*** * * COUNCIL *+ r* CONSEIL OF EUROPE *** DE L'EUROPE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
CONFIDENTIAL
CMPV226 MINUTES OF THE 74th SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
HELD ON 10 MAY 1984
STRASBOURG CONFIDENTIAL
- i -
MINUTES
OF THE 74TH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
Strasbourg, Thursday 10 May 1984
Page
Morning sitting (CM(84)PV 1) 1
Afternoon sitting (CM(84)PV 2) 41
Appendix I : Agenda of the Session 63
Appendix II : Final communique 64
1.015 02.2 CONFIDENTIAL
- 1 - CM(84)PV 1
MINUTES
of the sitting held on 10 May 1984 at 9.40 am at the Palais de I1Europe, STRASBOURG
PRESENTS
AUSTRIA Mr. E. LANC
BELGIUM Mr. A. VRANKEN (1)
CYPRUS Mr. C. VENIAMIN (2)
DENMARK Mr. U. ELLEMANN-JENSEN, Chairman
FRANCE Mr. R. DUMAS
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Mr. J.W. MOLLEMANN (3)
GREECE Mr. N. DIAMANTOPOULOS (4)
ICELAND Mr. G. HALLGRIMSSON
(1) Permanent Representative of Belgium, in place of Mr. L. TINDEMANS, Minister for External Relations.
(2) Minister for the Interior, in place of Mr. G. IACOVOU, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
(3) Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, in place of Mr. H.D. GENSCHER, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
(4) Permanent Representative of Greece, in place of Mr. I. HARALAMBOPOULOS, Minister for Foreign Affairs, CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 2 -
IRELAND Mr. J. O'KEEFFE (1)
ITALY Mrs. S. AGNELLI (2)
LIECHTENSTEIN HSH Prince Nicolas of Liechtenstein (3)
LUXEMBOURG Mr. P. HELMINGER (4)
MALTA Apologised for absence
NETHERLANDS Mr. H. VAN DEN BROEK
NORWAY Mr. E. WINSNES (5)
PORTUGAL Mr. J. GAMA
SPAIN Mr. F. BAEZA (6)
SWEDEN Mr. L. BODSTROM
SWITZERLAND Mr. P. AUBERT
TURKEY Mr. V. HALEFOGLU
UNITED KINGDOM Mr. R. WHITNEY (7)
(1) Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, in place of Mr. P. BARRY, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
(2) State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in place of Mr. G. ANDREOTTI, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
(3) Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein, in place of Mr. H. BRUNHART, Head of Government,
(4) State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in place of Mrs. C. FLESCH, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
(5) Permanent Representative of Norway, in place of Mr. S. STRAY, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
(6) Permanent Representative of Spain, in place of Mr. F. MORAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
(7) Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in place of Sir Geoffrey HOWE, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. CONFIDENTIAL
- 3 - CM(84)PV 1
Mr. F. KARASEK Secretary General
Mr. G. ADINOLFI Deputy Secretary General
Mr. H. LELEU Director of Political Affairs
Mr. H.P. FURRER Secretary to the Committee of Ministers
Mr. U. ELLEMANN-JENSEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, took the Chair at 9.40 am. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 4 -
The CHAIRMAN declared the 74th Session of the Committee of Ministers open. He welcomed colleagues, especially those who were attending for the first time, namely:
Mr. R. Dumas Minister for European Affairs of France Mr. G. Hallgrimsson Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland Mrs. S. Agnelli State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Italy Mr. V. Halefoglu Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey Mr. R. Whitney Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, United Kingdom
He had received the apologies of the Maltese Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Sciberas Trigona, who would not be participating today as there was parliamentary voting in Malta.
The CHAIRMAN informed the Committee that the morning session should close at about 12.45 pm that luncheon would take place at 1.15 pm; that the afternoon sitting would resume at 3.15 pm and end at about 6.15 pm.
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The CHAIRMAN moved the adoption of the provisional agenda (CM(84)OJ 1). One item had been included under 'Other Business', namely the statement to be made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey. He ascertained that no other delegation would like to put any other item on the agenda. The agenda was then adopted, as it appears at Appendix I below.
The CHAIRMAN then moved to the order of business referring to document CM(84)108 which outlined the way in which discussion of items on the agenda should be conducted. He invited comments.
Mr. KNITEL (Austria) asked for item 4 to be dealt with during the morning sitting.
Mr. HALEFOGLU (Turkey) proposed that his statement under item 7a should be given during the morning session.
The CHAIRMAN agreed to the two foregoing proposals.
The CHAIRMAN reminded the Committee that at about 12.45 pm he would give a short press briefing and at 4.30 pm a press conference would be held. CONFIDENTIAL
- 5 - CM(84)PV 1
2. PROGRESS OF EUROPEAN CO-OPERATION
The CHAIRMAN recalled that this was a traditional item on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers which allowed the Committee to take stock of recent developments both in the Council of Europe and elsewhere and particularly within the European Communities and EFTA. Written reports had been submitted by the Minister for External Relations of France in his capacity as President of the Council of the European Communities, the Foreign Minister of Sweden on behalf of the EFTA Council, and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
Mr. DUMAS (France) made the following statement:
"As is customary, I shall present the report in my capacity as President-in-Office of the Council of the European Communities, but since I am the first speaker, I should like to take the opportunity of first congratulating the Secretary General and paying him warm tribute. I am sure I speak for the entire assembly when I say that his presence has given a powerful impetus to the development of activities in the Council of Europe. Under his leadership, an important political dialogue among the 21 members has been set up; he has intensified contacts with other democracies and initiated successful co-operation among local authorities, promoting areas in wliich the Council of Europe is particularly active: the defence of human rights, encouragement for cultural exchanges and harmonisation of legislation. He has accomplished all this being possessed, as we know, of an outstanding spirit of initiative, open-mindedness, sense of co-ordination, combined with a most engaging disposition. He has confided in me his intention of devoting himself to the study of Roman law, which will be a new source of satisfaction for him - unless it is a return to his original interests. I am sure that his readings in Justinian and Grotius will have the effect of a fountain of youth, and he will be living proof that after a life of action, a man can return to meditation and reflection.
I was anxious to greet him on behalf of all of you before presenting the report.
Mr. Chairman, I must now summarise the activities of the European Community since our last Session.
They focus primarily on the outcome of the Brussels Summit Conference.
Allow me to make two remarks at the outset.
The activities of the Community have been conducted in an unfortunate setting that has left its mark on all the member States: I am talking about the austerity policy. This has led to a whole range of difficulties, which account for the disappointing results of the Athens Summit and the partial success in Brussels. Today these difficulties may well increase, because the Community membership will fairly soon be swelled from 10 to 12. France, which as you know has held the Presidency since 1 January 1984 and will continue to do so until 1 July of this year, has tried to find global solutions to each of the Community's problems. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 6 -
Of the 18 files referred to it, 17 were closed at the Brussels Summit. Only one will come up again at the Fontainebleau Summit, no solution having yet been found, that is the problem of rectifying budgetary imbalances. The results of the other 17, which presented considerable difficulties, warrant special mention. I cite as a reminder the agricultural sector, on which I shall have more to say in a moment, new resources, integrated Mediterranean programmes and research programmes in technology and biochemistry, in other words a series of apparently insoluble problems which were successfully settled thanks to the determination of all delegations.
I have mentioned that the most sensitive problem was that of the common agricultural policy. Nevertheless, the Brussels Summit reached a settlement on the serious difficulties concerning agricultural prices, monetary compensatory amounts and surplus problems.
The specialised councils that followed the Brussels Summit enabled the decisions taken there to be confirmed, so that 69 regulations were unanimously passed by the Council of Ministers of Agriculture. Here again, the Summit paved the way for examination of problems of the future that might obstruct Community life, in particular existing surpluses or the prospect of surpluses in wine and olive oil.
An acceptable solution to the problem of own resources has been found as it was decided at the Summit to increase value added tax from the present level of 1% to 1.4% and later 1.6%. It was also decided to set up integrated Mediterranean programmes which until then had been simply a pious wish.
Lastly, I think it is essential to mention that the Summit marked the definitive run-up towards enlargement, with 1 September of this year set as the date for the end of negotiations with Spain and Portugal, accession being scheduled for 1 January 1986.
So much for concrete results.
The Brussels Summit also set the stage for the Community's future. It blazed the trail for Europe in the 21st century with the development of the research sector and by working on the assumption of a consolidation and unification of the domestic market.
You will recall that public opinion in our countries was struck, not to say traumatised, by the recent difficulties in European road transport at the borders of a number of our countries, which were due to intolerable frontier controls within the Community.
Decisions were taken at the Summit which are now producing practical effects.
In another move to strengthen the internal market, it was decided to go ahead with the harmonisation of standards, and on 9 April the Council approved the creation of a new instrument of commercial policy (NIPC) which will help to defend the European Community against illicit commercial practices on the part of our main international partners. CONFIDENTIAL
- 7 - CM(84)PV 1
The Presidency went a further stage with the integration process, emphasising the success of the European monetary system and hoping that it would be extended.
It also hoped that the European social area would progress.
Lastly, it turned its attention to opening the Community's economic policy to the outside world by candidly broaching with our partners the problem of relations with the world economic giants, the United States and Japan, whose commercial policies and, I have to add, commercial practices, continue to be a source of concern for the Community. But the Community has not confined its attention to subjects of concern. It has also expressed satisfaction about progress made with the EFTA member States. On 9 April, for the first time since the signing of the free trade agreements, conventions were concluded that showed that the goals assigned to the two groups had been reached. The European Community has also strengthened its position vis-a-vis the Third World. At the prompting of President Pisani, serious negotiations were held on the Lome Agreements, with delegations meeting in the Fidji Islands. This meeting has just been brought to a successful close, and it can now be assumed that the future convention will soon be set up.
In the first quarter of 1984, Europe consolidated internally, as well as in its relations with the USA and Japan, with free-trading countries and in its special relations with the ACP countries.
All these activities, measures and initiatives have not eclipsed political co-operation.
The French Presidency has expressed the hope that the European Community will have a greater presence in those parts of the world where such a presence merited strengthening or might be useful. Accordingly, the Community published a statement on East-West relations following the European Council of 19 and 20 March containing a reminder of the responsibility of the "Great Powers" for maintaining peace and stability in Europe. The Ten appealed to the Soviet Union to co-operate in progress towards genuine detente. They also reaffirmed the importance of the Helsinki process and achievements.
The French Minister for External Relations, Mr. Claude Cheysson, speaking again on the behalf of the Ten at the opening of the Stockholm Conference on 17 January 1984, stated the three aims pursued by the member States:
the continuation in a forum of 35 of the Helsinki process;
- the search for a new approach to the improvement of European security;
- the conclusion of the Stockholm Conference in accordance with the terms of reference adopted in Madrid. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 8 -
The Ten have also spoken out on the Middle East and Lebanon. In a declaration issued on 27 February, they called on all parties concerned to reach a lasting and effective agreement.
We believe that this appeal will rot go unheard. Concerning the Near East and in particular Israeli and Palestinian problems, the Community reaffirmed its previously adopted position, which can be resumed in two points:
- recognition of the right to existence and security of all States, including Israel;
- recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
The Ten also deplored the war between Iran and Iraq and did not fail to mention the situation in Cyprus, which was the subject of a declaration published on 27 March of this year, in which they reaffirmed that the Security Council Resolution should serve as the basis for the restoration of territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus.
The Community was also present in Central Amercia and in South America.
France will continue to hold the office of Presidency for another two months until the Fontainebleau Summit. I have already mentioned what has been accomplished so far and what remains to be done. Let us hope that the Fontainebleau Summit will continue the valuable results achieved at the Brussels Summit and that the problems still in abeyance from the first meeting can be settled at the second. In this way, the French Presidency will have made a modest but determined effort to find a way out of the difficulties that have plagued the European Community since the Athens Summit and will have done its part to give Europe a new start as it looks ahead to the 21st century."
Mr. BODSTROM (Sweden) wished to associate himself with the remarks of Mr. Dumas in relation to their retiring Secretary General, Mr. Karasek.
Mr. Bodstrom went on to speak as follows:
"Information on the activities in EFTA during the past six months has been presented to you in a written report. I will therefore use this opportunity to draw your attention to some issues which I consider of particular significance. CONFIDENTIAL
- 9 - CM(84)PV 1
An important manifestation of European economic co-operation took place on the occasion of the first joint ministerial meeting between the Community, its member States and the EFTA countries on 9 April 1984 in Luxembourg. At that meecing the importance of trade and economic interdependence in Western Europe was underlined. Ministers also underlined the importance of consolidating and further developing the European free trade system. However, in order to achieve full free circulation of goods much remains to be done, and this work should be initiated as soon as possible. Special areas of interest concern the reduction and simplification of border formalities and customs procedures.
Western Europe has for many years been afflicted by rising unemployment. Forecasts indicate that unemployment this year will rise to 20 million which means that the number of unemployed in Western Europe has doubled in five years - a trend which must be reversed. To do this the economic policies of West European countries must be better co-ordinated than hitherto, in order to provide scope for an economic expansion without causing inflation. Efforts should also be made to develop the free trade arrangements further with a view to creating a genuine West European home market. The West European countries must take advantage of this unique possibility of theirs to counteract unemployment and promote the economic recovery.
One pre-condition for reducing unemployment is a reversal of the negative investment trends in industry. The industrial base in Europe needs to be broadened in order to provide a foundation for a durable expansion of employment in such areas as public services. At the meeting of Ministers a month ago, it was also pointed out that there were a number of sectors in which concerted action could and should be taken to stimulate the growth of European industry. Particular emphasis was placed upon technical research and development.
The Luxembourg meeting represents a milestone in European economic integration and manifests the firm resolution to use available means to strengthen European co-operation. In this context the enlargement of the Community is to be welcomed.
At the end of May, the Heads of Governments and Ministers of the EFTA countries will meet in Visby, Sweden. The last time such a meeting took place was in 1977 in Vienna. The reason for holding a summit meeting now is the wish of the EFTA countries to strengthen their co-operation in order better to face the economic realities of today, which are characterised by increased protectionism, an erosion of the multilateral trading system and ever growing unemployment. The EFTA countries also wish to take stock of their co-operation with the Community in the light of the Luxembourg meeting and to decide on appropriate future action. To provide a firm basis for this co-operation, they will no doubt endeavour to strengthen and broaden internal EFTA co-operation.
The Summit Meeting will doubtless give guidance for the work of EFTA in the years to come. In order to ensure the practical implementation of the resolutions and decisions of the Heads of Government and Ministers, it is expected that concrete action to be undertaken will be agreed upon in a special work programme. The Summit Meeting will thus manifest the EFTA countries' determination to work together for a better economic climate and to safeguard the open multilateral trading system." CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 10 -
The SECRETARY GENERAL made the following statement:
"I should like to thank Mr. Dumas for his excedingly kind words, which I regard as due recompense for all those who have helped me in my often difficult activities as Secretary General. I should also like to thank Mr. Bodstro'm for associating himself with those words.
When presenting my report orally, I usually focus on several precise aspects which I consider particularly important or which are causing me some concern.
It will be no surprise to you if I refer once more to the question of the Council of Europe's role in the process of European unification. In the past, I have already appealed for a homogeneous European policy or strategy. Whenever actions to be undertaken in the European framework are being examined, such a policy should automatically make full use of the institutional possibilities afforded by the two principal European organisations, so as to serve the strengthening of European union in the broadest political and geographic sense of the term. In this context, I am pleased that the report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party on the role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification stresses in its chapter on relations between the Council of Europe and the European Communities the case for organisational rearrangements in capitals so as to reinforce procedures for co-ordinating the activities of the Council of Europe and the European Communities.
The concern for a genuinely coherent European policy also seems to be justified in the light of the ministerial meeting between the member States of the European Communities and the European Free Trade Association on 9 April. Apart from the development of commercial and economic relations between all parts of the European free trade system - a major goal resulting from the separate roles of the two organisations - the text of the joint declaration also envisaged co-operation and/or consultations in other fields. Points mentioned in the text include working conditions, social protection, consumer protection, intellectual property, the environment, culture, the new audio-visual media and the North-South dialogue. The joint declaration also indicates that the work pursued in other international bodies should be borne in mind, in particular that of the Council of Europe, and that due regard should be paid to their individual spheres of competence. The Council of Europe is perhaps the best placed organisation, in my view, for accomplishing the majority of the objectives mentioned above, because it brings together not only the 17 members of the EEC and EFTA, but also Cyprus, Spain, Malta and Turkey. I am glad that the Resolution adopted last Tuesday by the Assembly on the activities of EFTA urges '... greater use of the Council as a political forum to foster co-operation between the EFTA countries and the European Community'. CONFIDENTIAL
- 11 - CM(84)PV 1
The second part of my remarks also concerns the need for a coherent European policy.
This is not the first time that my report has provided me with an opportunity to discuss a problem which exercises me considerably as Secretary General and which manifested itself this morning on your arrival at the Palais de 1'Europe: I am referring to the staff's concern for its future, in particular future salary patterns,, and the consequences of this concern on the normal working of the Organisation.
You all know about the uncertainties that surrounded this ministerial session up until the last few days. In this context, I should like to thank all those who, having realised the gravity of the situation, took decisions that allowed this meeting to be held in normal conditions. I am talking above all about you. Mr. Chairman, who kindly received a delegation from the Staff Committee and reported faithfully on this conversation to your colleagues at the informal meeting yesterday evening. I also thank Mr. Aubert for explaining to his colleagues the very complicated machinery for determining pay scales in the Co-ordinated Organisations as well as Mr. Bodstrb'm for his assurance that he was looking into the matter. I am also talking about the Ambassadors, your Permanent Representatives, who reached a decision which was received by the staff as the gesture of understanding that they were awaiting. I should also like to pay tribute to the staff, which has always shown its sense of responsibility. Admittedly, the Deputies' decision has not yet settled anything and I remind you that the staff general assembly simply decided to postpone strike action. But the decision by the Ministers' Deputies is a step in the right direction and in particular recognises that the disparities in remuneration between the staff of the Co-ordinated Organisations - and in particular the Council of Europe - and those of the European Communities are unacceptable.
I should like to convey to you the concern of the staff, who neither understand nor accept the application of a salary policy that is different from that applied to their colleagues in the European Communities, with whom they regularly work side by side in this building. The staff are particularly concerned lest the salary discrimination so imposed reflects a smaller degree of political interest felt by the governments of the member States in the Council of Europe. If this were so, it would contradict the numerous statements of position by the Committee of Ministers and the declarations by Heads of State and Government over the past few years from the rostrum of the Assembly. They all reaffirmed the indispensable part that the Council of Europe plays and must continue to play in the process of European co-operation. It is this apprehension about the political implications of the salary problems of the Council of Europe staff that prompted me to raise the question again in my report on the progress of European co-operation. I like to think that this apprehension is unfounded and that the decisions that will be taken in the appropriate bodies when the next salary adjustments are made will be in line with the policy statements and professions of faith in the future of the Council of Europe, as guardian of the cohesion of all the pluralist democracies in our continent. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 12 -
I should like to close on a note jf optimism and confidence in the future. As you know, the Council of Europe celebrated the 35th anniversary of its creation last Saturday, 5 May. On this occasion, we invited several hundred pupils from 15 different member States to come to Strasbourg. For two days, these pupils talked with each other and with parliamentarians and political leaders. In a very candid fashion, they aired their doubts and worries, their frustrations and hopes. This often very lively debate showed that despite the uncertainties and inertia, which were vehemently denounced, young people consider Europe to be an indisputable entity and an essential part of the political scene. This comforting fact should not be a source of complacency but should instead encourage us to intensify our efforts towards co-operation so as to meet the expectations of young people."
The CHAIRMAN thanked the Secretary General for his report and thanked him also for the excellent'work he had done for the Council of Europe in his distinguished position. It was appropriate to tender such thanks under the heading of European Co-operation, since this was a cause for which Mr Karasek had worked tirelessly. All members of the Committee would join in wishing Mr Karasek the best for the future.
Mr. LANG (Austria) thanked the Secretary General for his report and for his immense and tireless efforts in the cause of progress.
For some time now European co-operation had been growing thanks to a renewed political dialogue in the Council of Europe. Meetings between the Political Directors of the Community "Troika" and the Political Directors of States not members of the Community, were becoming an institution. The atmosphere at the meeting of the Community and EFTA Ministers in Luxembourg had been very constructive; results had already been produced, with an intensification of co-operation not only between these two groups of countries but also for the Council of Europe.
On the basis of work done by the Ministers' Deputies' working parties, that followed the exploratory mission entrusted to Mr. Pahr, reports had been drafted on the subject of European co-operation. They contained a large number of very useful suggestions, which were currently being examined to see if they were suitable and feasible, and to set priorities and provide for a follow-up. The result of this deliberation might take the form of a resolution by the Committee of Ministers. Lastly, concrete measures should be taken to implement the recommendations made, which naturally presupposes a clear political resolve.
The statements contained in the text adopted in Stuttgart, which was to be welcomed, and the work on which the Community was embarking in the cultural sector had been exercising the other Council of Europe member States, which feared that the part that the Council of Europe had long played in the cultural sector and in harmonising legislation might be called into question to some extent. Co-operation between the Community and the Council of Europe should not be subject to demarcation, and it was to be hoped that the Ministers of Culture meeting in Berlin would make proposals for procedure to be followed in CONFIDENTIAL - 13 - CM(84)PV 1 the future. Everyone was aware pf the financial limitations placed on the work of the Council of Europe. This was precisely why everything should be done in the Council that was within its range of competence, and it was only if certain things could be done in the context of the Council of Europe that a solution on a "smaller scale" within the Ten must be sought. Between now and the next meeting, the Ministers' Deputies should discuss priorities and arrange for the proposals put forward to assume the form of a resolution that could be adopted at the autumn session.
Mr. van den BROEK (Netherlands) spoke as follows:
"The role of the Council of Europe in the process of European co-operation has now for some time been the subject of reflection amongst ourselves. Several ideas have in the meantime been put in practice and seem to work out well, for instance the meetings of political directors and the extension of our regular items for discussions by the subject of North-South relations. Then there was the setting up of a number of working parties of our Deputies, each with the task of making proposals for giving a new impetus to the activities of the Council of Europe. I would like to congratulate our Deputies on the reports they have just produced. In view of their very recent date, it has not yet been possible to study them in detail, but our first impression is that they are balanced and concise documents containing many interesting proposals. I am sure these reports will prove to be a rich source of ideas in our efforts to give a new impetus to our Organisation. As a representative of a country that is among the founding members both of the Council of Europe and the European Community, allow me to state once again the Netherlands' point of view that the integration process of the Community should not be in any way detrimental to the Council of Europe. For my country, the value of each of these organisations and their complementarity are wholly obvious and not in any doubt. I therefore fully share the point of view that the development of the Community is to go hand in hand with the strengthening of the Council of Europe." Finally, he joined with other speakers and warmly thanked the Secretary General for all the work he had one on behalf of the Council of Europe. Mr. VENIAMIN (Cyprus) spoke as follows: "In taking the floor at this 74th Session of the Committee of Ministers, I would wish to express my appreciation for the reports that have been presented to us on European co-operation, as well as for the statements just made. The strengthening of this co-operation is more necessary now than ever before, in view of the fact that we are living in a period of serious problems and international tension. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 14 -
Cyprus appreciates the range of activities of the Council of Europe in which democratic Europe finds its broadest expression. We believe that we ought to make the best possible use of the opportunities offered in order to promote a meaningful and fruitful dialogue between the European Communities and the Council of Europe on all topics of international political interest.
I feel I cannot, in this short statement, but lay stress on a basic aspect of the work of the Council of Europe which highlights Its fundamental importance, that is the Convention on Human Rights. Respect for human rights is a cornerstone of the Council of Europe and we are deeply interested in upholding human rights which would result in further reinforcing the image of Europe as a land of freedom and democracy.
The Council of Europe has played and is going to play a key role in European Co-operation; its greatest potential is that it groups the largest number of pluralist parliamentary democracies whose common ideals are enshrined in its statute.
In the course of history many institutions and organisations have perished due to political and socio-economic changes but the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are becoming more important in the unstable world we live in.
The challenge facing the Council of Europe today is furthering democracy and pluralism in all levels of society. The respect of human rights by all is an important pillar of democracy. This respect for human rights which are rightly enjoyed by individuals as well as by peoples should be jealously guarded and any violators of these rights should not be allowed to perpetuate such acts.
The Council of Europe has to consolidate its role as the primary instrument of cultural co-operation in Europe. The cultural identity of member States and Europe in general has to be enhanced.
Today some measure of decentralisation is accepted to be a form of advanced democracy at local level. Local authorities in particular must be given the chance to benefit from it. A harmonious development of all areas in Europe, North and South, must continue to be the goal of the Council of Europe.
Social rights are nowadays being considered an indispensible component of democracy and the Council of Europe must enhance further these rights.
The Council of Europe must seek to establish a permanent dialoguue with democracies outside Europe but also a dialogue with Eastern and Third World countries. This will benefit not only Europe but it will enhance peace among all countries of Europe and the world. CONFIDENTIAL
- 15 - CM(84)PV 1
European co-operation is characterised by the development of the community through a process of internal dynamism and by the differences between the member States of the Council of Europe which exist. We earnestly believe that care should be taken to ensure that the rule should be one of co-operation and not competition. It is in the interest of both those states who are members of the Communities and of those who are not, that everyone should work out a flexible machinery for co-operation between the two institutions. Through such a co-operation the resources of the two institutions would be properly utilised which is fundamental in a difficult economic situation.
It is believed that the Council of Europe and the Communities must work together towards the objective of closer union between our peoples. Instead of insisting on the abstract demarcation of areas of competence between them we should multiply our combined efforts in order to exploit fully the existing potential and give the necessary impetus and momentum to European co-operation. This is, I guess, what is expected by the peoples of the member States of the Council of Europe.
And before concluding I consider it appropriate to refer to that part of the report presented by the President-in-Office of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities CM(84)93 of 8 May 1984, by which the Ten confirm their declaration of 27 March by which they: a. endorsed Resolution 541/83 of the Security Council as a basis for the territorial integrity and unity of Cyprus; b. regretted that Turkey had recognised the self-styled "Turkish Republic of North Cyprus"; c. called on Turkey to withdraw recognition and exercise its influence to rescind the decision; d. confirmed their support for the mission of the good offices of the Secretary General of the United Nations in accordance with Resolution 541.
As Ministers may recall, the Committee of Ministers on 24 November 1983, at its 73rd Session adopted on the subject a similar stand.
I much regret to inform the Committee of Ministers that the situation at present has deteriorated instead of improved. On 17 April, the day when the United Nations' Secretary General's representative was in Cyprus to further the efforts of the Secretary to find some constructive development, Turkey accredited an "Ambassador" in the area occupied by its forces and received from that area an Ambassador -in Ankara. And unfortunately instead of exercising its influence for the restoration of the unity and territorial integrity of Cyprus as indicated in the Resolutions mentioned, encourages and upholds steps which aims at the stabilisation of the secessionist movement.
As Ministers may know the matter is now being discussed in the Security Council." CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 16 -
Mrs. AGNELLI (Italy) made the following statement:
"I should like to extend my warm thanks to the Secretary General for the work he accomplished during his term in office. The Italian Government is highly Appreciative of the written reports presented on the subject of European co-operation by Mr. Dumas in his capacity as President of the Council of the European Communities, by the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Council of the European Free Trade Association and by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. These reports help advance the cause of European co-operation, this vast activity among the countries of Europe of which the Council of Europe is both symbol and nucleus. We in Italy fully realise that intensification of the integration process cannot and must not be carried out at the expense of relegation of the Council of Europe which, through its representativity, has never ceased to be the general frame of reference for all our efforts. Hence, we remain open to all initiatives enabling us to make best possible use of all the Council of Europe's potential and, consequently, intensify in concrete fashion the co-operation between the democratic countries of our continent. On the basis of these premises, Italy will continue to strive for a political dialogue which, it should be stressed, has grown continually, resulting in an institutionalisation in Strasbourg of exchanges of views on the main issues in the international forefront. In the framework of European political co-operation, Italy is also committed to encouraging and Intensifying existing ties between the two organisations, in particular by providing non-Community countries with information so as to strengthen the Council of Europe's political role. For us, this goal continues to be both topical and valuable. My Government has reiterated this both before the Italian Parliament and in official contacts with the authorities of the other member States of this Organisation, for example just recently while Mr. Aubert was visiting Italy. This reflects a general direction that we have been striving to follow in practical terms for some time now. We believe that reflections on this important aspect are among the most appropriate ways of actually celebrating the 35th anniversary of the creation of this Organisation, whose Statute was signed on 5 May 1949 in the hopes of attaining greater unity throughout the continent. CONFIDENTIAL
- 17 - CM(84)PV 1
As to the substance of the problem that I am discussing here, ie the overall directions on which we.must base ourselves.in endeavouring to strengthen the Council of Europe's.role in the future, we feel that there are two distinct areas that must be examined more closely. Firstly, we must assess how far it is possible to assign competences between the European Community and the Council of Europe, and secondly we must try to see what link can be established with the greatest possible benefit between the two institutions, so as to co-ordinate activities in the most effective manner.
In the matter of competences there is some confusion about the possibility of achieving a rigid division of labour between the Council of Europe and the European Community, especially since the latter, at the Stuttgart Summit in 1983, reiterated the goal of a 'European Union1 which will necessarily have to enlarge its activities, albeit gradually. At the same time, it is recognised that the Council of Europe has performed useful work and acquired invaluable experience in certain sectors where it should be allowed to continue in the common interest. For example, we feel that the Council of Europe's achievements in the legal sector, as well as in the area of local authorities, must be taken into consideration by the Community. The continuation of these activities by the Council of Europe in the future should likewise be encouraged by the Community.
As concerns other activities such as, for example, cultural co-operation, there ought to be a better modus vivendi between the Community institutions and the Council of Europe by following the model adopted in the reports with 'European political co-operation', which has already yielded good results. The meetings of Political Directors, like those of the experts on United Nations and CSCE problems, have stressed the perspectives open to the Council of Europe for more thorough exchanges of views on important international political issues. Naturally, the harmonisation of the two spheres of competence - which we all desire - can only be achieved in all its details and at the right time by a pragmatic approach that also takes into consideration concrete results.
In conclusion, the Council of Europe can act as a forum in which the principal issues of foreign policy of fundamentally equal interest to the Ten and the Eleven can be discussed with the democratic countries of Europe which do not belong to the Community, with a common European vision and the prospect that the message of liberty and human rights, which the Council of Europe champions, can become an example for the other regions of the world.
We hope that these brief remarks will be borne in mind as the Italian contribution in the subsequent, more detailed phase, which is a matter for our Permanent Representatives." CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 18 -
Mr. GAMA (Portugal) made the following statement:
"I have listened attentively to what Mr. Dumas has said in presenting the report on the EEC's activities during the first quarter of 1984.
I should like to stress the political importance of the evolution that has just been mentioned, in particular concerning enlargement of the Communities to include Portugal and Spain.
I should also like to join the previous speaker in praising the action of the outgoing Secretary General, who has just presented a report on the progress of European co-operation as reflected in the initiatives of the Council of Europe in the last six months, in particular the extension of Council of Europe activities to include other parts of the world, which we have seen with the North-South Conference in Lisbon and the various extremely stimulating working visits that we have recently received from Mr. Karasek."
Mr. AUBERT (Switzerland) made the following statement:
"Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would first like to pay warm personal tribute to Mr. Karasek, to a loyal and upright man, a friend that I have known ever since we worked together in the Political Affairs Committee, and to pay tribute as well to his work as Secretary General, to which he has devoted all his energies for a cause particularly dear to us, not hesitating even to jeopardise his health. Thank you, Mr. Karasek.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the aim of the Council of Europe is to translate Article 1 of its Statute concerning the achievement of 'a greater unity between its Members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress into concrete terms.'
We have admittedly achieved a considerable part of these objectives; here I am thinking not only of the monumental achievement of the Council of Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights, but also the numerous decisive steps taken in the fields of public health, harmonisation of law and environmental protection. It is fair to state, then, that the Council of Europe has contributed to an improvement of the rapprochement between the States of Western Europe in the non-economic sector. But we are also aware, of course, that much remains to be done.
It is vital on the one hand to preserve our achievements, which must not be taken for granted and demand constantly redoubled efforts. On the other hand, the interdependence between our States necessitates the adoption of joint rules in many new areas. Moreover, the political dialogue on international questions of equal interest to western democracies has recently been growing in our Organisation, and since 5 May 1949 - we have just celebrated the Council of Europe's 35th anniversary - the Council of Europe and its role have changed. This is CONFIDENTIAL
- 19 - CM(84)PV 1 due in particular to the emergence and development of the European Community, on which Mr. Dumas has just presented an excellent report, and the increasing areas of competence of the EEC, which is encroaching more and more on questions within the special sphere of the Council of Europe. Here I have cultural and legal matters particularly in mind. We in the Council of Europe must accordingly try to adopt solutions now which will allow the Council of Europe and the EEC to complement each other more often. We must also strive to synchronise our activities in order to safeguard this complementarity and ensure that it does not lose all meaning.
This evolution, coupled with the need to modernise and to make the working methods of our Organisation more effective, prompted us to call on the Deputies to prepare four reports. Two reports, or rather draft reports, have already been submitted to the Permanent Representatives for study, ie the report on the role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification and a draft report on the working methods of the Council of Europe. Obviously it is too early to discuss them today, but I urge that our Deputies submit the reports and a set of concrete proposals in these areas between now and the November Session.
Nor is it the first time that the Council of Europe has set out to reappraise its role. Ten years ago, the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution (74)4 on the future role of the Council of Europe, and I think it is now time to do more to put that Resolution into effect.
I should like to outline my two main preoccupations: the Secretary General, Mr. Karasek, has submitted an excellent report on the first, concerning the problem of the Council of Europe staff; I do not want at this stage to go into the details which, as Mr. Karasek pointed out, we discussed at our informal meeting yesterday. But I should like to stress that there is a link between the smooth running of the Council of Europe and the existence of the excellent staff.
Now, there is a profound crisis of confidence among the staff, and the crisis is not artificial, it is real. It is a problem that cannot be resolved by budgetary experts, it is becoming a political issue. It is gratifying that the Committee of Ministers should consider it with a view to taking decisions. For this reason, I venture to urge you to support the decision taken on 3 May 1984 by the Ministers' Deputies calling upon the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts, the CCG, to examine the problem of remunerations in the Co-ordinated Organisations and in particular in the Council of Europe and subsequently examine the conclusions reached by the CCG, ie to take this issue out of the hands of the budgetary experts and to make it a political one. This is in the interests of the Council of Europe and, I make no secret of the fact, of that Organisation's future.
My second preoccupation is echoed on pages 14 and 15 of the outstanding report by the Secretary General, Mr. Karasek, in the section on co-operation in the human rights field. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 20 -
I share his concern, and like him I deplore the decisions taken by the Ministers' Deputies when the 1984 budget was being adopted to cut the financial resources earmarked for implementing intergovernmental activities in the field of human rights by 15%.
We know that the Steering Committee for Human Rights is already overburdened and that it will have to cope with even greater difficulties than in the past in carrying out its terms of reference.
Furthermore, the laggardly progress with improving and accelerating the control mechanism of the European Convention on Human rights is a fact, and we must make strenuous efforts to ensure a brisker striking rate.
I too share the disquiet voiced by the Secretary General at the increasingly restrictive attitude of certain member governments towards the protection and development of human rights in the Council of Europe. One subject that particularly disturbs us, therefore, is the rights of aliens in the member States, where policies are growing more and more restrictive. I am sure that all of us here agree that fundamental human rights must be safeguarded whatever the cost and that no one must be forgotten or turned away. The respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms is indivisible. I call upon the Committee of Ministers to devote particular attention to this task.
To end on a more positive note, there has been a very encouraging meeting at ministerial level between the European Economic Community and EFTA - as pointed out by Mr. Dumas. The 17 Ministers meeting in Luxembourg on 9 April achieved some impressive results. From the Swiss point of view, this meeting amply fulfilled the hopes that we had placed in it; we were particularly gratified by the European spirit, in the best sense of the term, that prevailed in Luxembourg.
What matters now is to take concrete action on the joint declaration adopted by the 17 Ministers, which contains a number of objectives for co-operation that concern us more directly, with specific reference to the Council of Europe. Here I am talking about consultations, contacts and exchanges of information concerning working conditions, social protection, culture, consumer protection, the environment, tourism and intellectual property, all sectors in which the Council of Europe plays a particular part and has a particular responsibility.
The Council of Europe affords an ideal framework in which all the democratic countries of Europe can meet to discuss each of these subjects. We must do everything within our power, ladies and gentlemen, to give the Council of Europe the means to fulfil this indispensable task." CONFIDENTIAL
- 21 - CM(84)PV 1
Mr. MOLLEMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) also wished to join his colleagues in thanking the Secretary General; he wished him every success in his future undertakings and excellent health.
Referring to the reports presented by the working parties and the proposals they contained, he said tl»at the reports showed clearly that the Council of Europe as an instrument of co-operation had proved its mettle and would be equal to the tasks awaiting it.
However, it was absolutely essential that the Council of Europe organise its work precisely and carefully define priorities; it must put an end to the extraordinary avalanche of activities that it had recently taken on. In future, the Council of Europe must focus more on a few essential points and on the great issues of the outgoing century.
The German Government would fully endorse such a policy. The need for reforms could be illustrated with the example of European Music Year, which was a project of great importance for all member States. The Council's budget had substantial funds for its programme of activities - 48 million francs for the current year - but it was difficult to finance European Music Year with these funds because it was apparently not possible to shelve other activities. Working methods had to be improved and greater flexibility was needed, because there would be a continuous need to economise in the years ahead.
When it came to relations between the Council of Europe and the European Community, one of the central problems was cultural co-operation. The German authorities felt that the Council's role in cultural matters must not be called into question by the development of cultural activities in the Ten. On the contrary, the two institutions must complement each other without a loss of competence for the Council of Europe. The abstract discussion engaged in from time to time on this problem was fairly pointless: the German authorities preferred a more pragmatic, constructive approach. The proposal made by several Ministers for a co-ordination of activities could indeed be carried out in the way suggested.
In closing, he would like to say something about a problem of which the Ministers had had evidence upon entering the Palais de 1'Europe, and which Mr. Aubert had already mentioned. The problem was regarded as important, and rightly so, by the Committee of Ministers, and he accordingly agreed with Mr. Aubert's proposals.
But he also wanted to stress another aspect of the question: the deterioration of the image of international organisations was due to the fact that the public wanted to know if the funds going to these institutions really yielded the expected results. The representatives should not delude themselves about this; if an examination of all the facts and figures showed that there was a real imbalance in the salaries paid in the Council of Europe, NATO, OECD, etc, the governments' reply would certainly be: "Let us modify the imbalance, but downwards". It was hard to imagine the German Parliament associating itself with a move to increase pay so as to eliminate this disparity. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 22 -
Would not an open discussion of all the details of this issue - salary scales and other aspects no doubt of immense interest to the public - have a bommerang effect?
He recognised the excellent work done by the Council of Europe's staff and understood that they should demand the same pay for the same work. Nevertheless, given the need for economies everywhere because of the wage freeze, he felt that the solution proposed in some quarters would be difficult to defend in the German Parliament. %/ Mr. HALEFOGLU (Turkey) joined the previous speakers in praising the work and the person of the Secretary General, Mr. Karasek. Notwithstanding what Mr. Mbllemann had just said, he was anxious to make the point that the Turkish delegation had been among those which had endeavoured to go part-way to meeting the staff's wishes when the matter had been discussed at Deputy level.
Like Mr. Aubert, the Turkish delegation saw a clear link between the way the Organisation functioned and the way the staff was treated. The Turkish delegation would accordingly follow the way in which the situation developed attentively, and would remain sympathetically disposed.
Mr. WHITNEY (United Kingdom) thanked the Secretary General for his work for the Council of Europe.
He said that the Council was a unique institution. He recognised its important work in the cultural field. He said that there was a useful opportunity for political contact for the Council and the European Economic Community.
He referred to the same difficulties as Mr. Dumas had mentioned. The British Government believed that these problems were on the way to being solved. The British moreover looked forward to the next European summit with confidence; Britain's elections last year had shown the country's total commitment to Europe: the Council of Europe was crucial in the development of Europe on the common basis of freedom and democracy.
On the other hand the British Government wished to be associated with Mr. Mollemann's remarks that the aims of the Council of Europe should be practical. This involved in particular sensible budgetary restraint which was recognised by all governments to be necessary in the conduct of their affairs. ^
Finally, the Deputies were considering the role of the Council of Europe in progress towards European unification, and the British Government looked forward to considering the outcome of that. CONFIDENTIAL
- 23 - CM(84)PV 1
Mr. HELMINGER (Luxembourg) joined «-'ne previous speakers in thanking and paying tribute to Mr. Franz Karasek. He then made the following statement:
"A few days ago, the Council of Europe, one of the oldest of the European organisations, celebrated its 35th anniversary. Perhaps the time has come to list the main achievements and future prospects of our Organisation.
The fundamental idea uniting us, which current issues have not changed, is that of liberty, democracy and human rights. We are the greatest association of democracies in the world. The results of our joint endeavours are embodied in a series of recommendations and some hundred conventions, the most noted of which concerns the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Our Assembly was the first of its kind, and while the European Parliament is directly elected, the Assembly of the Council of Europe reflects parliamentary opinion throughout Western Europe, so fulfilling an indispensable function.
I think it would be natural to continue taking these ideas a stage further. The Assembly led the way in October 1983, when it organised the first Strasbourg Conference on Parliamentary Democracy. A good month ago our Organisation examined the challenges to democratic society in a colloquy devoted to George Orwell: '1984: Myths and Realities - Man, the State and Society in Question1. Speaking here in January the Head of the Spanish Government, Mr. Felipe Gonzales, stressed the importance of combatting terrorism which 'requires collective reflection at the highest political level1. In a word, fundamental freedoms and democracy have not been won outright: they must be maintained by dint of continuous effort.
The visit yesterday by Mr. Ramalho Eanes, President of the Portuguese Republic, highlighted the new political importance that the Heads of State themselves attach to our Organisation ever since President Mitterand initiated a series of visits of Heads of State to the Council of Europe in autumn 1982.
We mean to extend the political dialogue in our Organisation by bringing together not only experts from the CSCE, the United Nations and the North-South dialogue, but the Political Directors as well. Our Permanent Representatives have created four working parties to study the role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification, its working methods and its activities concerning human rights and culture. The first two parties have already completed their reports. The first concerns relations between the Council of Europe and the European Communities, which are now governed by an exchange of letters dating back to 1959. In response to the exploratory mission undertaken by the former Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Willibald Pahr, the Community announced less than a year ago that it did not wish to encroach in any way on the competences and activities of the Council of Europe but rather to Institute CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 ~ 24 - constructive co-operation. I think ii would be natural to study concrete examples so as to see what activities can be pursued in the 21 rather than the Ten. Exactly pne year ago the President of the Confederation, Mr. Pierre Werner, declared in Fribourg, Switzerland, that the Council of Europe was the ideal forum for dealing with culture in Europe: the Communities1 contribution cannot be separated from that of the non-Community members. A particularly successful example here is European Music Year, being organised jointly by the Council of Europe and the Community. I regret that a European Year of Contemporary Painting, a perfectly feasible idea brought up repeatedly by Luxembourg, has not yet found the support I think, it warrants. It would be enough to transpose to another sector the organisational structure worked out for Music Year. Luxembourg also proposed that the Council of Europe should study the equivalence of university diplomas with a view to facilitating managerial mobility, an important question in the context of an economic recovery, not being examined in depth in any organisation, so far as we know. In our opinion, it would be enough for the Council of Europe to take such initiatives in order to ensure its role in this essential area.
The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Community have concluded that there should be no a priori assigning of competence between the Council of Europe and the Community. Their aims are different, in fact, but while the competences of the Community are more precisely, and apparently more restrictively defined by the ECSC, EEC and Euratom Treaties, the aim is to create a real economic and political union between the member States.
The Council of Europe, on the other hand, has initiated numerous forms of co-operation in the most diverse areas. Its aim is less to create a union in the Community's understanding of the term - which incidentally certain Council of Europe member States would have difficulty in accepting - than to reinforce co-operation between States in all areas, except that of defence, and thereby guarantee a better understanding between the peoples of Europe.
It would be enough for the Council of Europe to derive maximum benefit from its Conferences of Specialised Ministers in the fields of culture, education, justice, labour, local authorities, migration, regional planning, social security, the architectural heritage, sport, the environment, family affairs and health. Before being conveyed to the Specialised Ministers, the files should first be submitted to our Permanent Representatives, who could then better advise the Ministers and effectively co-ordinate the activities of the Council of Europe, in the same way that their counterparts in Brussels do, for the Community. Furthermore, consideration should be given to the long-standing suggestion that the Specialised Ministers should be able to meet as the Committee of Ministers, which is fully compatible with the Statute. At Foreign Minister level, the Committee should undertake CONFIDENTIAL
- 25 - CM(84)PV 1 co-ordination of the whole, as is done by the Councils of Foreign Ministers of the Community, also known as General Councils. It would give our Organisation considerable extra cohesion and efficiency and, hence, influence. The sectors covered by the Specialised Ministers are vast and are only partially dealt with in the Community. They have undeniable political aspects, for example in the fields of labour and culture. If the Council of Europe will only take imaginative initiatives in its own fields of activity, the Community will certainly be glad to join it. In this way, the Council will ensure its special role in the process of European unification."
Mr. WINSNES (Norway) spoke as follows on behalf of his Minister who had to leave Strasbourg the previous night, but who wished to be associated with the good wishes of the meeting to Mr. Karasek:
"The ongoing debate on the future orientation of European co-operation, and in particular the role of the Council of Europe in this process, is important and necessary.
Over the last years we have seen several initiatives and events outside of the Council of Europe that may have an impact on European co-operation, such as the Genscher/Colombo-plan and the French initiative in the West European Union.
It is essential that the Council of Europe plays an active part in such discussions on European co-operation and its aims, means and ways. An important aspect is the relations between the Council of Europe and the European Communities. I have said before, and I still believe, that complementarity is a key word in establishing and furthering relations between the two insitutions» But complementarity does not come by itself - it must be given content and direction. At this stage, I feel that the best way to proceed is to increase contacts and exchange of information at all levels between the Communities and the Council of Europe. Through such a pragmatic approach it should be possible to increase mutual awareness of each others activities, thus obtaining synchronisation and genuine complementarity.
But the discussion should go beyond a debate on the Council's relations to the Community. What is needed, is a broader approach which takes as a point of departure the longterm development of co-operation between all European democracies. In this context I welcome the initiative by the Parliamentary Assembly in Resolution 805 to set up a commission of prominent statesmen from Community and non-Community countries, sitting in an individual capacity, which cquld be set up to work out future perspectives for a wider European co-operation towards the year 2000. I am glad to learn that this idea is being actively pursued with a view to placing the work of such a commission on sound footing before the end of this year." CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 26 -
Mr. BODSTROM (Sweden), referring to the question of the salaries of the staff, said that he thought it would be difficult to get the Secretariat to function smoothly if the staff were not paid the same salaries as other international institutions in the same city. On the other hand, he did not regard it as necessary to pay exactly the same salaries for the same work in different countries. Neither in private industry nor in the public sector wa^ it possible in the long run to have a considerable difference in salaries paid for the same job in the same region. With that comment he had, however, not expressed any opinion whether the salaries in the Council of Europe were too low, or if the salaries of the European Community institutions were too high. It was predominantly the responsibility of those countries, which were members both of the European Community and the Council of Europe to pay attention to the need for equal behaviour.
The CHAIRMAN thanked Mr. Bodstrb'm for his remarks, which came from one who had great experience in such matters.
He then summed up the discussion. One theme which had emerged clearly was that the development of the European Communities should go hand in hand with the strengthening of the Council of Europe; reference was made in this respect to the need for "synchronisation" as a means to ensure complementarity. Mention was also made of the Joint Declaration of the European Communities and EFTA. Human rights as the Council of Europe's cornerstone had been emphasised; the importance of the political framework provided by the Council of Europe for all democratic states in Europe had been asserted; the primacy of the cultural role of the Council of Europe, which the European Communities should not impede, had been stressed; the activities of the Council of Europe should aim at practical results, with close attention being given to budgetary control; Ministers expected that the Deputies would reach soon conclusions on the basis of their working party's reports on the future role of the Council of Europe and working methods; the question of the remuneration of the staff would be further analysed on the basis of the decision already taken by the Deputies.
7. OTHER BUSINESS a. Turkey - Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey
Mr. HALEFOGLU (Turkey) spoke as follows.
"It gives me great pleasure to address the Committee at a moment which has a particular significance not only for Turkey but, I believe, also for our organisation and the family of democratic nations of the West.
The Government I represent, which was formed after the elections of 6 November 1983, and which has declared in its programme adopted by the Turkish Grand National Assembly its full commitment to democratic order and human rights, has organised local elections with the participation of all political parties as one of the first steps taken to consolidate the democratisation process. CONFIDENTIAL
- 27 - CM(84)PV 1
As you know, these elections were held on 25 March, only four months after the general elections, and acquired somewhat the character of a referendum. The results largely confirmed those of the general elections held on 6 November since the Prime Minister's Motherland Party obtained 45% of the votes and the mayorships of 54 of the country's 67 provinces, including the mayorships of three of the largest cities in Turkey, namely Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir. These results were acclaimed in the national and international public opinion in such headlines as "A vote of confidence for the Turkish Prime Minister" and "Calls for the renewal of the general elections rejected".
The successful accomplishment of this major step also attests incontestably to the completion of the process of democratisation in Turkey.
In late February, my Government also decided to lift martial law in 13 provinces as of 19 March and extend it for a limited period of 4 months in the rest of the country. This decision was upheld by the National Assembly. In keeping with what has been announced in the Government programme, this process will go on and the martial law will be lifted gradually as the situation improves and the circumstances permit in the country.
Our deep concern for human rights and our sensitivity to various complaints received from abroad about alleged human rights violations and hunger strikes in the military prisons have prompted the Government to order an investigation.
We have set up a committee of investigation, composed of civilian and military officials and physicians. The committee has visited all the military detention houses in Turkey and conducted a thorough investigation. The findings and recommendations of the committee have been made public, and the necessary orders have been issued for the implementation of these recommendations. The result, however, indicates that there is no evidence of mistreatment or torture, and that there have been small groups of detainees who did not want to comply with the rules and regulations of the detention houses. This had been the main motivation behind the hunger strikes. No detainee was punished without a court order.
As you are aware, recently some members of the committees of the Parliamentary Assembly visited Turkey and during their trip they were exceptionally authorised to visit the military detention houses of Diyarbakir and Mamak. Thus they have spoken to the detainees of their own choice, including those who are alleged to be dead by Amnesty International and some other well-known groups in Western Europe.
I must add that no country is totally immune from individual practice of torture and mistreatment. Such individual cases may have occurred also in Turkey. As it has been done by the previous Government, my Government too is determined to pursue this matter most scrupulously, to take all the necessary measures to prevent such cases and to punish, if any, the perpetrators. Your delegations have already received concrete information on this subject. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 28 -
In the past three years the task facing Turkey was not an easy one. On the one hand, it was necessary to eliminate terrorism and restore law and order in the country. On the other hand, democracy had to be reinstalled on firm grounds so that the same problems would not be encountered once again in the future. This dual task required already enormous efforts and sacrifices. It is due to the unswerving support of the Turkish people and its deep commitment to democracy that the result was successful.
We believe that this result has also broadened the European democracies and thus contributed to the strengthening of democracy and democratic principles in Europe. It is, therefore, a success which we must all share. My Government deeply appreciates the understanding of our friends in the Council of Europe and the constructive role they played in the process of democratisation in Turkey.
In the light of the experience we have acquired, I venture to touch upon a question which must concern us all because of its importance. Those who were frustrated in their designs of setting up a totalitarian regime in Turkey are still active and are still seeking to organise a campaign against Turkey from abraod. We know the responsibles. This campaign and such methods are not directed at Turkey alone, it concerns us all. Its target is the common values and principles we share. This threat can be met by our collective efforts, by an effective co-operation and mutual assistance. Democracies should be able to defend themselves.
Democratic principles and human rights should not constitute the weaknesses of our societies but rather their strength. We should bear in mind Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states: 'Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein ...'.
Therefore it is important that the member governments should be able to identify the intentions underlying such activities, the aims of which are obvious and which threatens our solidarity.
My Government attaches great importance to its relations with the Council of Europe. We are pleased to see that our parliamentarians have resumed their seats in the Parliamentary Assembly. Thus, our relations with the Council of Europe have been normalised and strengthened to the benefit of all. We believe that the way for normalisation of relations between Turkey and Western institutions has also been cleared." CONFIDENTIAL
- 29 - CM(84)PV 1
Mr. BODSTROM (Sweden) said that for the last three years Turkey had been a subject for every meeting of the Committee of Ministers and had often been raised in the Parliamentary Assembly. Since the issues and the discussion - democracy and human rights - struck at the heart of the Council of Europe, it was important that the Council, if it was to play a constructive role, persist in the discussion of these principles.
This was the first occasion that Turkey had been represented by a civilian government. After three years of military rule the formation of a civilian government had been generally welcomed. Sweden joined in that welcome. The fact that some parties previously prohibited had participated in the recent local elections was an even better reflection of the will of the Turkish people. He referred to the fact that there were still restrictions on democracy in the sense that the two political parties which had dominated the Turkish scene in the 1970s were still banned. The Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers had played a constructive role in the democratic process but he pointed out that general elections without full freedom of the press and full freedom of political parties to participate was not democracy in its fullest sense and Turkey still had a long way to go.
Human rights in Turkey remained an issue of great concern. There were still incidents of death sentences, hunger strikes and torture which highlighted the necessity of keeping the situation under review. The mass trial of trade unionists were another example of conditions prevailing in a country which was still largely under martial law. There were still differences, therefore, in respect of human rights, evident between Turkey and the rest of the Council of Europe and the Council had to find appropriate ways of taking concrete measures to promote democracy and human rights. The Swedish government felt that a general amnesty would provide a great impetus in this direction.
Mr. van den BROEK (Netherlands) welcomed the fact that a number of important and positive developments had taken place in Turkey, namely the election of a civil government, parliamentary elections, the partial lifting of martial law and the participation of more political parties in the recent regional elections than the three parties allowed to stand for last year's parliamentary election. These were significant and important steps. However, it must be acknowledged that according to the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights Turkey was still not a regular parliamentary democracy. Disturbing reports on conditions affecting human rights were still being made. He regretted that there was as yet no indication of an amnesty at least to those in prison because of their political convictions. The Netherlands Government welcomed the fact that the Assembly had approved the credentials of the Turkish delegation because this would enable the necessary dialogue to continue. The CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 30 -
Netherlands Government assumed that Turkey would accept the dialogue to encourage the furthering of the democratisation process and to remove still existing concerns with regard to human rights. The Netherlands would watch further developments with great interest and hoped that discussions within the Council of Europe would help further progress.
Mr. GAMA (Portugal) said that Portugal had always favoured a candid dialogue with Turkey on this point, either in the Committee of Ministers or in the Parliamentary Assembly, and was pleased that steps had been taken to intensify this dialogue.
The Council of Europe had been following the evolution of the situation closely not only in the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly but also in the European Commission of Human Rights. Certain steps had been taken, in particular the holding of municipal elections, which incidentally had once more modified the political spectrum in Turkey, just as the previous parliamentary elections had done, contrary to the expectations of those in power. Progress still had to be made towards public freedoms and development of the pluralist and democratic system so as to bring it into harmony with the principles of the Council of Europe's Statute.
Portugal was still in favour of pursuing this dialogue, and parliamentarians in the Assembly would today have the opportunity to spell out the objectives that the dialogue would pursue, in particular the gradual -lifting of martial law, the lifting of measures that departed from the European Convention on Human Rights, amnesty for persons condemned for crimes of opinion, the full affirmation of political pluralism, the right to organise, free political parties, freedom of association, of the press, of education, complete respect for human rights with a view to ending torture and improving living conditions in prisons, and the respect of the rights of defence. The Turkish Government must also accept the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights.
From this point of view, objectives being determined by the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers must continue to receive up-to-date information. In the interests of democratic coherence, the Council of Europe was particularly committed to these points. The European conscience must continue to take a rigorous view of political developments in Turkey.
Mr. LANG (Austria) stressed that there had been a series of positive developments in Turkey since the last session of the Committee of Ministers, such as the holding of municipal elections in March, with participation by three new political parties, and the lifting of martial law in various provinces.
The reaction of the Turkish people during the elections was proof of its commitment to democracy, but the fact remained that the Turkish Parliament was only an imperfect reflection of the political balance of power.
The question of human rights continued to cause concern, as had already been said. Turkey must be encouraged to continue along the path towards democracy and restore human rights completely, not only in prisons. CONFIDENTIAL
- 31 - CM(84)PV 1
Mr. DUMAS (France) said that the I-rench Government had duly welcomed recent events in Turkey, which had shown that there was a commitment to further progress towards democracy.
The restoration of a civilian regime, with the holding of democratic municipal elections in March 1984. was a matter for rejoicing. It had given Turkey new inspiration.
He deduced from what the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs had said that it was "one of the first steps taken to consolidate the democratisation process." "The first steps" or, more exactly, "one of the first steps" automatically implied others. A democracy could not be judged partially. But it was perfectly understandable that the process required time to take root again and it was the duty of the Council of Europe not only to watch over this process, but to encourage and facilitate it as much as possible.
The French Government would therefore welcome whatever was done along these lines as clear signs of a return to democracy. It was in favour of maintaining both a bilateral and a multilateral dialogue. The substance of democracy today was perfectly demarcated in countries with a parliamentary system and assessment criteria existed. It was on the basis of those criteria, then, that they should make up their minds whenever the occasion arose.
Previous speakers that morning had made specific reference to the situation in Turkey and had also mentioned the measures that appeared desirable.
The French view was that a number of ideas must be singled out to be used in the future as assessment criteria.
Due note was taken of the remarks by the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs foreshadowing further stages in the complete return to democracy. Since he had suggested these stages himself, they could but be taken as future assessment criteria, in the hope that the future would be as early as possible.
Above all, it was clearly necessary to await the complete lifting of martial law in regions where it was still effective. The Turkish government might regard a continuation of martial law as justified, but it obviously could not be regarded as a criterion of democracy by countries with parliamentary regimes.
In the same way, a general amnesty would have to be decreed at a time which the Turkish Government deemed right, but which, according to the time-honoured expression, would make it possible to "forget past events, sentences and actions that have given rise to repressions that were not always jusified". That was the French view of the past and now it was to be buried. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 32 -
For the future, it appeared that the cornerstone of democracy was respect for public freedoms. The Portuguese Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was particularly competent in the field, had already listed them, and he merely intended to enumerate them for the record.
Public freedoms included freedom of association, the right to organise, freedom of the press, pluralism and freedom for political parties, all of which were pillars of a democratic system.
It was also clear that in conjunction with the Council of Europe, through its Assembly and committees, there must be complete respect for human rights, whether they be the right to defence in a political or ordinary law trial or the respect of human rights for all prisoners.
Lastly, all this would have to be carried out in a completely lucid fashion, which was likewise an essential democratic principle.
Mr. O'KEEFFE (Ireland) welcomed Mr Halefoglu, the Foreign Minister of Turkey. He noted the progress towards democracy which had been made in Turkey in particular the holding of a general election. However, the corner-stone of the Council of Europe was full respect for democratic rights. He was disturbed by reports of breaches of human rights in Turkey. There needed to be further progress to full democracy and the Council should follow developments there closely. He hoped that at the next meeting the Turkish Representative could indicate that further and possibly total progress had been made.
Mr. MOLLEMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) noted the Turkish Government's determination to restore democracy, which was to be encouraged.
The Federal Government would continue its economic aid to Turkey, because the Turkish Government should be helped and democracy there was still fragile.
The lifting of martial law in certain provinces was to be welcomed and it was desirable that this decision be extended to all provinces.
The human rights situation was not perfect and further progress had to be made. Nevertheless, it was necessary to remember the oppressive legacy of the past, the marks of which were slow to disappear.
The Minister said that the German Government had noted with satisfaction the decision by the Parliamentary Assembly to readmit the Turkish parliamentarians. CONFIDENTIAL
- 33 - CM(84)PV 1
Mr. WINSNES (Norway) made the following statement:
"We consider the elections of November last year and March of this year as welcome developments towards restoring full democracy in ' Turkey. We regret, however, that some of the measures connected with the elections and procedures leading up to them, went very far in restricting the free choice of the electorate. It has been reported in the press that legal steps have been taken against the Right Way Party with the aim of banning or closing down this party. This runs counter to our expectations, as also expressed in this Committee last November. I then pointed out that our assessment of Turkey would depend on how quickly and firmly the newly elected Parliament and new civil government would act to restore full freedom of the press and ordinary free political activities again being allowed, including the establishment of political parties. We regret that no amnesty or other reversal of the harsh sentences has been introduced in favour of those persons whose only offence has been violation of rules not in accordance with democratic principles.
My government and the Norwegian Parliament have been very concerned by reports on the difficult conditions in Turkish prisons that have led to serious disturbances among the prisoners. We are aware of the fact that independent commissions have been set up to study the situation and we take it that the necessary follow-up on the side of the authorities will be carried out as quickly as possible.
Turkey belongs in the family of European democratic nations and my remarks have been made in this spirit. It is still my hope and expectation, therefore, that all insitutional measures in contradiction to the underlying principles of this organisation will be removed."
Mr. DIAMANTOPOULOS (Greece) associated himself with all those who had praised the effective work and concrete results attained by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. He thanked Mr. Karasek cordially for all he had done for the Council of Europe and offered him every good wish.
He explained why his country felt that the situation in Turkey was not in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Statute of the Council of Europe.
The Greek people, having undergone the painful experience of a military regime, could not help rejoicing whenever real progress was made towards democracy.
The military regime, disguised as a parliamentary system, continued to control the country: the municipal elections had shown that the real opposition was not represented in the present Turkish Parliament. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 34 -
Martial law was.still in force in various forms in most parts of the country. Freedom of the press and trade union rights were far from being regarded as protected.
There had not been any progress in the matter of human rights; the military courts continued to hand down sentences and political prisoners continued to be ill-treated, despite hunger strikes.
Lastly, President Evren had already stated that he was opposed to an amnesty.
In conclusion, he repeated what the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs had just said: Turkey still had a long way to go before democracy was restored.
Mr. WHITNEY (United Kingdom) recognised the concern shown by many delegates for further progress towards the restoration of democracy and human rights in Turkey, but felt that recognition should also be given to the great progress that had been made already towards the establishment of elections and the lifting of martial law. It was important for all democracies to recognise the practical dangers and pressures posed by subversives and anti-democratic elements.
Mr. RECHNAGEL (Denmark) echoed the views and sentiments expressed by the delegates from Sweden, the Netherlands, France and Norway. He hoped that further progress towards the full restoration of democracy and human rights in Turkey would be made and he believed that continuing Turkish co-operation in connection with the case at present before the European Commission of Human Rights would significantly assist in this.
Mr. HALEFOGLU (Turkey) wished to make three points in reply to his colleagues. First, Turkey was open to dialogue and would continue to be so. However, this dialogue should be conducted with the Turkish representatives, at least as intensely as with other circles. Secondly, he asked his colleagues to note that martial law had been lifted in thirteen provinces which marked great progress since the military takeover in September 1980. This progress would be maintained until martial law had been lifted throughout Turkey. He asked his colleagues not to underestimate the practical problems faced by the Turkish Government in carrying this out and to appreciate the significance of the steps that have been taken so far. Thirdly, as to an amnesty, no one could be more anxious for a partial amnesty than the Turkish Government. After all, it was Turkish people who would benefit from it, but Turkey could not afford a repetition of the mistakes made after the amnesty of 1974, many of the beneficiaries of which were again in prison. However, the Turkish Government and Parliament were giving due consideration to this problem.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that the drafting group be asked to include a text on the discussion in the final communique. CONFIDENTIAL
- 35 - CM(84)PV I
4. HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. LANG (Austria) said that the Committee of Ministers had before it the third report of the Committee of Senior Officials responsible for examining the subject which dealt with a ministerial conference on human rights. The rather limited list of subjects proposed only responded to the wishes of the Austrian delegation in part, but it was a good basis for holding such a conference. Austria looked to the conference to provide a valuable assessment of the current system of human rights protection in the framework of the Council of Europe as well as a necessary stimulus for enlarging those rights. For example, unparalleled scientific and technical progress could not fail to have consequences on human rights.
Looking ahead to the meeting of experts on human rights to be held in Ottawa in May 1985 in the framework of the CSCE, the member States of the Council of Europe should make themselves heard, demonstrating their special commitment in this area. This could be done by holding a ministerial conference on human rights before the Ottawa meeting.
The Committee of Senior Officials should be instructed to devote itself immediately to preparing the conference. It was considered extremely useful for several governments to act as rapporteurs on specific subjects. Well before the conference the reports should be submitted to the Council of Europe member States to serve as a discussion basis for the participating countries.
The Austrian Government, reiterating its proposal for a ministerial conference on human rights, asked the Committee to take a decision on the matter based on the report by the Senior Officials. If, as the Austrian Government hoped, the proposal met with general approval, it would be prepared to host the conference in Vienna in or around March 1985.
Mr. VENIAMIN (Cyprus) spoke as follows:
"Cyprus attaches particular importance to the good work of the Council of Europe in the field of human rights. The European system of protection of human rights for the first time gave indidivuals the right of access to independent international legal bodies and from the global point of view this is a great achievement in the field of human rights protection.
Cyprus is convinced that the improvement of the implementation machinery, and the development of the European Convention on Human Rights should continue to be one of the primary tasks of the Council of Europe. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 1 - 36 -
!
Nevertheless, despite the substantial progress on personal human rights, the protection afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights has not been able to keep pace with other categories of human rights namely in the economic, social and cultural fields.
Cyprus has felt that the proposal of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria for the organisation within the framework of the Council of Europe, of a conference of Ministers responsible for human rights in their country, came at an opportune moment and has all along been supported this proposal.
The Cyprus Government believes that such a conference would give a valuable boost to the Council of Europe and would no doubt significantly emphasis the extent to which the governments of the Council of Europe member States are committed to the protection of human rights.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to reiterate that Cyprus is ready to work for the full success of such a conference."
Mr. BAEZA (Spain) first thanked Mr. Karasek for his services to the Organisation over the last five years. He then declared: "My Government would like to take the opportunity of stressing the need for the Council of Europe to include in its concerns the preservation of the essence of democracy and the exercise of public freedoms inherent in a democratic system which are jeopardised by the growth of terrorist activities in a number of our countries, as is shown clearly in the report that Mr. Giuseppe Amadei submitted at the current session of the Parliamentary Assembly.
Needless to say, Spain is one of the countries hardest hit by terrorist subversion. As Mr. Gonzalez rightly said when addressing the Assembly on 31 January, 'any attack against the democratic institutions of one of our countries is also an attack against the democratic system as a whole.' It is 'absolutely necessary that the democratic countries of Western Europe respond to this threat through firm, concerted and joint action.1 The situation 'requires collective reflection at the highest political level.1 It is not necessary to go into details at this stage as to the form to be taken by that reflection in order to respond to the wish - which I believe is largely shared - of the Committee of Ministers. But we should like the final communique, which must reflect the exchanges of opinion at this meeting and which will probably set out the ideas expressed at the meeting of the Senior Officials, to record these preoccupations." CONFIDENTIAL
- 37 - CM(84)PV 1
Mr. WHITNEY (United Kingdom) associated himself with the remarks made by Mr. Baeza relating to terrorism which was a problem faced by all democracies even the oldest.
He wished to thank the Austrians for offering to hold a conference on human rights. The British supported the.idea in principle but felt that it was crucial that such a conference be well prepared. The permanent officials might perhaps hold further consultations in order to finalise a draft agenda. In the light of that the proposed time-table of a conference in March 1985 might be rather optimistic.
Mr. MOLLEMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) said that the German Government was very much in favour of a ministerial conference on human rights and thanked the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs for his invitation. His British colleague and Mr. Lane himself had indicated quite clearly that it was important to prepare the conference carefully so as to ensure its success.
It was not necessary to discuss the date of the conference, which would depend on progress with the preparatory work. However, instructions must be given forthwith for preparing a precise draft agenda, which could be done along the lines of the Austrian or the British proposal.
Different national governments might make their contribution and the German Government was quite willing to do the same. It intended to do its part for the conference and hoped that it would be a success. k/ Mr. HALEFOGLU (Turkey) wholeheartedly endorsed the remarks on terrorism by the distinguished representatives of Spain and the United Kingdom. It was necessary to be prepared to defend democracy against terrorism, and never to lose sight of that point.
The Turkish delegation supported the Austrian proposal, provided the meeting was carefully prepared so as to yield positive results.
Mr. DOISE (France) said that once again he had listened to the Austrian proposal with interest, and on behalf of the French delegation once again thanked the Austrian Government for its initiative, which his delegation supported fully. He recalled that the President of the French Republic had indicated his support for this project when addressing the Parliamentary Assembly on 30 September 1982, and it therefore appeared to come at the right moment.
There had already been three meetings of Senior Officials, who had cleared the ground and at their last meeting set up a two-part framework, which it was felt should lead to one or more important statements during the ministerial conference on the diverse subjects set out in the framework.
The French delegation felt that the Committee of Ministers should take an immediate decision on the basis of the Austrian proposals. He very much hoped, by way of conclusion, that this decision would be taken. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV I - 38 -
Mr. WINSNES (Norway) confirmed Norway's support for an ad hoc Ministerial Conference on Human Rights and thanked the Austrian Government for their offer. He thought that the Conference would be an important political event for the Council of Europe and one which would strengthen its rule on human rights. It was desirable not only to take stock of three decades of the European Convention on Human Rights; there was an equal obligation for the Council of Europe to be alert to new challenges.
Mr. ANTIC! (Italy) made the following statement:
"The Italian delegation has given its full support to the offer by the Austrian delegation, which it warmly thanks.
It believes that this conference also has political importance, because it would reaffirm the message of human rights, an area in which the Council of Europe has an essential vocation. In our view the report presented by the Senior Officials is a valid basis for the conference. As we hoped, it seems that thanks to the Senior Officials' efforts it is possible to take a decision today on the date of the conference.
We thank the Austrian Government for its invitation, which we are of course ready to accept. Since we are talking about human rights, let me say that the Italian delegation endorses the remarks made by the Spanish and other delegations on the particular attention that the Council of Europe must pay to the grave problems of terrorism, bearing in mind too yesterday's debate in the Assembly.
We also hope that the interest shown by the Committee of Ministers in this question and in measures designed to do away with the scourge can be mentioned in the final communique of the meeting."
Mr. SCHNEIDER (Netherlands) associated his governement with remarks made by the Federal Republic of Germany.
The SECRETARY GENERAL made the following statement:
"The discussion on this point is about to be concluded, but I do not want to leave the area of human rights without announcing to your Committee the publication of the first volume, in English, of the Digest of Case Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, the importance of which has been stressed here with good reason. This volume, of which we have received several copies from the publisher (Heymanns), will be on sale by the end of the month. CONFIDENTIAL
- 39 - CM(84)PV 1
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the authorities of the Netherlands warmly for their financial support towards the production of the Digest, which is the result of the joint work of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights and the Directorate of Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
I very much hope that the subsequent volumes and the French version will appear in the near future. But it is clear, as the Steering Committee for Human Rights stated in the report of its last meeting, that 'such a major venture as this necessarily had implications in terms of finance and human resources.1 I therefore endorse the appeal by the Steering Committee and urge governments to provide the Directorate of Human Rights with the financial and human resources needed to complete this vitally important projetc."
The CHAIRMAN summed up by saying there appeared to be agreement in principle for a Ministerial Conference on Human Rights which would be convened on the basis of thorough preparation by Senior Officials under the guidance of Deputies. He asked the Committee if that were acceptable. There was general agreement. The drafting Committee would work out a final communique mentioning this decision and also their thanks to the Austrian Government for their offer to host the Conference. The morning session having been completed the Chairman closed the Session.
The meeting was adjourned at 12.41 pm. CONFIDENTIAL
- 41 - CM(84)PV2
MINUTES
of the sitting held on 10 May 1984 at 3.20 pm at the Palais de 1'Europe, STRASBOURG
PRESENT
AUSTRIA Mr. E. LANG
BELGIUM Mr. A. VRANKEN (1)
CYPRUS Mr. A. POUYOUROS (2)
DENMARK Mr. U. ELLEMANN-JENSEN, Chairman
FRANCE Mr. R. DOISE (3)
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Mr. K.A. HAMPE (4)
GREECE Mr. N. DIAMANTOPOULOS (5)
(1) Permanent Representative of Belgium in place of Mr. L. TINDEMANS, Minister for External Relations
(2) Permanent Representative of Cyprus in place of Mr. G. IACOVOU, Minister for Foreign Affairs
(3) Permanent Representative of France in place of Mr. R. DUMAS, Minister for European Affairs
(4) Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany in place of Mr. H-D GENSCHER, Minister for Foreign Affairs
(5) Permanent Representative of Greece in place of Mr. I. HARALAMBOPOULOS, Minister for Foreign Affairs CONFIDENTIAL
CM(8A)PV 2 - 42 -
ICELAND (Excused)
IRELAND Mr. M. FLYNN (1)
ITALY Mr. P.M. ANTICI (2)
LIECHTENSTEIN HSH Prince Nicolas of LIECHTENSTEIN (3)
LUXEMBOURG Mr. P. HELMINGER (A)
MALTA (Excused)
NETHERLANDS Mr. C. SCHNEIDER (5)
NORWAY Mr. E. WINSNES (6)
PORTUGAL Mr. J. GAMA
SPAIN Mr. F. BAEZA (7)
SWEDEN Mr. L. BODSTROM
SWITZERLAND Mr. T. RAEBER (8)
TURKEY Mr. S. KORKUD (9)
UNITED KINGDOM Mr. C. LUSH (10)
(1) Permanent Representative of Ireland in place of Mr. P. BARRY, Minister for Foreign Affairs
(2) Permanent Representative of Italy in place of Mr. G. ANDREOTTI, Minister for Foreign Affairs
(3) Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein in place of Mr. H. BRUNHART, Head of Government
(4) State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in place of Mrs. C. FLESCH, Minister for Foreign Affairs
(5) Permanent Representative of the Netherlands in place of Mr. van den BROEK, Minister for Foreign Affairs
(6) Permanent Representative of Norway in place of Mr. S. STRAY, Minister for Foreign Affairs
(7) Permanent Representative of Spain in place of Mr. F. MORAN LOPEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs
(8) Permanent Representative of Switzerland in place of Mr. P. AUBERT, Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs
(9) Permanent Representative of Turkey in place of Mr. V. HALEFOGLU, Minister for Foreign Affairs
(10) Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, in place of the Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey HOWE, QC, MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CONFIDENTIAL
- 43 - CM(84)PV 2
Mr. F. KARASEK Secretary General
Mr. G. ADINOLFI Deputy Secretary General
Mr. H. LELEU Director of Political Affairs
Mr. H.P. FURRER Secretary to the Committee of Ministers
Mr. U. ELLEMANN-JENSEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, took the Chair at 3.20 pm. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 2 - 44 -
3. POLITICAL EXCHANGE OF VIEWS ON EAST/WEST RELATIONS AND ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBJECTS OF TOPICAL INTEREST
The CHAIRMAN recalled that in the Ministers' discussion at the informal meeting the previous evening the key themes had been patience and consistency in dealing with the Communist world. All opportunities should be taken in the CSCE, including its smaller forums, to improve relations. Personal contacts remained important.
Mr. DIAMANTOPOLOUS (Greece) spoke as follows:
"May I recall that in accordance with the mandate of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the concluding document of the Madrid meeting, experts from the participating States met in Athens from March 21 to April 30.
Their purpose was to pursue the examination of a generally acceptable method for the peaceful settlement of disputes aimed at complementing existing methods.
It cannot be said, at this stage, that the Athens meeting resulted in concrete solutions or answers to all relevant problems. Yet it marked a real progress in the right direction.
Thorough discussions were held on the issues, and interesting proposals, both official and unofficial, were examined and advanced. But what could be considered quite satisfactory were the results produced from a legal point of view. It was mainly the fact that the Soviet Union departed during this meeting from their old and well established position and actually accepted, for the first time, a third element, that of conciliation as a method of settling the disputes. However, they still refuse to accept arbitration.
Such acceptance of the principle of conciliation by the Soviet Union and other Eastern countries, although not included in the final report, is nevertheless an important asset of the CSCE. So much the more as the political climate prevailing nowadays in the international arena is not conducive to positive results.
It must also be noted that it was recognised by this meeting that further discussions should be pursued in an appropriate framework within the CSCE process."
Mr. VRANKEN (Belgium) had little to add to the Chairman's summary of the informal meeting, although he was anxious to stress the importance attached by Belgium to the Cultural Forum to be held in Budapest in 1985, which was not to be considered as either a kind of international festival or an academic meeting. CONFIDENTIAL
- 45 - CM(84)PV 2
Belgium saw it rather as an occasion for serious discussions on the conditions in which the products of intellectual and artistic activities were distributed and on the barriers to such distribution erected by the Eastern bloc countries, notwithstanding the corresponding provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and the Madrid concluding document, provisions which were held to be of vital importance by the countries of Western Europe.
The aim should be to avoid an over-polemical approach and demonstrate a constructive attitude, so as to give a meaningful purpose to the Forum, which should enable considerable progress to be made in fostering and developing cultural communication on either side of the dividing line in Europe. This was a theme close to the hearts of all within the Organisation.
Mr. ANDREANI (France) spoke in his capacity as representative of the Political Directors of the ten member States of the Community.
He stressed what had been said the previous day at the informal meeting of the Political Directors of the member States of the Community and the other member countries of the Council of Europe, namely that one of the reasons for attaching great importance to the process of multilateral East/West consultations - which had been defined at Helsinki in the Final Act and was extended from one meeting to the next in various forms, its current form being the Stockholm Conference on disarmament - was the possibility it offered to all the countries of Europe to express themselves on an equal footing, whether or not they were members of a military alliance, neutral or non-aligned.
In this spirit, he believed that everything possible had to be done to prevent the East/West dialogue from degenerating into a mere dialogue between two alliances - the Atlantic Alliance and the Warsaw Pact.
It was in this spirit that the members of the European Community had embarked on the various stages in these multilateral talks, particularly the Stockholm Conference.
It was in this spirit that they attached the greatest importance to the natural consultations which took place among the member States of the Community, and among the member countries of the Atlantic Alliance, and also to the exchanges of views they could have with the other democratic countries of Europe represented here. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 2 - 46 -
The dialogue at the various CSCE meetings attended by the Western countries, the member States of the Community, the member countries of the Western Alliance and the neutral and non-aligned countries of Europe had been very lively and productive. The dialogue was just as lively at the Stockholm Conference, and he believed that this productive dialogue and the frequent entente between the countries of the Western Alliance and the neutral and non-aligned countries was one of the great achievements of the CSCE process. The Council of Europe had its role to play in talks of this kind; it had already done so in a variety of specialised meetings between Political Directors and experts, and the Ten believed it was important to continue in this way in the future; that was why they felt these matters needed to be raised in the Council of Europe. France was to take over the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers in a few hours' time, and this was certainly one of the lines it would wish to pursue during its chairmanship, fostering talks of this kind between the countries of the Western Alliance and the other democratic countries of Europe on these aspects of the East/West dialogue within the Council of Europe.
Mr. LANG (Austria) agreed with the Chairman's summary of the discussion the previous day. All forms of dialogue between East and West should be maintained, without anyone harbouring any illusions about changes in the political climate in the run-up to the presidential elections in the United States.
From talks he had been having, he had reached the conclusion that after the American presidential elections the Soviet Union would be prepared to take part in genuine talks, particularly on disarmament, only if it had the impression that they were being held on an equal footing between the super-powers and that the United States and their allies would not attempt to negotiate from a dominant position.
This idea recurred in talks with representatives of Warsaw Pact member States, and it was no mere coincidence. It would be necessary to take every available opportunity to hold bilateral talks, as well as establishing multilateral contacts, in an attempt to foresee and forestall any future tension.
Every attempt should therefore be made to salvage what remained of the political detente of the seventies in order to continue talks with a good number of the Warsaw Pact member States. CONFIDENTIAL
- 47 - CM(84)PV 2
In conclusion, he stressed that the attitude of certain member States to the USSR in connection with not resorting to force appeared to be dictated mainly by the effect it would have on public opinion in the West and hence on the various pacifist movements in the member States.
He did not have the impression thac Eastern Europe still harboured the illusion that demands or claims of this kind could influence policy in Western Europe. However, some Warsaw Pact member States were certainly interested in the question, if only because they saw in it a possible means of settling the question of not resorting to force in the sphere of the Warsaw Pact, and therefore a possible means of undermining the Brezhnev doctrine.
Mr. BAEZA (Spain) made the following statement:
"The Spanish Government's concern has increased with the deterioration of the situation in Central America in recent weeks, particularly following serious actions such as the mining of harbours, which not only jeopardise the security of a country but violate international law, the freedom of shipping and trade, endangering sea-going traffic in a region with which Spain maintains constant and extensive trade relations.
Given the scale of the problem, it is essential to find a balanced, negotiated, regional, Latin American solution without foreign interference and with the honest co-operation of countries having interests in the area, so that the political, social and economic crisis may be overcome.
It is therefore necessary, now more than ever, for the international community to reiterate its full support for the proposals made by the Contadora group with a view to reaching a pacific settlement based on the principles of self-determination, non-intervention, respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity, the inviolability of frontiers, refraining from the threat or use of force, pluralism and the setting up of democratic institutions, the achievement of social justice, international co-operation for the development and universal respect of human rights - whether civil, economic, political or cultural - among which the right to life is essential.
In this context, the countries of Europe should not only support the Contadora solution but also consider seriously the economic needs of Central America in order to find the urgently needed solutions to counter the clearly national and internal origin of the problem, which may be summarised as follows: unjust economic and social fabric, unsatisfactory distribution of wealth, an external debt which is entirely excessive, lack of understanding of the ethnic problem, survival of the unfavourable international economic order, and serious - sometimes massive and persistent - violations of human rights. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 2 - 48 -
The Spanish Government hopes that the electoral procedures currently under way in Central America, despite obvious imperfections and limitations in certain cases, will contribute to national conciliation and the restoration of peaceful co-existence, with the full participation of the various political forces.
As regards the situation in South America, the Spanish Government welcomes the consolidation of democracy in Argentina and the firmness of President Alfonsin's government in dealing with the serious problems facing the country and asks the Western democratic countries for their support and understanding so that the problem of the country's debt can be resolved.
In Uruguay, the maintenance of the political project of the military regime, which has promised to hold elections next November, liberate political prisoners and make provision for certain parties, suggests that full democracy will soon be restored in the country.
As regards Chile, the Spanish Government is following with concern the return of repression manifested by the interruption of political dialogue, the repression of opposition, an increase in censorship of all the mass media and, lastly, the violation of human rights.
The Spanish Government also welcomes the outcome of the elections in Ecuador.
Lastly, the emphasis must be placed on the extremely critical economic situation of the Latin American countries. One of the results of social contestation, justified by the excessively prolonged effects of a worsening economic crisis and by defective structures, may be that democracy and stability come under serious threat. What is therefore needed is serious reflection in the creditor countries and international financial and economic institutions, with a view to drawing up new proposals on foreign debts and economic and social development.
5. NORTH/SOUTH QUESTIONS
The CHAIRMAN, introducing this item, spoke as follows:
"The next item on our Agenda is the North/South Dialogue. I welcome the inclusion of this subject into our deliberations.
Among the industrialised countries no other group has so important interests at stake in the shaping of economic relations between developed and developing countries as Europe. Furthermore the time is right. Statistics from the past year's economic performance and current indicators point towards growth rates in the industrialised countries, which exceed the expectations of a not too distant past. Therefore an occasion has arisen to integrate the developing countries more closely into the economic upturn in the industrialised countries. This must be done in a coherent manner across the full spectrum of interrelated issues: trade, money, finance, energy and food and agriculture. It is important that the moment is seized. Both the durability of the international economic recovery and the development of poor countries - many close to Europe by a number of criteria - are at stake. CONFIDENTIAL
- 49 - CM(84)PV 2
We have before us a document entitled 'The Lisbon-Declaration on North/South: Europe's Role' adopted at the Parliamentary Assembly's Conference held in Lisbon in April. This is in my view an important document. It identifies with great clarity all important issues in the context of relations between developed and developing countries at this stage and calls for action with a view to revitalising the North/South Dialogue. The role of our Parliaments in the formulation of national policies relevant for North/South relations is crucial. In my view, therefore, it is encouraging that a large number of Parliamentarians were able to attend the Lisbon Conference and I hope that they will see to it that the perspicacity and global outlook reflected in the Lisbon-Declaration will put its stamp upon national political debates on the issues covered.
North/South economic relations figures prominently on the agenda of a good many international organisations. One question which we will have to consider is how the Council of Europe can enhance the specific European role in promoting a constructive conduct of the North/South Dialogue. Perhaps we could assist the creation of a greater measure of international consensus on the dynamics of the international economy by organising, together with other international organisations such as the European Community and the OECD, round tables with the participation of a limited number of important decision-makers from developed and developing countries? Also the Council of Europe might take measures to heighten public awareness of the intimacy.with which Europe's economic fate is linked with that of the developing countries. Again co-operation with other organisations could facilitate this task. We may not have had the time since the Lisbon Conference to have reached conclusions which would allow this meeting to make decisions in the matter. I therefore suggest that we ask our Deputies to consider the question and to report to us on their findings at our next meeting."
Mr. SCHNEIDER (Netherlands) said that in the interest of brevity the statement from the Netherlands government would be given to the Secretariat for inclusion in the text. However, he wanted to emphasise that his government found the Conference and the Lisbon Declaration extremely important and offered its thanks (particularly on behalf of the Minister for Development Co-operation, Mrs. Schoo) to the Portuguese authorities for organising the Conference and for providing hospitality.
The statement read as follows:
"Some remarks in relation to the successful conference the Council of Europe held in Lisbon, 9-11 April, on the subject of 'North/South: Europe's role1:
I wholeheartedly agree with the words of the Lisbon declaration that Europe has a unique and crucial responsibility in solving the economic and social problems which confront humanity today. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 2 - 50 -
I will not repeat what the Netherlands Minister for Development Co-operation, Mrs. Schoo, has said in her address to the conference, but as it were, follow up her remarks by touching on the question which possibilities the immediate future has to offer to put the Lisbon Declaration into effect.
The North/South Dialogue is an opening process. Although my government hopes that the new round of global negotiations finally may start moving, the spotlight in 1984 will be on two major conferences: UNIDO IV and the World Population Conference.
The history of UNIDO General Conferences has not been a very happy one. UNIDO IV will be probably the last conference in this format on world industrialisation, since the transformation of the organisation into a specialised agency seems imminent. There are signs that our partners in the South approach this conference with a greater sense of realism than has been the case in the past. In order for this attitude to prevail, the industrialised countries will have to show more than good intentions alone. A recent study by the OECD on industrialisation of developing countries in an interdependent world economy draws the conclusion that the capacity of most of its member states to respond positively to change has diminished over the last years. This implies that there is a need for a new consensus amongst ourselves on our common adjustment imperatives, based on the perspectives for growth of both developed and developing countries and a continued struggle against protectionist pressures.
Next August, member countries of the United Nations will convene in Mexico City for the International Conference on Population, the second intergovernmental gathering of this kind since the World Population Conference, held in 1974 in Buccarest. The Netherlands Government is now preparing an active and constructive contribution to the Mexico Conference. I wholeheartedly welcome the renewed attention paid to issues of population growth and other demographic variables in relation to economic and social development factors as well as to problems of environmental and natural resource management. To my mind, the Mexico Conference is a most timely international event, indeed.
In tackling population problems, no government and no international agency must try to substitute development policy by population policy. Social and economic development is instrumental in the solution of population problems, 'while demographic factors have a major impact pn the attainment of development objective. I would like to stress the need of an integrated approach, based on the interrelationships between population, resources, environment and development. Therefore, the Mexico Conference is as much a conference on population, as it is one on eradication of mass hunger, on achievement of adequate health and nutrition levels, on elimination of unemployment and underemployment, on combatting illiteracy and on the improvement of international economic relations, particularly the North/South relations. CONFIDENTIAL
- 51 - CM(84)PV 2
Finally, the Lisbon declaration in my opinion strikes the right balance between pointing to priorities for urgent action and formulating realistic proposals to national and international decision-makers. If the Council will continue to press the North/South issues in this constructive manner I can assure you that its voice will be heard and listened to."
Mr. BASTOS (Portugal) read out the following statement on behalf of his Minister, Mr. Gama:
"The 'Declaration' which concluded the conference 'North/South: Europe's role' held recently in Lisbon contains a series of vitally important expressions of political will on the part of European parliamentarians in one of the most difficult economic and social contexts in our continent.
My country, which has considerable experience in and particular sensitivity towards North/South problems, as a result of several centuries of cohabitation with the peoples of the Third World, is particularly aware of the major efforts needed if the intentions reiterated in the Declaration are to be put into effect. Enriched by its own experience as a country in southern Europe, it believes not only that such efforts serve a purpose, but also that they are urgently needed. That is why Portugal plans to study carefully the ways in which the principles contained in the Declaration which has just been approved could be put into practice rapidly, specifically in connection with the execution of trilateral projects.
It will equally welcome all initiatives whose aim, in a European context, is the implementation of the Declaration on the balanced development of Europe. We claim common cause, then, with the readiness to take part in concerted co-operation.
The questions of 'North/South' and the 'balanced development of Europe' which I have just mentioned also give me the opportunity to refer to a problem of still greater magnitude, that of the right to development.
My country is well aware of the discussion on this question in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, and participates with interest in the discussions among the 21 members of the Council of Europe in the ad hoc committee of experts which is concerned with this question, the CAHDD. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 2 - 52 -
Having taken note of the report of the committee's last meeting, recently forwarded to the governments for information, and in the face of the divergences concerning entitlement to and the content of the right to development, we believe that the importance and topicality of this problem fully justify the continuation of these discussions, which have already proved useful when it comes to co-ordinating our positions on the draft Declaration currently being drawn up."
Mr. WINSNES (Norway) made the following statement:
"It is the belief of my Government that the complex of problems commonly referred to as North/South questions represents some of the most serious political problems which the world is faced with today.
In the short run it is in the interest of all - developed and developing nations alike - to achieve new and sustainable growth in the world economy as well as alleviate human sufferings. We have no difficulties in recognising the interdependence in the world today, but we often fail to adopt the policies and measures which this recognition points to.
In the long run a restructured international economic system which reflects the realities in the present international community is indispensable for the development of harmonious political relations as well as an effective functioning of the world economy.
In the light of these considerations we find it most appropriate that the Council of Europe has recently turned its attention to North/South questions. The actual negotiations of concrete instruments must of course take place in the appropriate fora, particularly in the UN system. The council of Europe has, however, a very important role to play in monitoring developments and directing political guidance to those directly concerned. This is all the more so because of the special role which Europe can play because of its common historical, cultural and political heritage and traditional relations with developing countries.
I am particularly happy to note the strong wish to the effect that European nations should lead the way in North/South relations which was expressed at the Parliamentary Assembly's conference in Lisbon in April on North/South and Europe's role. In this regard let me also recall that the Norwegian Minister for Development Co-operation at the Lisbon Conference made a plea for a new start in the North/South dialogue. The need for such a new start seems increasingly apparent. The Council of Europe could help make it possible by nurturing the ground in our various political environments." CONFIDENTIAL
- 53 - CM(84)PV 2
Mr. DOISE (France) made the following statement on behalf of his Minister, Mr. Dumas:
"You are aware of France's interest in the North/South dialogue. The French Government represented in Lisbon by the Minister of European Affairs attaches great importance to the following three objectives:
1. Ensuring lasting recovery and a stable international economic environment
The industrialised countries have an obvious responsibility in this field, whether by giving fresh impetus to economies where the conditions for a recovery exist, which in turn determines an upturn in trade, by combating protectionism, or by bringing interest rates down. Moreover, recovery should be extended to all developed countries and above all to the developing countries where none of its signs have yet been glimpsed. « 2. Guaranteeing the financial resources essential for Third World development
Market forces alone are not enough to guarantee sustained economic recovery nor to extend the benefit thereof to poor countries. At a time when the development of a good number of developing countries has ceased to progress, with most developing countries in a debt situation approaching intolerable levels, the question of financial flows towards those countries is vital.
Private foreign investment does admittedly contribute to the long-term development of developing countries, since it brings in not only capital, but technology and skills as well. However, this type of investment involves a limited number of developing countries only and no amount of encouragement would ever be enough to make the very poor countries more attractive to such investment.
For these countries, particularly the least developed among them, official development aid (ODA) represents their major source of income. Only disinterested official aid could set them back on the road to development.
All States should accept the objectives defined internationally as regards development, and fulfill their undertakings. The international organisations must also be provided with the financial resources they need in order to carry out their work, whether it be the IMF, the World Bank, the IDA - whose importance for poor countries is beyond question, and for which additional funds are vital - the UNDP, or the IFAD. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 2 - 54 -
3. Resuming the North/South dialogue and taking an active part in multilateral co-operation
It is essential that the North/South dialogue should continue; the co-operation of all countries and all international organisations is essential. How can we realise the problems our partners are facing if we do not listen to them? How can we agree on specific action (commodities, financing, trade) if there is no negotiation?
As has been stressed in certain quarters, the negotiation process is not always satisfactory. Certain international organisations have been criticised. But if we want to improve the functioning of these organisations we must take an active part in multilateral co-operation and not hold back. Moreover, we must also consider the real reasons for the present stalemate in the North/South dialogue. We must consider how far we, the developed countries, are responsible for that stalemate.
Everyone must participate actively in multilateral organisations; furthermore, such participation has a stabilising effect.
Third World aid and co-operation policy should become an essential feature of the foreign policy of the industrialised countries. Their efforts on behalf of poor countries should be maintained despite the crisis, despite budget constraints, despite the sacrifices. That is the commitment which France has entered into for its part, and which it will respect.
We endorse the appeal made at the Lisbon Conference:
'We call on the peoples, the parliaments and the governments of Europe to spare no effort in building a new international system which, through stronger global institutions, helps to create a world where every citizen is free from hunger and oppression, and where all children are offered the opportunity to master their own destinies.'"
Mr. HAMPE (Federal Republic of Germany) thanked the Portuguese authorities for their hospitality and for organising the Conference.
The Lisbon Conference had been extremely positive for the following reasons. It had afforded an opportunity to demonstrate Europe's interest in the economic and social development of the Third World. The Conference had also helped make European public opinion aware of the North/South dialogue. Lastly, the Conference had provided a powerful impetus to the substance of the North/South dialogue.
Europe had traditionally played an active role in the North/South dialogue; this was a result on the one hand of its considerable dependence on external trade but also of the close relationships between European countries and developing countries. The Lisbon Conference had encouraged the European governments to continue their efforts in this field. CONFIDENTIAL
- 55 - CM(84)PV 2
In the future it would be necessary to study very closely the possibilities of influencing the other industrialised countries in both West and East, in order to move forward together. The Federal German Government had always tried to make the North/South dialogue progress, particularly in the context of global negotiations, but its efforts would be meaningless without the support of all the major countries in the world. The Lisbon Declaration would be examined very carefully. The present economic recovery noticeable in the industrialised countries was also improving the prospects of increasing aid to Third World countries. What was needed above all was to ensure that the economic recovery reached the countries of the Third World as well. It was also important to examine carefully the scope for improving procedures, that is to say the machinery of the North/South dialogue, for example within UNCTAD.
Mr. RAEBER (Switzerland) read out the following statement on behalf of his Minister: "We welcome the Parliamentary Assembly's felicitous intiative in organising a conference on North/South relations, which took place last month in excellent conditions. I feel it is necessary and salutary for the members of the Parliamentary Assembly to deal with a problem of this kind by listening to the political leaders of the Third World or officials of international organisations. It is in fact up to them, as representatives of the populations of our countries, to convince public opinion, which is often reticent, of the importance of North/South relations. Their task is made more difficult by the complexity of the subject and the fact that, after a period of introversion, Europe is now seeking its own cohesion and a redefinition of its position in the world. At the same time the countries of the Third World, following Europe's diminished world role are now defining the place they occupy on our planet and endeavouring to concert their efforts. Europe therefore has its own responsibility in setting up constructive relationships between the countries of the Third World and those of the industrialised world. While the 'Lisbon Declaration' is not the work of the governments, it acts as a stimulus for them. True, the Council of Europe cannot embark on a development policy of its own; that is not its role, and concertation on specific methods for development aid should be sought with our non-European partners in the OECD. However, nothing should prevent the Council of Europe from encouraging exchanges of views among Europeans on the various facets of North/South relations and possible development policies. The Council of Europe could then send out messages concerning other organisations dealing with development and launch certain political initiatives." CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 2 - 56 -
Mr. Raeber added that Switzerland was in agreement with the Chairman's proposal.
Mr. ANTICI (Italy) stressed that Italy had been present at Lisbon at both parliamentary and governmental levels. Its participation bore witness to the country's keen interest in the problem of development aid, which was the subject of lively debate in Italy.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mrs. Agnelli, was unable to be present, but would have liked to make the following statment: "We applaud the Council of Europe's intervention in the North/South question, as we applauded the initiative which resulted in the parliamentary Conference in Lisbon. We are pleased to take this opportunity to thank the Portuguese Government once again for hosting the Conference. Through this Conference, the Europe of the 21 has confirmed its awareness of the role it must play in connection with a problem that is vital to the stability of international balances. Europe's links with the new continents - long-standing traditions, economy, culture and politics - have been rejuvenated and matured through a type of development which can be summed up in one word - interdependence. \ Interdependence in fact spreads its ramifications well beyond intergovernmental relations, since the dynamism of exchanges of all kinds developing between North and South has ever greater implications for our societies. Our peoples, public opinion, political and social forces are more and more being called into question. Their awareness and participation are essential if the North/South dialogue is to gather momentum. The Government's action will be made easier and supported by an ever wider and deeper consensus, focusing on the promotion of Third World development seen as an active and dynamic element of our own growth and prosperity. Maintaining and strengthening this consensus is a daily challenge; all too often short-term national interests take priority over the collective, long-term interests of the international community. .The challenge is all the more difficult to take up in the present stage of transition the world economy is experiencing, because recovery can only be consolidated if the practice and values of international multilateral co-operation are firmly set in place once more.
We must not delude ourselves that recovery is a universal solution and that development is an economic function of that recovery.
In this sense, the Lisbon Declaration comes as a relief because its message abounds in confidence and solidarity, outlining a series of courses and guidelines broadly reflecting what we, for our part, have already adopted and are pursuing. CONFIDENTIAL - 57 - CM(84)PV 2
We find it neither surprising nor disquieting that the Declaration should go further and set out proposals and aims not all of which the governments can accept or not so many as would be liked. The progress of the dialogue, our action to satisfy the aspirations of deprived populations, victims of imbalances which are frequently the result of our own system - when they are not struck by unprecedented natural disasters - requires ideal tension and a dialectical confrontation in order to overcome innumerable examples of inertia, reticence and obstacles. It was in this way that we received the Lisbon document and decided to translate its spirit into the commitment Italy has already made to the dialogue and to development co-operation, confident that we shall find a similar attitude in the hearts of all our partners gathered here."
Mr. Antici concluded by saying that the Italian delegation was ready to contribute at length to the discussion when the substantive debate on North/South relations was held at a future meeting of the Committee of Ministers. The CHAIRMAN recapitulated by noting that there was agreement that the Council of Europe should help to promote good North/South relations.
6. UNITED NATIONS Mr. WILLUMSEN (Denmark), speaking as chairman of the Ministers' Deputies, presented the following introduction to his report on the last exchange of views on the United Nations General Assembly: "I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by giving a detailed run-down of the contents of my report on the exchange of views which the Deputies held, with the participation of experts, last January on the United Nations. I think the report is self-explanatory. Moverover, perhaps at this time of the year, it would seem more appropriate to be looking forward to the forthcoming session of the General Assembly rather than taking a retrospective look at the international scene in the autumn of last year. In this respect, it is usual for the Deputies to hold an exchange of views at their June meeting on the prospects of the forthcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly. These exchanges enable us to compare notes., on initiatives which may be in the pipeline and to learn our reactions to developments outside member States. I hope our June exchange will be as useful as previous discussions on the United Nations and, in particular, the discussions we had last January."
Mr. SCHNEIDER (Netherlands) spoke as follows: "During their exchange of views on 27 January, the Deputies discussed both the experiences of the past session of the UN General Assembly and the prospects for the upcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. We believe we can now say that this session of the UN Commission has been better than many of us had expected in January. Of course, there have been setbacks. A majority in the Commission voted for deferral of the draft resolution on Poland (of which my country had been again one of the co-sponsors). Furthermore, events proved that the time was not yet ripe for agreement on the creation of a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 2 - 58 -
Nevertheless, the Commission has dealt with a great number of questions In a constructive atmosphere. On several highly controversial issues, the contending parties eventually avoided confrontation and found a solution on the basis of consensus. I am thinking, for instance, of the issues concerning Grenada and Nicaragua. The new situation in Argentina has no doubt contributed to the positive climate during the past session of the Commission on Human Rights. One development that gave us particular satisfaction was the breakthrough in the work on a draft convention against torture, which enabled the Commission to submit the draft to the General Assembly. We strongly hope that the General Assembly will succeed in finalising the convention against torture this year, and I think this is precisely a matter on which members of the Council of Europe can usefully co-operate. I am gratified that a meeting of experts will be held here in Strasbourg within a fortnight, under the auspices of the Council, with a view to discussing how this matter can best be handled in New York." The CHAIRMAN proposed that the Deputies be asked to continue holding their exchanges of views before and after sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. This was agreed.
8. DATES OF FORTHCOMING SESSIONS
Thursday, 22 November 1984 was confirmed as the date of the 75th Session of the Committee of Ministers and a preliminary decision was taken that the 76th Session should be held on Thursday, 25 April 1985.
9. FINAL COMMUNIQUE
The CHAIRMAN invited comments on the draft communique' as prepared by the drafting group.
Mr. POUYOUROS (Cyprus) said that the paragraph of the draft which concerned Cyprus was unsatisfactory to his Government. The paragraph concerned read as follows: "Broaching the question of Cyprus, they renewed their full support for the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General." He proposed an alternative as follows:
"The Committee of Ministers recalled their Resolution (83)13 adopted on 24 November 1983 by which (a) they had deplored the purported declaration of independence of the occupied part of Cyprus, (b) called for its withdrawal and confirmed their support for the respect of the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of Cyprus and finally declared that they continued to regard the Government of the Republic of Cyprus as the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus. Furthermore the Ministers were informed of the declaration and events which led to the deterioration of the situation with regard to the problem of Cyprus and the on-going recourse of the Government of the Republic to the United Nations Security Council. CONFIDENTIAL
- 59 - CM(84)PV 2
The Committee of Ministers confirmed their support for respect of the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of Cyprus.
The Committee of Ministers further repeated their support for the pursuit of the good offices of the Secretary General of the United Nations."
Mr. KORKUD (Turkey) supported the wording of this paragraph as proposed in the draft communique.
The Turkish delegation had always been in favour of the efforts deployed by the Secretary General of the United Nations but was not able to accept the text proposed by Mr. Pouyouros, which contained unfounded allegations.
Mr. DIAMANTOPOLOUS (Greece) spoke against the original draft and supported the alternative version proposed by Cyprus.
Mr. RAEBER (Switzerland) said that his delegation had participated actively in the drafting of paragraph 3 of the draft communique and stressed the need for it to include a paragraph on Cyprus.
The Council of Europe must not evade its responsibilities, and could not afford not to take a stand on an issue of such acute and continuing importance between member States and within one member State.
All the members of the drafting group, or at least the Swiss delegation, realised that it was a minimal text on which, it was to be hoped, all the parties concerned could agree. The text contained nothing new, merely confirming what had already been said repeatedly by all parties. Its acceptance would reflect their joint determination to achieve a dialogue.
The Council of Europe should make every effort to help the member States reach agreement and approve the continuation of dialogue on this clearly complex question. The Committee of Ministers should not make any statement which would merely consolidate the present crisis and widen the gap between the parties involved by pinpointing existing contradictions.
He was therefore unable to agree to the text proposed by the Cypriot delegation.
The CHAIRMAN proposed that the original draft be accepted.
Mr. POUYOUROS (Cyprus) stressed and maintained his Government's objection to it.
The CHAIRMAN noted that the necessary unanimity could not be reached, and proposed that the paragraph concerned be withdrawn.
This was agreed to. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 2 - 60 -
The CHAIRMAN then invited attention to the following paragraph of the draft communique', which concerned Turkey, and part of which was in square brackets (ie a provisional proposal of the drafting group). The paragraph reads as follows:
"Ministers noted with satisfaction the further results achieved in the process of restoring democracy in Turkey [and expressed the hope that the return of the Turkish parliamentary delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will facilitate that process.]"
Mr. BODSTROM (Sweden) proposed that the first two lines of the paragraph be kept, but that the paragraph be amended to read in full as follows:
"Ministers noted with satisfaction the further results achieved in the process of restoring democracy in Turkey and expressed the hope that further steps should be taken in the development of full democracy."
He felt this reflected the spirit of the morning's discussion and he had abstained from raising any reference to human rights.
The CHAIRMAN asked whether this was acceptable to the Committee.
Mr. KORKUD (Turkey) believed that his Minister had been very clear that morning. He had stressed the success of the process of restoring democracy, a process which had in fact now been accomplished. It was therefore, in fact, an event which had also been recognised by the Assembly, since the Turkish parliamentary delegation had been admitted, thereby demonstrating that the process had clearly been successful.
The time had come for a comment in that connection, which, remembering the text produced on the subject of Argentina, was not asking too much. In the proposed wording, it had not even been possible to include two sentences. He thanked the drafting group for its efforts. He could not conceal his disappointment; the proposal made by the Swedish Minister, which was in the same spirit, did not satisfy his delegation; while acknowledging that progress had been made, it qualified that progress, and this was really not the moment to be equivocal about it. He therefore proposed two very simple sentences:
"The Ministers noted with satisfaction the important results achieved in the process of restoring democracy in Turkey. They also welcomed the return of the Turkish parliamentary delegation to the Assembly of the Council of Europe."
The CHAIRMAN said that as the Committee had spent much time discussing this item it would be a pity if no reference were to be made to it in the communique. However, any reference should be balanced, citing all sides of the debate. This meant delegations would have to show the will to compromise.
Mr. DIAMANTOPOULOS (Greece) said that he agreed with the proposition made by the Swedish Foreign Minister, but suggested that the expression "with satisfaction" be deleted. CONFIDENTIAL
- 61 - CM(84)PV 2
The CHAIRMAN said that in order not to confuse matters the Committee should confine its attention to the original proposition and the propositions made by the Swedish Minister and the Turkish Ambassador. The question was whether any delegation could not accept the text as proposed by the drafting committee.
Mr. BODSTROM (Sweden) said he felt it was better to abstain from making any judgments on the Turkish situation in order to avoid any misunderstanding. There was no reason for the Committee to comment on the activities of the Assembly which was essentially a sovereign body.
Mr. LUSH (United Kingdom) agreed with the Chairman's comment on the importance of a reference in the communique'. He wondered whether there was any possibility of the Turkish delegation accepting any rephrasing of the Swedish proposal. The Minister had said that morning that there was still some way to go towards "complete normalisation". Could not something be taken from that statement? He could not agree that there should be no comment on the Assembly's initiative particularly since everyone who had spoken welcomed the return of the Turkish delegation.
The CHAIRMAN thanked Mr. Lush for his efforts at compromise and emphasised the need again for a balanced reference in the communique'.
Mr. KORKUD (Turkey) thought that the two very simple sentences which he had proposed reflected adequately what had been said that morning, since the first sentence also implied the continuing nature of the process of the restoration of democracy.
However, since developments in Turkey did not depend on a paragraph in the final communiqug of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, he did not insist.
He thanked the distinguished Representative of the United Kingdom for his efforts, but if it were not possible to reach agreement on the utterly simple text he himself had suggested, there was really no point in continuing.
Mr. RAEBER (Switzerland) felt that the communique ought to contain some reference to Turkey, although it seemed to be difficult to devise a text expressing everyone's opinions. One solution would be for the communique' to indicate the majority opinion, followed by the minority opinion, which would mean including a passage corresponding roughly to the Swedish Minister's proposal and then a text to the effect that the Turkish delegation regretted the inability of the other delegations to be further in their approval of the positive developments in Turkey.
Mr. KORKUD (Turkey) felt that the Swedish delegation's proposals would create a precedent which could have adverse consequences.
The CHAIRMAN noted that the necessary unanimity could not be reached, and proposed that the paragraph concerned be withdrawn.
This was agreed to. CONFIDENTIAL
CM(84)PV 2 - 62 -
Mr. DIAMANTOPOLOUS (Greece) proposed an amendment three lines before the end of what became paragraph 3 of the communique as finally adopted, which would make reference to the fact that Ministers had taken into account the persisting tensions in Poland and the lack of progress towards a political settlement in Afganistan.
Mr. VRANKEN (Belgium) said that these amendments were unacceptable to his delegation and preferred to leave the text as it stood.
After consideration of further textual amendments, the text of the final communique was adopted as it appears at Appendix II below.
Mr. BODSTROM (Sweden) thanked the Chairman, at the end of the Danish presidency, for the excellent way in which he had conducted the presidency and represented the Committee in the Assembly and elsewhere.
The CHAIRMAN expessed his thanks and declared the Session closed.
The sitting rose at 5.14 p.m. CONFIDENTIAL
- 63 - CM(84)PV 2
APPENDIX I
AGENDA for the 74th Session of the Committee of Ministers, held on Thursday, 10 May 1984 at 9.30 am, at the Council of Europe, Palais de 1'Europe, Strasbourg
1. Adoption of the agenda.
2. Progress of European co-operation (CM(84)93, CM(84)94 and CM(84)95).
3. Political exchanges of views on East/West relations and any other political subjects of topical interest.
4. Human rights (CM(84)74).
5. North/South questions (CM(84)99).
6. United Nations CM(84)36).
7. Other business
a. Turkey - Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey
8. Dates of forthcoming Sessions.
9. Final communique. CM(84)PV 2 - 64 -
APPENDIX II
FINAL COMMUNIQUE OF THE 74TH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
10 May 1984
1. The Committee of Ministers of the 21 nation Council of Europe (1) held its 74th Session in Strasbourg today under the Chairmanship of Mr. Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. In the Organisation's 35th anniversary year Ministers recalled the essential contribution which the Council of Europe is making to the construction of Europe. They noted the reports presented by the presidency of the Ten and by EFTA. They referred to the situation in some member States, notably Cyprus and Turkey. They examined the state of East/West relations. They mentioned in particular the Stockholm Conference on disarmament in Europe. The Political Directors informed them of their exchanges of views on Latin America and the Middle East. Stressing once more the Council's fundamental contribution to the protection of human rights, Ministers accepted the principle of holding a ministerial conference on this theme. Finally, they raised the question of North/South relations.
2. Ministers welcomed the abolition of the last remaining tariff barriers and quantitative restrictions affecting trade in industrial products between the European Community and EFTA States. The largest system of free trade in the world had thus been established and Ministers considered it to be an encouraging step forward towards the creation of a European economic area. The joint Declaration adopted by Ministers from Community and EFTA States on 9 April 1984 to mark the event, included a reference to the Council of Europe. Ministers agreed to take account of it in the framework of their on-going study of the role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification. Ministers referred to the need for co-operation between the various European fora where cultural activities were undertaken and stressed the primary role played by the Council of Europe in this respect.
(1) Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. - 65 - CM(84)PV 2
Ministers instructed their Deputies to submit their proposals concerning the role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification and on strengthening and enlarging co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Communities for their 75th Session in November 1984 and to make suggestions for the possible implementation of those proposals.
3. Ministers continued their political exchanges of views started at their informal meeting the previous evening and in the light of the separate meeting of Political Directors.
Recalling the importance of the CSCE process and their determination to establish with the Soviet Union and the East European countries a constructive dialogue and co-operation on a stable and realistic basis, they expressed the wish that the disarmament and arms .control negotiations would be successful and that those which had been interrupted would resume. Referring to the Stockholm Conference, they expressed the wish that it would yield a set of practical, binding and verifiable confidence- and security-building measures covering the whole of Europe as defined in the mandate of the Conference.
Furthermore, Ministers expressed their concern at the situation still prevailing in Poland and the new, serious developments in the situation in Afghanistan (1).
4. On the question of Lebanon, Ministers expressed the hope that a government having the support of all the people of Lebanon would manage to bring about a lasting peace throughout the country. They stressed the need for initiating without delay processes which would lead to the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanese territory except those whose presence had been agreed by the Government of this country.
5. As for Latin America, Ministers stressed their support for the continuing efforts of the Contadora group to promote peace, democracy and economic and social development in Central America. Recalling the Committee of Ministers' Resolution (83)29 on Argentina, they then expressed the hope that the example of that country's peaceful return to democracy would be followed by other countries where human rights were being violated. In particular, Ministers hoped that the dialogue between the authorities and the democratic forces in Chile would resume and that a government based on free elections would quickly re-establish civil liberties.
(1) The Delegations of Cyprus and Greece expressed reservations on this sentence. CM(84)PV 2 - 66 -
6. Ministers accepted the principle of holding a ministerial conference on human rights and expressed their appreciation to the Austrian authorities for having offered to invite this Conference to Vienna for 1985. They hoped that the Conference would give further impetus to the work of the Council of Europe in this field in which it has played an essential role since its creation.
7. In the field of human rights, Ministers noted once more the views which the Spanish Prime Minister had expressed to the Parliamentary Assembly on 31 January last, particularly those concerning the need to respond through firm, concerted and joint action to the threat which terrorist violence represents for democratic freedoms in member countries.
8. Recalling their discussions at an earlier Session concerning the proposal for a Conference of European Ministers responsible for Research, Ministers noted with satisfaction that such a conference would be held in September 1984 in Paris at the invitation of the French Government. They hoped that it would lead to practical measures to develop contacts and exchanges between scientists, laboratories and research institutes in Europe as well as European co-operative research.
9. Ministers gave preliminary consideration to the final Declaration adopted by the Conference "North/South: Europe's role" organised by the Parliamentary Assembly in Lisbon in April 1984. Welcoming the Assembly's initiative, they agreed that the Council of Europe should make its contribution to promoting North/South relations. They accordingly instructed their Deputies to study the Declaration in the light of the Assembly's deliberations on the subject and to report back.
10. Ministers congratulated Mr. Marcelino Oreja Aguirre on his election as Secretary General of the Organisation. Mr. Oreja will take up his duties for a term of five years starting on 1 October 1984.
They paid warm tribute to the present Secretary General, Mr. Franz Karasek, and to his contribution to the activities of the Council of Europe during his term of office.
11. The Committee agreed to hold its 75th Session on 22 November 1984.