COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONSEIL DE L* EUROPE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS 40th Session

Strasbourg, 19th May 196? Confidential CM (67) PV 1

MINUTES ol' 'olio r.ioofcin^ uold on 24th April 196?,.at the headquarters of the

PRESENT ' . - CMPV004

AUSTRIA Mr. L. TQNCIC SORINJ Mr. P. HARMED, Chairman . CYPRUS Mr. S. KYPRIANOU Mr.. P.. FISCHER (1) FRANCE Mr. A. BETTENCOURT (2) FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Mr. G. JAHN (J>] GREECE • • 'Mr.'B, VITSAXIS (4) ICELAND 'IRELAND ' • Mr. F. AIKEN ./.

(1) Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replacing Mr. J.O. KRAG, Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs (2) Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replacing Mr. COUVE de MURVILLE, Minister for Foreign Affairs. (3) Parliamentary Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,, replacing Mr. W. BRANDT, Minister for Foreign Affairs (4) Greek Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe, replacing Mr. ECONOMOU-GOURAS, Minister for Foreign Affairs

5978 02/1 CM (6?) PV 1 - 2 -

ITALY Mr". "G. OLIVA (I) LUXEMBOURG Mr. P. GREGOIRE MALTA .- Mr. P. PULLICINO (?.} Mr. J. VIXSEBOXSE (3) NORWAY Mr. 0. MYRVOLL (4) ..Mr.. ,-G. LANGE (5) SWITZERLAND Mr. W. SPUHLER TURKEY • • Mr. N. DINg (6)' UNITED KINGDOM Mr. P.- MULLEY (?)

./..

(l) Under-Secretary of State1 for Foreign Affairs., replacing Mr, A. FANFANJ, Minister.-for Foreign Affairs (2) Maltese Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe, replacing Mr..G..BORG OLIVIER, Prime Minister and Minister for Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs

(3) Netherlands Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe, replacing Mr. J.M.A.H, LUNS, Minister for ._ Foreign Affairs ' ' W Minister of Finance, replacing Mr. J. LYNG, Minister-for Foreign Affairs (5) •Minister of Trade, replacing Mr. T.-N-ILSSON,- Minister- - for Foreign Affairs (6) Turkish Permanent Representative to the Council of- Europe, r-eplacing Mr. I,S. CAGLAYANGIL, Minister for Foreign Affairs ...... (7) Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, replacing Mr. George BROWN, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs . ' . . • - • ' ' - 3 - CM (6?) PV 1

Mr. P. SMITHERS Secretary General Mr, P. MODINOS Deputy Secretary General Mr. H. LELEU Political Director Mr. J. PRIESTMAN Secretary of the Committee of Ministers

o o

Mr. P. HARMEL, Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, opened the moe.ting at 9.20 a.m. THE CHAIRMAN said that, before starting with the Agenda, he wished to pay tribute to Chancellor Konrad ADENAUER, (The Ministers and Representatives rose), THE CHAIRMAN felt sure that in paying tribute to the memory of the great European .who had passed away, he was speaking for all members of the Committee. In critical bines, Konrad Adenauer had been an inspiration to peoples seeking the road back to freedom and democracy. Rejecting nationalism, the cause .of three fratricidal wars, he had chosen for his country the path of parliamentary democracy. Although an •advocate of the widest possible Europe, he had understood that the first task was to achieve a close unity among'the democratic countries. The best tribute they could pay to him was to continue his work and set themselves to build Europe with the same ardour he had brought to the task. (The Ministers and Representatives observed a minute's silence,!

I. ADOPTION OP THE AGENDA The draft Agenda for the 4oth Session was adopted (Appendix I).

./. GM (67) TV 1 - 4 -

II. WORK PROGRAMME THE CHAIRMAN recalled that at the 38th Session the Ministers had instructed the. Secretary General to report to them on the execution of the Programme and to examine such modifications as might be suggested by experience. THE SECRETARY GENERAL said that two years ago, when the Committee of Ministers had decided to draw up the Work Programme which had been put into operation last year, there had been certain general aims in view. The Programme was intended to relate the projects undertaken by the Council of Europe to definite objectives in the fields in which these projects were to take place and to the general aims of 'the- Council- itself. The principal object of the Programme was to organise the work of the Council so that Governments could obtain a view, and'thus control, of this work as a whole. In this way an, instrument would be placed in the hands of Governments for • using the Council more efficiently. The results of the first year of operation .of the Programme had been.to show that the expense of intergovernmental operations, which constituted of all Council of Europe activities, had not increased on the coming into operation of-'the Programme. On the contrary, improved working methods had been obtained without additional .. expensei • The mechanism of the Programme had worked quite well considering its experimental character, but a few problems had arisen. Firstly the Council operated on the intergovernmental side through some 60 expert committees. These committees had not in the past worked in accordance with a unified programme and they had had to get used to operating in accordance with such a programme as laid down by the Committee of Ministers. It had sometimes been difficult for the aims of the programme to be .properly .communicated to the. committees of experts. It. was hoped that Governments would see that their experts were •• fully aware of the need to conform to the directives of the Committee of Ministers, particularly with regard to the completion of the work on time. • Since the first Work Programme had been initiated last year there had been a considerable improvement in relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly. - The

./. - 5 - CM (6?) PV 1

Assembly had become aware of the considerable work which Governments were, undertaking in the fields of European co- operation and unity. Also, sound parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the Council had now been established. The publication in book form of last year's Work Programme had been of great value. It had proved very useful in showing other international organisations the work the Council was doing. The booklet would be published again this year, with some changes to meet.the suggestions of the Assembly and of Governments, and would give an even clearer picture of the Council's work. Although the Work Programme had started as a Secretariat initiative, to which Governments had agreed, its object was to put an instrument into the hands of Governments, not those of the Secretariat itself. The next phase of the Programme was to introduce the . . , technique of corporate management. If the mechanism was to be operated by Governments, rather than by the Secretary General, this was in keeping with the purpose of the Statute of the Council, which stressed that it was an intergovernmental organisation. He turned to consider the relationship with other countries and organisations. In a Europe moving towards closer unifica- tion, it was necessary for the Secretariat to have closer working partnerships with other organisations, especially the European Communities. In this it had only been partly successful. Joint meetings with the Commission's services, in Brussels had taken place and had made a modest but valuable contribution. However, now that the enlargement of the Communities was a possibility, it was even more important to get good co-ordination between the Council and the Communities. Whatever happened as a result o'f these political moves, the Council would have a part to play; and so he hoped that Governments would give even more help to the Council in the year ahead in its relations with the Communities. He thought he should mention that a close relationship had also been established with the EFTA Secretariat. Good working arrangements existed and the Secretariats, were in constant touch with each other.

./. CM (6?) PV 1 - 6 -"

He turned to a subject which had been of considerable* interest to the' Committee in the past, and of which the Secretariat had recently made a study, namely overlapping and duplication-between the various international organisations. . . Governments had been asked to comment on the report that had been made, and their comments together with the report would, he hoped, be considered at the December meeting. There appeared to be a trend for all international organisation's to enlarge their competence. Thus OECD had . been moving into the field of education; UNESCO also proposed to embark on educational activities, specially in Europe; and both these moves overlapped with work being done'by the Council of Europe. It seemed also that ECE was likely to . • enalrge its competence. Before he retired in 22-months time, the Secretary General said that he would like to clarify'the mandate of this Organisation and others. He agreed with the statement made by U Thant that the work o"f all international organisations should now be re-examined, in the light of their Statutes. * • Ke hoped-that the Committee would encourage the Deputies, to continue their study along the lines of the paper submitted by the Secretariat. Using very modest resources, the Programme of VJork had tried to encourage progress on a governmental level. Any success achieved wan due, not to seeking headlines, but to trying to identify the problems of modern society in which international agreement was necessary and possible. They were building unity slowly but .surely from the foundations up. On •' . behalf of the Secretariat he asked .the Ministers for their continued support, and expressed his gratitude 'to the Ministers' Deputies. ' . THE CHAIRMAN thanked the Secretary Genera! for his statement and said'.that it was due to the Secretariat's initiative that there was a Programme of Work at all. Although the proposal had subsequently been approved by the two organs of the Council of Europe, it was incumbent on the Committee to pay tribute to . the officials who had conceived the Programme o.nd were operating it with assiduity and skill. ' Referring to one of the questions raised by the Secretary General - the overlapping between international organisations working in Europe - the Chairman said that in 'the view .of .several delegations the position was not rsufTiclently' o'iear 'for Qoneluaioris to be drawn today. It might be best to defer consideration of this important question, which needed careful study, to the 4lst session. ./. - 7 - CM (67) PV 1

Mr. GPJHLSR (Switzerland) emphasised the usefulness of the Programme of Work drawn, up for the Council of Europe a year ago, than.lc.-3 to tho initiative of Mr. Sir.i there. It had helped and would contij.v.e to help make the Council of Europe better known to the general public, international organisations and countries which v/er-^ not members of the Council. The .technical deirands nade by this intergovernmental work reflected - a real transformation in the life of the Council of Kurope: the Council v;as beco;\;irji.; an instrument capable of accomplishing the tasks entrusted .to it within specified time-limits. The Programme was, admittedly',, still at an experimental stage; priorities still newel ec: to be better defined in order to establish the general, ctructure without sacrificing the details. The effort of drawing up a programme of work appeared too heavy, to be repeated ever;r year. If the rhythm adopted in 1966 and 1967 were maintained., the Secretariat and .member countries might find themselves unable to keep up-with the work. It would perhaps be preferable to prepare the programmes every two years in future, like some other large international organisations. This would allow more time for thought,,for examining results and methods and for selecting the questions to be dealt with. One did not prune a tree every year if one wished it to bear fruit. There was.- moreover, no reason why-at the end of a .year a limited number of questions should not be revised if it' .. proved urgently necessary. , •.. .- ''•'''. • . l- • . He hoped in Conclusion that the Permanent Representatives would study these ideas, suggested to him by recent experience '. . and the dosir-1- *-.o do better. ' - Mr. OLIVA -(Italy).said that Italy agreed with the 'Secretary General that in order.to avoid duplication there should be more co-ordination and a better demarcation of competences. The Scereuary Gev.ieral'-s measures would not solve the difficulties but vjer-3 a useful start. It was .advisable also-to limit '-•lif Council's own activities, concentrating on those of i'liporlnnce. The financial implications of a l^.rge -Work Programs called .Tor careful attention. Mr. MULLSY (Upitc'd K^ngdoin) said that the present review • gave them ar; opportunity to assess the progress r;it.de during the lact year, which hf.d lieon, some moves towards concentration of effort. He agreed that Ministers should eontinuc to study the question of overlapping between the vork of International organicatiuna,

; . • './..- CM (6?) ?V 1 - B -

The new procedure governing the incorporation of new item,'; in the Programme was a desirable innovation which would help to avoid overloading though it was perhaps desirable to go further towards the establishment of priorities. Effort would be war; ted if the timetables laid down "rfore not adhered' to. The present Progrumrne set the Council of Europe on the right course-., which was indeed ambitious, but unavoidably so if the Council of Europe were to meet its statutory objectives. He felt confident that at this time next year they would have ano'i-her good, year's worl: to report. Mr. TOI-TCIC () said that there were basically two causes of overlapping. The first was that international organisations were like the moon in that they waxed and waned according to whether they were in good health or traversing a time of crisis. It was almost a physiological phenomenon. The second reason was that behind any international organisation there were certain powers having special interests. The problem was thus particularly delicate. The Council of Europe, Western , ECE and the OECD might woll meet again to discuss the question of over- lapping; this would serve as a preliminary step but the difficulties could only be solved in the end by the Governments themselves. ' Mr. KYPniANOU (Cyprus) paid tribute to the work of the Secretary General and the Miniet si-s* Deputies ard s.-v'.^. that his Governnien'j full;/- approved of the report. As regards duplication there was room for improvement as they went along; certainly Governments must decide, but the organisations themselves should pave the way for the decisions. ;\rs t?^.c ^<=»xt Chairman he took a special interest in this problem of over''.appirs, particularly since he was representing one of the smaller nations of the Council of Europe which were more affected 'by the problem. He thought that more contact between international organisations would be helpful and suggested a possible meeting between the Secretary General of the , the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and himself at the end of May.

./. - 9 - CM (6?) PV 1

Mr. VIXSEBOXSE (Netherlands) while congratulating all those who had drawn up the second Programme, which was an improvement on the first, thought.that there was still some way to go.. Quality should not give way to quantity and a careful selection should be made of the really important subjects. He was somewhat disappointed that the work was not always completed within the prescribed time and he stressed the importance of the early despatch of documents so that 'Governments might have tir.ie to consider them. Mr. FISCHER (Denmark) congratulated the Secretary General on the Programme.and said that it could serve as a model, both for other organisations and for national administrations. It was important that the Programme should be flexible and adaptable to international developments. The problem of overlapping had to be kept under permanent review but overlapping was to a certain extent unavoidable and even to some extent desirable. Denmark had established committees to study the political, financial and other problems arising from overlapping. THE SECRETARY GENERAL thanked Ministers for their valuable criticisms and contributions to the discussion. Their remarks had referred firstly to concentrating the activities of the Council and this indeed was the essence of the Programme. He would remind the Committee that when the Programme had been inaugurated, he had said that it would take five years to bring the various projects into line with the Council's objectives. It' was hoped that the second Programme which was 'now being introduced would result in a reduction of the number of projects. Concentration of activities, however, depended on Governments -impressing on their representatives in committees the need to concentrate on the more important items. The points which had been made on overlapping should guide the work of the organisation during this summer. He referred to the suggestion of the Foreign Minister of Cyprus and said that he agreed that further conversations with the United Nations would be extremely valuable in shaping the work of the Council. The Swiss delegate had suggested that the Programme should be biennial. He would point out, however, that the Programme must be such as to be quickly adaptable to circumstances and, in particular, must take account of the Assembly's suggestions without too great a time-lag. A biennial Programme would be valuable in some ways but conversion of the Programme to this basis, while helping to solve some problems, would create certain others and he would wish to undertake a careful study of the administrative implications of such a conversion before pronouncing on its feasibility. ./. CM (6?) PV 1 - 10 -

The Minister of State of the United Kingdom had said that the Programme was ambitious but, as he well knew, the original aims of. the Council of Europe had been equally ambitious; the Council was indeed called upon -to work in a great number of fields. ' The Representative of the Netherlands had referred to the need for the early receipt of documentation with regard to the Programme; this was certainly essential.and would admittedly be easier if the Programme were placed on a biennial basis. The Representative of Denmark had referred to his country's work in considering the problems of overlapping and he would like to say how much the Council had appreciated.the action-of Denmark and-certain other countries in co-ordinating the activities of'their -various governmental departments in relation to the work of the Council. THE CHAIRMAN thanked the Secretary General and submitted Resolution (67) 9 on the Programme of Intergovernmental Work . to the Committee. The Resolution was adopted (Appendix II). THE CHAIRMAN thought the Committee could rely on 'the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cyprus, next Chairman of the Committee, and the Secretary General to make a thorough study of the question of relations between-'the Council of Europe and the United Nations. If Mr. Spuhler agreed, the Secretary General could also in the study envisaged pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Resolution just adopted, explore the idea of a biennial programme together with the Permanent. Represen- tatives and report to the Committee on the question at the next session. ' Mr. SPUHLER agreed with this suggestion. THE CHAIRMAN proposed, lastly, that the question of over- lapping be placed on the Agenda for the 4lst Session and that it be studied by Governments in the'meantime. (Agreed. ) • '

./. - 11 - CM (6?) PV 1

III. RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATES

THE CHAIRMAN recalled that the Secretary General, in his telegram, had suggested a plan for the discussion of item J>. This was by a survey of bilateral relations with non-member countries, particularly East European countries, and by determining how multilateral European co-operation could be developed. THE SECRETARY GENERAL said that he thought it would be preferable for him to listen to the views of Governments on . this item before intervening himself in the discussion. Mr. MULLEY (United Kingdom) said that the debates in the last Consultative Assembly and other recent discussions had given evidence of growing interest in East-West relations. There was a growing readiness of East European countries, particularly the Soviet Union, to make contacts with Western Europe. He thought the Council of Europe had an important part to play in the process of East-VJest rapprochement, and the visit of the Secretary General to Poland was a practical ' example of the sort of thing that could be done. The British Government sympathised with the aims of Recommendation 4?4. Associating the countries of Eastern Europe with the work of the Council of Europe was, however, a process which should not be rushed and for some time he thought that bilateral contact woxild continue to be more important than multilateral co-operation. He was interested in the proposal to draw up a list of activities which might encourage the rapprochement between countries of different political systems. The publication of the Programme of Work had, he thought, proved useful in thi.- respect. It was questionable whether it would be profitable to go further at this stage but Ministers' Deputies should consider what other steps might be taken. He alluded to the recent visits of Mr. Kosygin and . Mr. Rapacki to London, and said he would be ready to elaborate on the results achieved if any delegation so wished.

./. CM (5?) PV, 1 . - 12- -

Mr. TONCIC (Austria) said that'his country had always'had, and continued to have, many contacts with Eastern Europe. He was able to speak with -some experience of the possibilities of East-West rapprochement, and 'of the attitude of Eastern European Governments towards the Council of Europe. He believed that the"'Soviet Union's basic mistrust of moves towards strengthening Europe was greater now than it had'' ever been before. This was because of their fear of finding themselves- exposed at one and the same time on their. Eastern and their Western frontiers: their growing fear of China to the East now made them particularly suspicious and cautious .with regard to Western Europe. They were well-informed about- the Council of Europe, but to them it was .air .organ! sat ion of the West, They preferred to see a strengthening of. the Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva, .'and had sent a Vice-Prime' Minister to attend the recent meeting of the ECE Council in Geneva, partly to talk about technology but also to play a political role. The.Soviet Union also 'distrusted a number of individual countries. In their eyes West Germany had greater influence' now than before'and this -increased their distrust. It also seemed to them that West Germany was aiming to lure the Eastern European countries away from Soviet influence. Their distrust extended to the Eastern European countries themselves. For example, the growing independence of Roumania seemed to them to be a .possible-source of future'danger. They were suspicious about the activities of the Group of Nine, Turning to-the other Eastern European States, Mr. Toncic noted how Rournania, which might provide1 the next President of the United Nations General Assembly, was gradually strengthening her position in world affairs. Yugoslavia of course had • already attained real independence- in foreign policy. There was less-independence- in Czechoslovakia, less still in Poland. Last of all'came Albania and' East Germany, Albania, it seemed, felt herself threatened by all her neighbours and 'by •' the Soviet Government too. . It was interesting to note that they had closed their Embassy at Prague and moved it to Vienna. Soviet policy was directed to obtaining-greater recognition of the East German Government. Every draft communique which the Russians sought to agree with other countries contained sentences which, it was hoped, could afterwards be used to

./. - 13 - • CM (6?) PV 1

bolster up the case for recognising the East German State, They also always tried to include sentences referring to neo- Nazi activity in West Germany. They were constantly putting' out feelers about a European security conference in order to discover how many countries would be willing to exclude the USA from such a conference.' It seemed to him that the Soviet' Government was more bitterly opposed to German reunification today than ever before. . ' In Soviet eyes, the European Economic Community was'an effective economic weapon designed to strengthen NATO by building up a European nuclear industry which could be used both in peace and war. This accounted for their strong hostility to that organisation. Mr. LANGE (Sweden) said he first wished to comment on the earlier speeches. The problem of East-West relations .was important to all European countries. He noted the British • view that the best way to proceed at present was bilaterally and said that Sweden shared the UK's approach to this problem. Certainly all possible ways of making contact with Eastern countries should be pursued and indeed some of these countries participated in the GATT. Sweden, like Austria, felt that there was room for a greater exchange of information but agreed that they should move very cautiously and that it might be that multilateral organisations did not offer the best approach. He saw no point in trying to interpret the motives of Eastern European countries? much better to give them a chance to express themselves. 'They should not expect spectacular results in the near future; they could revert ' to the subject later on but there was not a groat deal to be' said about it today, Mr. JAHN (Federal Republic of Germany) spoke of the efforts made by the Federal Government to resume nornal relations with the East European countries; they were a proof 'of the Federal Republic's desire..to bring about a detente in Europe, to overcome the existing division in so far as possible and to establish enduring peace. Wherever the possibility appeared, the Federal Government sought to improve their relations with their neighbours and to resume diplomatic relations with them. 'Their efforts had already produced some successes. With Roumania, for Instance, the Federal Republic of Germany had, on Jlst January 196?, at Bucharest, agreed to resume diplomatlo relations, wiihoulj ./, CM (6?) PV 1 - 14 -

prejudice to the position of each of the.two States concerned regarding the German question., and with a pragmatic arrangement relating to West Berlin.-. The Federal .Republic had made known • in Prague, Budapest and Sofia its readiness to discuss the re-opening of diplomatic relations. However, Warsaw and . East Berlin, supported by Moscow, sought to hinder its efforts for a detente by means of a'lively diplomatic and propaganda, campaign. It was necessary to consider in this light the Foreign Ministers' Conference at Warsaw held on 8th February last, and the conclusion of bilateral treaties of alliance between the Eastern European States and East Berlin.. However, these. treaties did not necessarily restrict the_ scope of political ' activity of"itc Eastern neighbours. ' Various declarations by Statesmen from the East had let it be understood that there was no intention of closing the door finally. Yugoslavia posed a special problem; until such time as normal diplomatic relations could be resumed, the Federal Republic of Germany was endeavouring to improve its economic and social contacts with.that country, . They understood only too well that the birth of a nationalist party in the Federal Republic complicated th« task, and.they welcomed the fact that, at the elections held in two LSnder the day before, the party in question had lost . . votes. They hoped that the diplomatic successes which ought to attend their perseverehce would turn those Germans who were attracted by nationalism away from it. The Federal .Government counted on the support of their friends to convince the East European Governments of their goodwill. . THE CHAIRMAN wished to say how much the Committee appreciated Mr. Jahn's presence on a day of national mourning for his country. ' ' ' . ' ..... • ^ Mr. BETTENCOURT (France) spoke of recent developments.in Franco-Polish relations. The Minister for Foreign Affairs -of • . Poland'..had visited-Paris from 26th to 28th January and had been' '. received by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs: the French Foreign .. , : • Minister had himself visited Poland in 1966. The improvement ' , which had been recorded in the sphere of cultural and economic relations after 1956 had gradually, spread to the political

./. - 15 - CM (6?) PV 1

field, and in September 19&5 the Polish Prime Minister had been received in Paris. These Franco-Polish talks formed part of the contacts which France had established with the East European countries. During his talks with the French leaders, the Polish Minister had discussed the German question and European security. While admitting that there had been a change of tone in the Federal Government's attitude towards the countries of the East, he had asserted that he could not as yet perceive any change of substance. Mr. Couve de Murville, who had laid stress on the present trend of the Federal Government's policy, had noted with satisfaction that Poland did'not propose any particular juridical formula for the Western countries' attitude to the German Democratic Republic. As for European security, the Polish Minister had taken the view that this question should not be dealt with hastily. Poland was continuing its endeavours towards the calling of a conference on European security. The Franco-Polish talks would be resumed next June on the occasion of General de Gaulle's visit to Poland. In addition, the French Prime Minister was due to visit the Soviet Union during the first half of July. In the sphere of multilateral co-operation, France viewed the efforts of the Group of Nine with sympathy. As for the Council of Europe itself, it should proceed in a positive but circumspect manner so as not to give the impression of seeking to commit the Eastern countries to co-operation with the West. Reference had been made to the role which the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe could play. He had recently visited Geneva and had been favourably impressed by the work carried out there. The Committee of Ministers were naturally not competent to make recommendations concerning the activities of other international bodies; taut he, thought the Economic Commission could constitute a very useful forum for the objective discussion of European economic problems. Lastly, according to the Secretary General's telegram, the Chairman had suggested that it would be useful to compile a list of questions whose discussion might facilitate a rapprochement between East and West, and to divide these

./, CM (67) PV 1 - 16 -

questions into two groups according to whether they could best be treated bilaterally or multilaterally. Although such a . classification was probably desirable, he was afraid, it might be difficult to effect. Mr. OLIVA (Italy) said that the pattern of East-West relation's at present was characterised by the fact that on both sides experiments were being made with bilateral and multilateral contacts. These tendencies had been encouraged in the -United Nations, in the Atlantic framework and in the Council of Europe. Italy had attempted to contribute towards the development of .: these .tendencies, while exercising the proper degree of caution. There had been recent visits to Rome by the Presidents of the Soviet Union and of Poland. President Podgorny's visit, had proved useful and there had been a frank exchange of views which had made it easier to explore areas of agreement, although on certain problems such as Germany and Vietnam-they had confirmed the inflexible position of.both parties. The visit of the Polish President had shown that the Polish position was in line with that of the Soviet Union with regard to Vietnam and Germany, but had-, indicated a more flexible attitude on Poland's part in regard to the question of European security. Italy had . .. emphasised"that the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany, to Increase contacts with Eastern Europe should not be hampered or discouraged. Poland had been one of the first East European countries to express interest in the decision taken in 1964 by the Committee of Ministers to develop contacts on the . • technical level between the Council of Europe and-these countries. It was valuable that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe had recently been invited to \7arsaw to discuss co-operation on technical developments. The visits of the two Presidents had on the whole confirmed the value of East-West contacts in strengthening the causes of detente and of economic and cultural co-operation which might have political results also. He had listened.with interest to the views of other-members on the prospects for- multilateral contacts. Relations between multilateral groups•on both sides continued to be problematical and he would suggest that the Council of Europe might find it easier to play a role in developing such relations than would other international organisations. • . • • Mr. FISCHER (Denmark) agreed that it was. useful to promote relations with East European countries. Denmark had been active in this respect. • In the bilateral field both state visits and other visits, whether of scientists, students and other individuals, were useful and it was difficult to say which were ./. - 17 - CM (67) PV 1

the most valuable. It was valuable also to make a catalogue of these contacts, as the Secretary General proposed, in order to see what more could be done In this field. With regard to multilateral contacts mistrust of the Council of Europe still existed in certain quarters in Eastern Europe. However this need not exclude efforts towards cultural and other contacts, which should be pursued in an entirely non- political context. Mr. VIXSEBOXSE (Netherlands) said that the third paragraph of the reply of the Committee of Ministers to Recommendation 474 of the Consultative Assembly referred to both bilateral and multilateral contacts between East and West. If it were a question of choosing between the two forms of approach, the Netherlands Government would prefer the bilateral while not excluding the multilateral. In this connection he referred to the visit of the Netherlands Foreign Minister to Roumania in January of this year. This visit had been an official one and had given Mr. Luns an opportunity for discussions with a number of Roumanian Ministers. An open exchange of views had taken place on a wide range of topics and although nothing, really new had been disclosed in the views presented by the Roumanian side the discussions could be said to have been useful. It was manifest that Roumania aimed at an improvement of. its relations with all West European countries. During the visit a bilateral cultural agreement was signed, and an understanding had been reached in respect of reparations by Roumania. for expropriated Netherlands property. Lastly, Premier Maurer and Minister Manescu had accepted an invitation for an .official visit to the Netherlands. Within Benelux trade talks had been continuing with various Eastern European countries, and long-term agreements on the liberalisation of imports had been initialled with Poland and . In addition a new road transport agree- ment with Czechoslovakia had recently been signed. The Secretary General's telegram had raised the question of bilateral 'or multilateral approaches. Bilateral moves came primarily within the responsibility of national govern- ments, but multilateral relations could be the legitimate concern of an international organisation to the degree in which there was full identity of view and of purpose among its members. The Council of Europe should not remain on the side-lines in any moves towards rapprochement: but if the consensus of opinion was that the Council should take action, it should be undertaken cautiously and within.the limit; at ions of the existing machinery. / • / • CM (6?) PV i - 18 -

Mr. SPtJHLER •(Switzerland) said that, as a neutral country, Switzerland desired a detente in East-West relations, regarding this as an objective of primary importance. It therefore approved any rational endeavours made to this end,, whether on- a bilateral or multilateral basis, and hoped that they would be successful. Switzerland, for its part, held that the framing of a policy of detente was, by its very nature, the concern of governments rather than of international organisations. A number of these international organisations could, however, help to bring about a detente. One of these was the United' Nations Economic Commission for Europe where the countries of Eastern and Western Europe already met. The Council of Europe, for its part, could also, in the words of the Chairman "promote a rapprochement between countries with different political systems" by helping to improve the climate in Europe. The fairly positive reactions of Polish circles on the occasion of Mr. Smithers1 visit to V/arsaw, and other signs, gave reason to believe that the East European countries felt a certain interest in the Council of Europe. The Council should therefore not fail to take, the opportunity open to it to become one of the architects of detente. To achieve progress, mutual confidence was as essential as mutual respect-for the Interests involved. This prerequisite- was rightly invoked' in the Committee of Ministers' reply to •' Recommendation 47'4 'of the Assembly. The Council of Europe might be one of the places where this mutual confidence would find expression from the very moment, the Eastern countries started talcing part in certain technical activities. To arouse increasing interest on the part of those, countries in the Council of Europe, this organisation should make every effort to carry out its Programme of Work as soon as possible. The Programme contained several projects of great value in the European context, in its widest sense. . The Eastern European countries should inform themselves of this, if they wished, and could participate, "in what ever-'manner appropriate if they desired to do so. The Members of the Council of Europe should not, however,' • lose sight of their main objective, which was to achieve ever - • closer unity among themselves. More effective action to this end would, moreover, be of undoubted help to them .in their relations with'other countries, which would naturally feel the • • attraction of the Council's common aehlevoroQnfcB, ./. - 19 - CM (6?) PV 1

Lastly, in regard to questions whose discussion was likely to favour a rapprochement, he thought they should be mainly technical in the broadest sense of the term. In his view, it was in this light that the Deputies should study the Chairman's suggestions in the forthcoming months. Mr. AIKEN (Ireland) said that he wished to associate the Irish delegation with the tribute that had been paid to Dr. Adenauer. In considering the problem of East-West relations, he was reminded of the situation that had existed in Western Europe in 19^8. At that time there were strictly controlled trade arrangements, high tariffs and strict quotas. Once the European payments union had been set up, the situation eased; tariffs went down, quotas were abolished, and inter-European trade increased by 40$ within a fevi years. He would not press the analogy too far, but he pointed out that the principal doubt arising from the possibility of increased trade with the East was caused by the question of how payment would be made. Irish experience was that East-West trade was largely one way, and Foreign Ministers would have to consider the problems he had raised. In particular, while he wished them luck in their efforts to liberalise trade, he would not wish the increased trade to prove damaging to some of the smaller countries. THE CHAIRMAN, speaking as Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, said that, following talks with Poland, Roumania and Yugoslavia, he .had arrived at conclusions similar to those of the Secretary General. He felt that at present it was difficult to do more than prepare "a conference on European security" to be held at some distant date; such a conference should not be held unless there was some promise of success. The economic sphere probably offered the most numerous opportunities for bilateral or multilateral talks. A list of the bilateral agreements on technical, economic and commercial matters concluded with the countries of Eastern. Europe during the past three years would already be very eloquent. The best forum for such talks was the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe so long as its work did not enter the political field. / CM (6?) PV 1 - 20 -

In the military field, it was most difficult to achieve a detente through bilateral agreements. The reciprocity which any disarmament presupposed could only apply as between systems or groups of countries, not to speak of alliances. The Geneva Disarmament Conference seemed the most appropriate machinery for achieving progress towards a detente not only at world, but also at European, level. There were.many bilateral agreements .of a'scientific.and . technological nature; but the conference to be held in 1969 . • at the instigation of the United Nations, and prepared by talks in 1968, would provide an ideal forum for discussions between.all European countries. The United Nations would no- doubt- wish to discuss the preparation of the conference with OECD and the Council of Europe. Lastly, the initiative of the Group of Nine, which had already borne fruit, might prove very effective having regard to the flexibility of the action envisaged; a proposal such as that relating to the conclusion of agreements between countries with different political systems was unquestionably pertinent. • • The country most interested in de'tente in Europe was assuredly Germany; the Members of the Council of Europe would therefore closely follow, and support, the Federal Government's efforts, until the day, as yet impossible to foresee, when a multilateral agreement could finally be anchored in a peace treaty. During the coming months, the Permanent Representatives arid the Secretary General could be expected to make progress along the course which had been set. THE SECRETARY GENERAL said that although it was not for him to express views on how Governments should conduct their affairs, he might be able to offer some help as a specialist .. in the techniques of intergovernmental co-operation. Before going to Poland he had tried to deduce what the attitude of East European Governments would be towards.a multilateral approach, bearing in mind that outside the Warsaw Pact their only international machinery was the COMECON, which was devoted to economics, and the Economic Commission for Europe, also an economic body. It was clear, therefore, that these

./. - 21 - CM (67) PV 1

countries must be asking themselves whether they should do something to remedy their lack of multilateral machinery in other fields. V/hen he arrived in Warsaw he was immediately told that the Polish Government were studying the various international organisations, including the Council of Europe. His visit established beyond a doubt that the Poles were looking for a solution along the lines of that found by the countries of the West, but he was conscious of the fact that in Poland there were two views of the Council of Europe, one suspicious and ultra-conservative, the other open to new policies, progressive and adaptable to the new circumstances. Recently two members of the Council of Europe Secretariat had paid a private visit to Prague, under strict, instructions to take no initiatives but to reply to questions. They were soon contacted by the Czech Foreign Office and closely questioned aboxtt the Council of Europe; after three days they were told that the Czech Foreign Minister had authorised the Czech Institute of Foreign Affairs to enquire into the operations of the Council of Europe and either to send a representative to Strasbourg or to invite a representative of the Secretariat to Prague. It was clear that the Czech interest was quite serious, as was shown by an official statement made to the two members of the Secretariat, and written down by them immediately after the meeting. This was in the following terms: "Our country is aware of the need to strengthen this co-operation in various fields^ and we do feel the need for an organisation working in a similar way to the Council of Europe. However, we have not yet made up our minds what form this organisation should take. Of course one possibility is to form a similar organisation for all socialist European States, and this is the possibility which is at present favoured. However, we are anxious not to overlook another possibility, and it is in this context that we at present 'view the Council of Europe." It was clear that, whatever people in the West might think, the Eastern European countries were sincere in their desire for multilateral contacts and he urged that the response of the Council of Europe to any approach should be thought out. His personal opinion was that the-'problem was precise - how could Eastern European countries achieve multilateral co-operation with Western European countries - but that the answer was complex.„ They must look at the work of the Council of Europe ./. CM (6?) PV 1 - 22 -

in relation 'to the Economics Commission for Europe, the organisation favoured by the Soviet Union (it was worth noting in this • connection that''the U.S. also Was a member of the ECE), but he -thought it would be impossible to try to reconcile the activities of the two bodies if the scope of ECE was enlarged to cover non-economic fields. While he was in Poland lie had been told that some gesture was 'hoped for from the Council of. Europe and he was sure that this was so. With regard to the enquiries 'made by Czechoslovakia, the Secretariat felt that the utmost discretion was desirable in meeting this approach. He said that from the point of view of the organisation it was important that Ministers' Deputies should be in contact with all these develop- ments. Mr. TONCIC (Austria) said that the manner in which multi- lateral organisations were being used to make East-West contacts at the present time could be fruitful. The method' .' of bilateral contacts could be called the classical approach. The activities of the Group of Nine could be described as a third -approach and had come about largely by accident. In 1964 the Roumanian Government had introduce^ a Resolution on international co-operation in the United Nations but this- had failed to' gain the support of We'ste'rn countries. They had . .' wisely introduced an amended Resolution in 19^5 and this had gained the support of the whole United Nations Assembly. As' nothing had resulted frornthis, in, the autumn of 1S>56 the Roumanian Foreign Minister had discussed with the co-sponsors of the Resolution the best method of proceeding; and this led to the meeting of..'the 'Nine. It had become clear from that meeting that there was no sense in the Nine countries interfering in fundamental East-West problems, for example the German question, and also that the instltutionalisatiou of their discussions should be avoided. The field of activity '" of the Nine was therefore reduced to more acceptable questions, such as tourism, and as a practical outcome of this he' would point to.the abolition of Roumanian visas. The next meeting at Ministerial level of the Group would probably take 'place on an informal basis at the; United Nations in September. The practical.value of these, activities was difficult to define but could perhaps be seen principally as the creation of a favourable atmosphere for contacts between countries belonging to the Wars.aw'Pact'and NATO and neutral countries'.

./. - 23 - CM (6?) PV 1

Mr. LANGE (Sweden) said that he had listened with great • interest .to the views of his colleagues on the Committee. He wished to make it clear, however, that in the view of the Swedish Government the lline countries did not constitute a club or organisation. Certainly Sweden should not be considered as a member of any specific Club. THE' CHAIRMAN proposed that the debate be closed. The Committee would be able to resume it at a later meeting. (Agreed. ) THE CHAIRMAN said that, as a number-of important items remained on the agenda, he did not think they could conclude their business that morning. lie proposed that discussion of items 5, 6, 7 and 9 be deferred to another sitting which,, having regard to the fact that the Foreign Ministers had to go to Bonn for Chancellor ADENAUER'S funeral, could be held that afternoon at 3 p.m. under the chairmanship of Mr. Fischer, Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Denmark. (Agreed. ) IV. POLITICAL ASPECTS OF EUROPEAN ECONOMIC INTEGRATION THE CHAIRMAN called on Mr. Lange, Swedish Minister of Trade, to explain EFTA's point of view on the subject. Mr. LANGE (Sweden) said that this was a very important issue. European economic integration was not a new problem but had been a standing item on the Agenda for some time. So far no decisive steps had been taken although they might be in the near future. Both within EEC and EFTA there was a desire to overcome difficulties, and in general both organisations could be satisfied with the progress which so far had been made. Sweden considered that in the light of the heavy costs of research and development a wider economic co-operation in Europe was Inevitable. Turning to EFTA, he said that despite the elimination of tariffs, much still remained to be done. One example of this was in the matter of agriculture; a recent meeting at Stockholm had ordered a general view of EFTA practice in agricultural matters. In this as in all things they were anxious to keep in step with similar activities being under- taken within the Common Market. It wa» impofKtknb fehftt they ./. CM (6?) PV 1 - 24' -•

should bring to an end the economic division of Europe; EEC, and to a-more limited extent EFTA, should be preparing Europe for unification. • • ••' •' • Speaking on behalf of- Sweden, he thou.ght his- country was well placed to take part in 'European co-operation, both on an industrial and a social plane. In agriculture, for instance, Sweden had a system similar to that in the Common Market. Sweden's traditional neutrality had-not changed, but they never considered that this was in any way an obstacle to their participation in schemes for European co-operation. He supported the United Kingdom in their-'effort to join the Common Market, and he would like to see similar moves being undertaken by other EPTA countries, making EPTA itself in the end superfluous. • ... Meanwhile the Kennedy Round was entering its final stages • and there was a responsibility on all member countries to ensure that the impetus was kept up. . 2hoy v/erp at the decisive stage of European economic integration, and much progress had been made to this.end both in EEC and EFTA. But this was not just a European problem; it would have repercussions elsewhere, in particular in the developing countries. Patience, he said, was not necessarily the enemy of progress. ' . • • THE CHAIRMAN thanked 'Mr. Lange for his statement and said that it was in conformity with the happ3r custom .established .within the Committee of Ministers whereby EPTA. arid EEC countries exchanged information. The members of, the Community agreed with Mr. Lange that . it was more than ever necessary, to prevent EEC and EFTA from pursuing divergent policies. ' . .- • • Mr. Harmel said that,, as Chairman-in-office of the Council of Ministers of EEC, he wished to point out that since the December session the Community's affairs had shown constant progress. • ....-..., The EEC Council had taken important -decisions in the • - -. economic field. -It had adopted a -recommendation on.the broad principles of a cyclical policy for 19^7 and. had established a . first medium-term programme for econoroto policy, Ifc hud a3.se' . . ./. - 25 - CM (6?) PV 1

decided to harmonise legislation on the added value tax; as from 1st January 19?G,at ohe latest, this tax would'be levied according to a common system, subject only to possible variations in rate. In the agricultural sphere, the main agricultural products would, from 1st July.19^3, be subject to market organisation, which implied their free' circulation and common prices. ' • •• As regards the GATT multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva, the Community dec:!red their final phase to be eroded with success 1'or the general benefit of Europe and the world. It was doing its utmost to enable them to be- concluded by the date set. . . It also intended to spare no effort to ensure that the talks with Austria led to a satisfactory conclusion. As regards the Maghreb countries (Morocco and Tunisia), Israel, Spain arid Yugoslavia, the Community was endeavouring to devise the kind of agreement most appropriate for the parties concerned. It was unnecessary to recall the great importance it attached to the vital question of its'' relations with the United Kingdom. Its relations with the/associated countries Greece and Turkey involved frequent exchanges of views and fruitful action. The same applied to the .associated African countries arid Madagascar. . . At the Council's meeting of 10th and llth April, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany•j had made a survey of the action remaining; to be taken towards complete unity. Apart from the completion of the customs union and the definitive introduction .of the 'common agricultural policy, the main outstanding questions included energy, the harmonisation of. taxation systems arid a European transport policy. In the'institutional sphere, a new.step towards rationalisation would be taken - it was. hoped soon - with the merging of the Commissions, preparatory to that of the institutions. As could be -seen, the Community was making progress towards the indissoluble union of Europe on every front. It was, however, in no way a closed institution. He could not but fully approve what Mr. Lance had said: Europe must not be composed of closed, inward-looking fragments. The Community, for its part, remair.ed open to all development8 irv European co-operation. • / . CM (67) PV 1 - 26 ^

VIII: OTHER BUO_7K3SS THE CHAIRMAH invited the .Committee to take item VIII of the Agenda: .Other, business. Mr. KYPRIANOU (Cyprus) .said that, since he would-have to report to the Consultative Assembly on behalf of the Ministers, he wished'to "raise t'.e delicate problem of Greece. He himself did hot think that tiiore should be a debate on che sx.io.ject, but as he might be asked to reply to questions, he felt that he should* have the guidance of the Committee. ' - In his opinion it was still too early for the Consultative At-se.rfcly to take any stand or to reach any conclusions. It would be dangerous to attempt to do so too quickly. He thought they should try to discourage remarks that might prove in the end harmful. It was p

./. - 27 - CM (6?) PV 1

Mr. LANGE (Sweden) was against putting any reference to Greece in the- Communique because the words suggested that the Committee would revert to the matter later and would give its opinion. • Mr. KYPRIANOU (Cyprus) agreed with Mr. Lange that any reference in the Communique would be unwise. THE SECRETARY GENERAL emphasised that he had not been making a proposition but merely indicating the options open to the Committee. The Assembly might very well put the matter before the Committee. Mr. MULLEY (United Kingdom) agreed with Mr. Lange and Mr. Kyprianou 'that there should be no reference to Greece in the Communique. Mr. TONCIC (Austria) said that speaking as a parliamentarian with personal experience of the Consultative Assembly, he was not only "almost sure" that the Assembly would raise the question: he was quite sure. The Assembly was practically certain to ask the Committee to take action and the Committee would then have to reply. Its first reaction would no doubt be to seek fuller information through the usual channels. Mr. FISCHER (Denmark), supporting the views expressed by the Representatives of Sweden, the United Kingdom and Cyprus, said that there might very well be pressure from the Assembly but it would not be damped down by anything they might put in the Communique. THE CHAIRMAN said that the concern of.the Minister for Foreign Affairs o.f 'Cyprus, who was due to address the Assembly in two days' time, was justified:, by that time he would perhaps have ampler and more precise information. Up to now the Governments had not received any report through diplomatic channels. He noted that the Committee seemed unanimous in holding that the Communique should not contain any'reference to Greek affairs. (Agreed) As for the question of whether the Committee should hold a meeting to consider the situation, this could always be discussed later if the Assembly asked for such a meeting. The question was therefore settled for the time being. ./. CM (6?) PV 1 - 28 -

Mr.'VITSAXIS (Greece) informed the Committee that his Government had asked him to sign the agreement on adoption within the next few days, as soon as he was in'"possession of the necessary powers. The Greek Government had thereby given proof of the importance they attached to European co-operation. Discussion of the remaining items on the agenda was deferred to 3 p.m. ... The ncebing was adjourned at 1.15 P.m.

o o o

The meeting was resumed at 3.15 p.m. with Mr. Fischer (Denmark) in-the'Chair.

V. GATT TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS These'had already been referred to. under .item IV and there were no- further 'speakers. ••••-'

VI. ATLANTIC PARTNERSHIP • . ' The Committee was reminded by the Chairman that a special debate between the Consultative Assembly and a delegation from the US Congress would take place on Wednesday, '26th April. No delegation requested to speak. •

VII. DATE AMD PLACE OF THE 4lst SESSION ' The Deputies had proposed that this session should take place in Paris during the week beginning llth December. The Ministers agreed that the session should take place on the llth and 12th December in Paris. The annual Colloquy with the Assembly would .^ 'ueild at the sane tiijo. ./.. - 29 - CM (67) PV 1

IX. PRESS COMMUNIQUE The Committee considered a draft Press Communique which they adopted, with some amendments (Appendix III).

CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING THE CHAIRMAN expressed the Committee's thanks to Mr, HARMEL, the Foreign Minister of Belgium, and to the Secretary General and his staff for their respective contributions to the success of the meeting. He reminded his colleagues that as from the close of the il-Oth Session the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers would be taken over by Cyprus. The ^-Oth Session of the Committee of Ministers was concluded at 16.20 hours. - JO ~ CM (6?) PV 1

A P P E N D. I X I

(Item I)

AGENDA

1. Adoption of the Agenda 2. Work Programme: Adoption of the Council of Europe Work Programme for 1967-1968 - CM (67) 59 revised and Addendum, CM (67) 65 3. Relations with other States. 4. Political Aspects of European Economic Integration 5. GATT Tariff negotiations 6. Atlantic Partnership 7. Date and Place of the 4lst session 8. Other Business 9. Press communique

./. - 31 - CM (67) PV 1

APPENDIX II

(Item II)

RESOLUTION (67) 9 ON THE PROGRAMME OP INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORK OF THE COUNCIL OP EUROPE (1967-68)

THE COMMITTEE OP'MINISTERS, Having regard to its decision taken at its 36th Session held on 3rd May 1965 to instruct the Secretary General to submit to it annually a comprehensive Programme of Work for the intergovernmental activities of the Council of Europe; Referring to its Resolution (66) 24 on the preparation and conduct of the intergovernmental work of the Council of Europe and to Resolution (66) 28 whereby it approved the Programme for 1966-67 and laid down the procedure to be followed as regards the preparation of the Programme of Work in the future; Having examined the draft Programme for 1967-68 submitted by the Secretary General and observing that this draft takes account both of the opinion put forward by the Consultative Assembly (Resolution 331) and of those proposals put forward by the committees of experts set up in application of Article 17 of the Statute, in each'of the sectors of intergovernmental activity of the Council of Europe; Noting that the final draft Programme prepared by the Ministers' Deputies reflects the need on the one hand to reconcile-the balanced development of work in each of the technical sectors with that of the institution as a whole, on the other hand to give priority to those subjects which contribute most to the achievement of the Council of Europe's aims as defined in Article 1 of the Statute; Considering that Governments could usefully establish internal machinery, where it does not exist already, to ensure co-ordination between the different ministerial departments concerned when examining the proposed Programme, and preparing the final draft;

./. CM (67) PV 1 ..••32 -' Appendix II

Noting v/ith satisfaction the effort made on its own initiative by one Council 'for Cultural Co-operation to concentrate. its activities and make them more effective, Stressing the significance of the Programme of Work for the achievement of wider European unity, :' '. 1. APPROVES the Programme of intergovernmental work of the Council of' Europe 1967-68 as set out in the Appendix, it being understood that: (i) the subjects mentioned in Section V of the various Chapters do not form part of the Programme proper but have'been included on.'the sole responsibility of the Secretary-. General and in no way commit the Governments of member States;. (ii) Section VI of each Chapter is merely a list of work . brought to a successful conclusion in 1966.'• 2. ' INSTRUCTS the Ministers' Deputies to supervise the implementation of .the Programme and in particular to ensure that the dates laid down for the completion of work are respected • since this will to a large extent determine whether work shall start on the new activities included in the Programme subject, to confirmation; . • J5. INSTRUCTS the Secretary General to examine whether in the -light of experience the procedure followed for preparing the draft Pr jgramme of Work within the Council of Europe needs to be modified and to report as necessary t.o the Ministers' Deputies in due course; 4. INVITES Governments to give their representatives on. committees of experts such instructions as will enable.them to complete -work in accordance with the-agreed timetable; 5. INVITES the'-Consultative Assembly to express, its views on the Programme of Work for 1967-68.

./. - 33 - CM (6?) PV !

A P P E N D I X I I I

COMMUNIQUE

The Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers held their Spring meeting at the Organisation's headquarters in Strasbourg on April 24th. Mr. Pierre Harmel, the Belgian Foreign Minister was in the Chair. The Committee paid tribute to the memory of Konrad Adenauer,, the former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, The Chairman recalled Konrad Adenauer's unfailing attachment to democracy and his historic contribution to European unification, • The Committee observed a minute's oilence.

The main items on the Ministers* Agenda were relations with other countries, in particular in East Europe, and the Council of Europe's programme of work for 1967-63. 1. Relations with non-member countries The Ministers exchanged information -on developments in relations with East European countries and were glad to note an improvement. Most speakers agreed that such relations should be mainly bilateral for the time being but considered that multilateral co-operation in the most appropriate frameworks could be envisaged. Certain technical matters in the Council of Europe's intergovernmental work programme might usefully lend themselves to such multilateral co-operation. The Committee was firmly convinced that further progress could be achieved on a basis of mutual confidence and with reciprocal regard to the interests of all.

./. CM (6?) PV 1 Appendix III

2. Programme of Work (see attached Information note) The Ministers unanimously approved .the Programme of Intergovernmental Work to be carried out by the Council of Europe in 1967-68. In the new programme the Council will . continue to emphasise the Organisation's statutory aim: greater unity between.its Members, 3. Political Aspects of European Economic Integration The Swedish Minister of Trade, Mr. Gunnar Lange,- reported on recent developments in the European. Free Trade Association, and-Mr. Harmel on the evolution of the European Communities.-. The two Ministers called for the creation of a wide European market. . ;

4. .Signature of the European Convention on Adoption oft Children (see attached Information Note) This Convention, which is designed to modernise and harmonise national adoption laws, was signed by the following countries: Denmark, Prance, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. . ' ' The Representative of Greece declared that his Government would sign the Convention within the next few days. 5. Date and place of next meeting The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting in Paris on llth and 12th December 1967.