Organisation. Even
if they are only a tiny minority among immigrants and persons from
recent immigrant descent, such attitudes contribute negatively to
the stereotypes about some immigrant groups.
37. As the Assembly has stressed time and again, education is
the main tool – but not the only one –against misleading information
and stereotypes about specific groups. An emphasis on teacher training
should be added to the specific recommendation of the Group in this
area. The work of the Council of Europe in areas such as education
for democratic citizenship or history teaching should be enhanced.
38. In its
Resolution
1746 (2010), the Assembly called on Council of Europe
member states to “improve citizenship education and political training
by ensuring compliance with the new Council of Europe Charter on Education
for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, as well as
implementing the Council of Europe’s programmes in the field of
democratic citizenship and human rights education”.
39. I agree with the Group that “no religion should be considered
to be a priori incompatible
with European values”, but some practices associated by many with
some religions are indeed incompatible with such values. It is the
role of politicians, the media and also religious leaders to state
very clearly which is which.
40. As the Group of Eminent Persons rightly states, “under no
circumstances can respect for group identity or religious belief
be invoked to justify the exclusion of girls from any form of education
which is available to boys, or the seclusion of adult women from
normal interaction with society outside their home”.
41. Human rights are not negotiable. In its
Resolution 1510 (2006), the Assembly
stated that “freedom of expression as protected under article 10
of the European Convention on Human Rights should not be further restricted
to meet increasing sensitivities of certain religious groups”. More
generally, we could state that the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, as set forth in the Convention, must not be
restricted for the sake of multiculturalism.
4. The role and responsibilities
of politicians
42. The report of the Group of Eminent Persons raises
legitimate concern about the fact that “In recent months, anti-immigration
parties have notched up impressive gains, including in countries
with a reputation for liberal politics and tolerant electorates.
Over the last two years, election results and polling data in a
wide range of European countries have shown an increase in voter
support for movements which claim to be defending the interests
and culture of the 'indigenous' majority against immigration and
the spread of Islam”.
43. In its
Resolution
1746 (2010), the Assembly noted that “populist, extremist
and identity politics, as well as nationalistic rhetoric, have been
reinforced during recent years under crisis conditions in many member states”.
The Assembly further expressed its concern about a dual trend in
Europe whereby, on the one hand, extreme right-wing parties are
being elected into national parliaments in growing numbers and,
on the other, mainstream parties, in an attempt to detract their
voters from turning to far-right parties and regain popular support,
are borrowing some of the radical, xenophobic and discriminatory
language of extremist parties.
44. At the same time, it can be acknowledged that mainstream political
parties, by increasingly refusing to address the fears (even if
unfounded) of an increasing part of the population concerning immigration
and Islam, or addressing these fears to an insufficient extent,
are partly responsible for such an increase in support for xenophobic
and populist parties. The cases of Islamophobia should be addressed,
as the Assembly proposes in its
Recommendation 1927 (2010) and
Resolution 1743 (2010).
45. The growing complexity of the contemporary challenges and
policies (for example migration policy, policies aimed at tackling
intolerance and discrimination and policies to combat terrorism)
has the effect of encouraging a tendency to “dumb down” complicated
policy issues in public discussions. Politicians are confronted
with a gap between complex and technical issues, and the need for
policy to be formulated in more catchy terms in order to enlist
popular support. This results in a gap, perhaps even a gulf, between
policy principles and policy as depicted in party political debates
and the mass media.
46. In order to reverse the trend, mainstream political parties
and politicians should certainly not compete on anti-immigrant rhetoric,
but should address with honesty the concerns of their constituents.
47. Against this background, I do agree with the Eminent Persons
when they “urge all political leaders, while striving to respond
convincingly to real and legitimate public concerns about excessive
or irregular immigration, to resist the rise of xenophobic or racist
parties and take care not to seek political advantage by inciting
or playing on public anxiety about migrants or members of minorities”.
Equally,
I would underscore the call addressed in this context to the Assembly
with respect to the Charter of European Political Parties for a
Non-Racist Society, signed by its President and the President of
the European Parliament in 2003. In this context, I would like to
underline that, in its
Resolution
1754 (2010) on the fight against extremism: achievements, deficiencies
and failures, adopted less than a year ago, on 5 October 2010, the
Assembly, regretting “that the challenge of establishing a more
ethical attitude in politics when dealing with issues related to
race, ethnic and national origin and religion is still to be met”,
recalls this Charter as well as the Declaration on the use of racist, anti-Semitic
and xenophobic elements in political discourse, adopted by the European
Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) in 2005, which
“it commends for their relevance”. In its
Resolution 1760 (2010) on the recent
rise in national security discourse in Europe: the case of Roma,
adopted two days later, the Assembly further urges political parties,
political forces and political and public figures in member states, international
groupings of political parties and its own members to commit themselves
to adhering to, and actively implementing and promoting the principles
contained in the Charter.
48. As regards the more specific recommendation for the Assembly
“to nominate a rapporteur on political extremism, and to organise
an annual forum on extremism – perhaps to be called the Stieg Larsson colloquium”,
this proposal merits further reflection.
49. For my part, I would like to contribute to this reflection
by recalling recent reports of the Assembly, emanating from our
committee, which deal with the issue of political extremism, the
latest ones being the reports of Mr Agramunt and Ms Brasseur which
led to the adoption of
Resolutions
1754 (2010) and
1760
(2010) quoted above. My preliminary assessment is that,
by reacting in a timely manner on the events of summer 2010, the
Assembly’s message against extremism was perhaps more effective
than an annual forum which, with time, might become a somewhat routine
exercise.
50. It is also worth recalling that every two years the Assembly
holds a general debate on the state of democracy in Europe and,
as has been illustrated by the examples I quoted from Mr Gross’s
report on democracy in Europe: crisis and perspectives, in the context
of last year’s debate on democracy, such Assembly debates are often
devoted to issues related to the fight against political extremism.
The practice of democracy debates on the one hand, and the possibility
of reacting at any moment and rapidly to specific cases of concern,
on the other, provide, in my view, a good basis for the Assembly’s
contribution to the fight against political extremism.
51. Moreover, as indicated above, in
Resolution 1746 (2010) and
Recommendation 1928 (2010),
the Assembly proposed that “a high-profile personality, a sort of
a Delegate for Democracy, be entrusted with the task of leading
and animating the Strasbourg Democracy Forum, as well as disseminating,
on a permanent basis, the Council of Europe’s message on democracy-related
issues of major current interest”. I believe that this high-profile
personality would also be responsible for reacting rapidly to cases
giving rise to concern. I refer in this respect to the comments
I made above in paragraph 19.
52. A number of other concrete proposals in the field of the fight
against extremism were addressed by the Assembly, to the Committee
of Ministers in
Recommendation
1933 (2010). As the Committee of Ministers has not yet
adopted its reply to this recommendation, I do not want to repeat
the proposals, but to use this opportunity to call on the Committee
of Ministers to consider them also in the light of the Eminent Persons’ recommendations
53. For its part, the Assembly, prompted by the two recommendations
made by the Group on “political extremism, racism, xenophobic and
anti-migrant discourse”, could organise, jointly with the European Commission
against Racism and Intolerance as appropriate, and in co-operation
with all relevant sectors of the Organisation and, possibly, the
European Parliament, a Conference to take stock of best practices
and shortcomings in the implementation by member states of the 2003
Charter of European Political Parties for a Non-Racist society,
as well as the 2005 Declaration on the use of racist, anti-Semitic
and xenophobic elements in political discourse, and the much earlier
Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (97) 20 on “hate speech”.
54. I note that the report of the Group of Eminent Persons identifies
nine groups of “actors for change”, namely educators, mass media,
employers and trade unions, civil society, churches and religious
groups, celebrities and “role models”, towns and cities, member
states and European and international institutions, but does not
specifically mention the role of politicians. While it may be understood
that the report is effectively addressed to politicians and, as
a group, they may be automatically considered as “actors for change”,
it would have nonetheless been good to include them as an additional
group.
55. Elected representatives are indeed very much responsible for
changing the situation both as individuals and as members of the
bodies for which they were elected, be it at local, regional, national
of international level.
56. As the Assembly stressed in its
Resolution 1760 (2010) on the recent
rise in national security discourse in Europe: the case of Roma,
“politicians have a special responsibility to eliminate negative
stereotyping or stigmatising of any minority or migrant group from
political discourse. They should promote a message of non-discrimination,
tolerance and respect for people from different backgrounds”.
57. For its part, the Parliamentary Assembly is more than ready
and willing to contribute to the changes which are needed for greater
cohesion in European societies, so that everyone may fully benefit
from living together.