CONADENJlAL SUM (93) PV 1and 2 ~,Qt"Eorope Summit Sommet dU~il de I'Euro~Je Wien '93 'Europaratsgipfel Minutes of the Councilioflurope Summit (Vienna, 8-9 October 1~3) Strasbourg CONFIDENTIAL - i - SUM(93)PV1 SUMMARY Minutes of the Opening and First Sitting held on Friday 8 October 1993 (afternoon) at the Austria Center Vienna (SUM(93)PV1) . 1 APPENDICES Appendix 1: List of Heads of State and Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs . al Appendix 2: Agenda ....................................... all Appendix 3: Declaration on Russia . al3 Appendix 4: Address by Mr Thomas KLESTIL, Austrian Federal President . alS Appendix 5: Address by Mr Miguel Angel MARTINEZ, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe . a19 Appendix 6: Address by Mrs Catherine LALUMIERE, Secretary General of the Council of Europe . a21 Appendix 7: Statement by Mr Franz VRANITZKY, Federal Chancellor of Austria . a25 - I - SUM(93)PVI OPENING Mrs Catherine LALUMIERE, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, opened the sitting at 2.53 pm and announced the arrival of Mr Thomas Klestil, Federal President of Austria. The sitting was interrupted briefly while the Austrian Federal President was ushered in. Mr Thomas KLESTIL, Federal President of Austria, delivered the inaugural address of the Summit which is reproduced in Appendix 4. The Secretary General interrupted the sitting for a few moments to accompany the departing Federal President of Austria. Mr Miguel Angel MARTINEZ, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, delivered the address reproduced in Appendix 5. The SECRETARY GENERAL of the Council of Europe delivered the address reproduced in Appendix 6. At the close of her speech, she proposed that Mr Franz VRANITZKY, Federal Chancellor of Austria, be elected to the Chairmanship of the Summit. The Federal Chancellor of Austria was elected Chairman of the Summit meeting by acclamation. The FEDERAL CHANCELLOR OF AUSTRIA took the Chair and made the statement reproduced in Appendix 7. FIRST SITTING 1. The CHAIRMAN gave the floor to Mr Mitterrand, President of the French Republic. 2. Mr MITIERRAND, President of the French Republic, expressed his satisfaction at the holding of the Summit meeting, which he had not been alone in proposing. The Conference was being held in Vienna, the ideal place in Europe for convening such a meeting. He thanked the Austrian authorities and the Council of Europe for having organised the Conference. He did so not only as a matter of good manners but with sincerity; the remainder of his address would be equally sincere even though everyone might not fully agree with what he said. -, SUM(93)PV1 - 2 - I;. Stressing that all the participants around the Conference table were speaking of Europe, he :~I himself could only perceive bits of Europe, fragments of Europe and he was not sure that ~ ): these bits made up a whole. Yesterday, Europe was divided into two parts - based on opposing philosophical, social and ideological systems - and that had been great misfortune. 11' Today, they were witnessing the triumph of freedom and independence for numerous States and peoples, and deservedly so. Nevertheless, he did not know who could have imagined that human society might ever be peaceful, for scarcely had one crisis been overcome than other threats appeared on the horizon. ,.f He insisted that he had no regrets about the passing away of the former Europe: he was happy to have witnessed the collapse of an empire whose characteristics were diametrically opposed h to his own convictions. Nevertheless, the new circumstances called for clear vision and ~"' ~: strong determination. But, he repeated, one could only see fragments of Europe. Formerly, people deplored having two Europes each attached to a different super-power. They had been 11' right to complain of this situation. But today what kind of Europe were they heading for? A 32-member Europe or an even larger one? Or was there going to be complete fragmentation, with each ethnic group becoming a State? One might in such a situation wonder who could prevent the creation of new powers and the reawakening of former hatreds. Although geographically speaking Europe was one continent, it also had a history, which none f of them could forget, and a culture: this was reassuring, for it betokened that, despite the ,;, differences, all drew on the same sources. ~i There were places where Europe was taking shape and where an effort was being made to pull in the same direction. There was the Europe of security: namely the CSCE. While the 11' Soviet Union still existed, it had sometimes been difficult to find acceptance for the need for the CSCE's existence. Today, one is justified in wondering exactly what the CSCE is, considering that it has - or should have - the task of ensuring security. The fact was that the CSCE in a sense was everybody and nobody. But who had ever seen his freedom , safeguarded by an institution which, although necessary, was far removed from the ordinary citizen? Peace should be on everyone's agenda at a time when tensions were increasing 11. everywhere, whether in Sarajevo or elsewhere. No one apart from a few humanitarian "' organisations seemed really interested. ~ ~; He did not intend, however, to dwell exclusively on pessimistic aspects. On the contrary, he • 11' wished to describe his vision - and that of his country - of what might be done to react to the situation. Some of the bits of Europe that he had referred to had considerable importance. The Community of the twelve, with its 340 million citizens, represented a group of countries which, although sorely tried by the economic crisis, were nonetheless the most prosperous in Europe. He wondered whether the Community was capable of absorbing all European I' democratic countries, even though he would like this to be so. It was difficult to achieve this 1!. today owing to the constraints resulting from the creation of a single market within which '';I there was free movement of persons, capital and goods, together with the further constraints :~ accepted by the Twelve in the framework of the Maastricht Treaty. He was happy to have ' taken part in drafting this Treaty, which was very often criticised. Public opinion sometimes I seemed to reject it because of the prevailing economic recession - although responsibility for this could not be assigned to governments - and also because of Europe's weakness when confronted with situations such as the one in the former Yugoslavia. As for the question as to whether there was too much interference by the European Community, he believed that this was not the case. He stressed that the Maastricht Treaty had not yet been ratified by all the I· '<I ~ • - 3 - SUM(93)PV1 member States of the Community and that the text was therefore not yet legally binding. One could not therefore criticise the Treaty itself for failing to settle the existing problems. The Treaty stipulated that the Community was an open entity and hence other States could apply for accession. Several European countries had expressed this wish and he hoped that in the not-too-distant future, namely within a year at the most, these countries, and in particular Austria, the host country to the present Conference, would become members of the Conununity. It could therefore be expected that the European Union would ultimately have 13, 14, 15 or even more members and therefore that this bit of Europe would grow bigger. One might well wonder, nevertheless, if this would provide the answer to everything and whether it would be acceptable for one enormous economic power to exist on the one hand and on the other, a number of isolated countries condemned to suffer, for a long time to come, from the discredit inherited from a former system. He hoped that the Conununity would not ignore the other democratic countries of Europe and that it would not remain an inward-looking body. In this respect, he recalled the existence of various association agreements concluded between the Community and other countries represented at the present Conference. It would be desirable, moreover, for the member States of the Community to assess their real strength objectively in order to detect where the seeds of their weakness might lie. Above all, everything should de done to avoid a system which would be tantamount to reintroducing relationships of a colonial type. Such a situation would be inacceptable, in view of the fact that every State was recognised as enjoying an equal measure of sovereignty, dignity and power. He recalled, in this respect, that within the Conununity, certain countries were regarded for demographic reasons as small countries, despite their illustrious past. This was the case with Greece, whose history was among the greatest, with Portugal, one of the most ancient European nation states, and with Ireland with its unique culture. But when the European Council met, each State had rights equal to those of the others. Democratic Europe as a whole needed an organisation which answered to this definition. He himself was not alone qualified to define who should be represented in such an organisation; the existing institutions - and he thought of the Council of Europe - would take it upon themselves to make the distinction between the countries that were democratic and those which were not. He referred in this respect to Russia once democracy had been established there - or perhaps it was already - but he left it to the other participants to make up their minds on that. He also referred to America, which had often proved to be the closest friend for many countries represented at the Summit and which played a useful role, especially with regard to security.