Եվրոպայի խորհրդի պատվավոր հյուրերն են եղել տարբեր ազգությունների և դավանանքի բազմաթիվ բարձրաստիճան անձինք: Այդ մարդկանց անունների թվարկումը, ովքեր հաճախ կանգնած են եղել կամ կանգնած են քաղաքական, սոցիալական և մշակութային նախաձեռնությունների ակունքներում, լուսաբանում են այն զարգացման ընթացքն ու արժեքները, որոնք 1950-ական թվականներից սկսած ուղղորդում են Եվրոպայի խորհրդի գործունեությունը:
in your browser
or update your version of Flash Player
to access this site!
Միխայիլ Գորբաչով [1931-]
Խորհրդային Սոցիալիստական Հանրապետությունների Միության Գերագույն խորհրդի նախագահ
6-ը հուլիսի 1989 թ.
«Ընդհանուր եվրոպական տունը»:
Նրա ելույթը (միայն անգլերենով)
For centuries Europe has been making an indispensable contribution to world politics, economy, culture and to the development of the entire civilisation. Its world historic role is recognised and respected everywhere. Let us not forget, however, that the metastases of colonial slavery spread around the world from Europe. It was here that fascism came into being. It was here that the most destructive wars started.
At the same time Europe, which can take a legitimate pride in its accomplishments, is far from having settled its debts to mankind. It is something that still has to be done.
And it should be done by seeking to transform international relations in the spirit of humanism, equality and justice and by setting an example of democracy and social achievements in its own countries. The Helsinki process has already commenced this important work of world-wide significance.
Vienna and Stockholm brought it to fundamentally new frontiers. The documents adopted there are today’s optimal expression of the political culture and moral traditions of European peoples. Now it is up to all of us, all the participants in the European process, to make the best possible use of the groundwork laid down through our common efforts. Our idea of a common European home serves the same purpose too.
It was born out of our realisation of new realities, of our realisation of the fact that the linear continuation of the path, along which inter-European relations have developed until the last quarter of the twentieth century, is no longer consonant with these realities. The idea is linked with our domestic, economic and political perestroika which called for new relations above all in that part of the world to which we, the Soviet Union, belong, and with which we have been tied most closely over the centuries.
We also realised that the colossal burden of armaments and the atmosphere of confrontation did not just obstruct Europe’s normal development, but at the same time prevented our country — economically, politically and psychologically — from being integrated into the European process and had a deforming impact on our own development.
These were the motives which impelled us to decide to pursue much more vigorously our European policy which, incidentally, has always been important to us in and of itself. In our recent meetings with European leaders questions were raised about the architecture of our “common home”, on how it should be built and even on how it should be “furnished”.
Our discussions of this subject with President François Mitterrand in Moscow and in Paris were fruitful and fairly significant in scope.
Yet even today, I do not claim to carry a finished blueprint of that home in my pocket. I just wish to tell you what I believe to be most important. In actual fact, what we have in mind is a restructuring of the international order existing in Europe that would put the European common values in the forefront and make it possible to replace the traditional balance of forces with a balance of interests.
If security is the foundation of a common European home, then all-round co-operation is its bearing frame. What is symbolic about the new situation in Europe and throughout the world in recent years, is an intensive inter-state dialogue, both bilateral and multilateral. The network of agreements, treaties and other accords has become considerably more extensive. Official consultations on various issues have become a rule.
For the first time contacts have been established between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, between the European Community and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), not to mention many political and public organisations in both parts of Europe.
We are pleased with the decision of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to grant the Soviet Union the status of a special guest state. We are prepared to co-operate. But we think that we can go further than that.
We could accede to some of the international conventions of the Council of Europe that are open to other states — on the environment, culture, education, television broadcasting. We are prepared to co-operate with the specialised agencies of the Council of Europe.
The Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament are situated in Strasbourg. Should our ties be expanded in the future and be put on a regular basis, we would open here, with the French Government’s consent, of course, a Consulate General.
Interparliamentary ties have major significance for making the European process more dynamic. An important step has already been made: late last year a first meeting of the parliamentary leaders of thirty-five countries was held in Warsaw.
We have duly appreciated the visit to the USSR of the delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe headed by its President, Mr. Björck. The delegation could, I hope, feel directly the potent and energetic pulse of the Soviet perestroika.
We regard as particularly important the recently initiated contacts with the European Parliament. Inter alia, we took note of its resolutions on military-political issues which are seen by the Parliament as the core of the Western European consensus in the area of security.
As far as the economic content of the common European home is concerned, we regard as a realistic prospect — though not a close one — the emergence of a vast economic space from the Atlantic to the Urals where Eastern and Western parts would be strongly interlocked.
In this sense, the Soviet Union’s transition to a more open economy is essential; and not only for ourselves, for a higher economic effectiveness and for meeting consumer demands.
Such a transition will increase East-West economic interdependence and, thus, will tell favourably on the entire spectrum of European relations.