State of the Council of Europe

Embargo until delivery / check against delivery

Mr President,

I should like to start by congratulating you on your election as the President of this Assembly. This is an important event for you personally, but I assure you that it is also an important event for the Assembly, for Turkey and for Europe. For a Europe without dividing lines.

Dear members of the Assembly,

Less than four months ago, you elected me as Secretary General with a clear majority and a clear mandate – to help reform, revitalise and reinforce the Council of Europe.

Today, I am here before you to deliver my first speech on the state of the Council of Europe, to report to you on the progress achieved so far and, most importantly, on what will happen in the immediate future. I would like to thank you, Mr President, for your strong support to the reform process earlier today.

A few days ago I read an interesting article in The Economist. In the article, the journalist questioned the validity and utility of the division into Western and Eastern Europe, which, in the view of The Economist, has never been justified by geography, and is no longer justified by today's political and economic realities.
I agree.

The Economist also mentions the Council of Europe and labels it "another talking shop and human-rights guardian, based in Strasbourg".

Well, Sir Winston Churchill said that it is better to jaw, jaw than to war, war. Furthermore, the Council of Europe is more than another human-rights guardian. The Council of Europe has institutionalised human rights.

What would Europe be without the Court of Human Rights which gives 800 million people – as a last resort - the right to bring an individual application directly to Strasbourg? What would Europe be without a Parliamentary Assembly bringing together people from 47 states in Europe?

What would Europe be without the CPT which monitors every prison in Europe?

What would Europe be without the Human Rights Commissioner who confronts governments about their obligations towards some 200 conventions?

Or the Venice Commission which gives advice on constitutional questions?

Or indeed the Pharmacopeia which sets standards for all medicines in Europe?

Is this a "talking-shop"? If so, this "talking-shop" has been indispensable in tearing down walls in Europe, walls that were never justified.

The European Union could not have been widened without the common standards and values that the Council of Europe has established. 20 countries outside the EU would not have been under the same rules and the same Court had it not been for the Council of Europe.

As the outstanding European - Prime Minister Jean-Claude Junker - said in his report: "The Council of Europe is a full scale factory for democracy, it plays an indispensable and unrivalled part in steering Europe in the right direction."

All of us – those who write and those who talk - should continue to enlighten people about the forces which unravel when civil and democratic institutions start to break down – as they did in the last century.

This constitutes the background for the institutions which were built after the war. National defenses were transformed into collective defense organisations. This was called hard security.

But, history taught us that a lasting peace had to be built on more than that, it had to be built on common standards for human rights, the rule of law and a democracy binding for all. The Council of Europe was given the responsibility for providing Europe with this, with soft security.

The Council of Europe has been, is, and will be indispensible in this wider European security concept combining hard and soft security.

But we can always do better.

Last week I presented a comprehensive package of reform to the Ambassadors of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe.

I am very encouraged by their overwhelming support. Today
I am here to explain my reform process to you, members of the Parliamentary Assembly, and I hope to obtain the same support.

The starting point for such a reform process is to clearly define our comparative advantages.

Firstly, and most importantly, the Council of Europe works on defending common European values, is free from economic, military and geostrategic considerations and therefore enjoys a high level of trust and legitimacy when setting standards and monitoring obligations.

Secondly, the Council of Europe is the only genuinely
pan-European organisation which covers the entire continent. The EU does not do that, even when extended to the candidate countries and associated countries. The OSCE includes
non-European countries which may not share fully identical views on human rights and the functioning of democratic institutions.

Thirdly, the Council of Europe is the only organisation which has both the mandate and the necessary tools to effectively and comprehensively monitor member States' compliance with obligations related to the respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

Fourthly, the Council of Europe is the only intergovernmental international organisation with a Parliamentary Assembly which has a real, meaningful and formal role to influence the work and the decision-making process.

This Assembly elects the judges of the European Court of Human Rights, the Commissioner for Human Rights and, of course, the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

We are not always conscious enough of the extent to which the role of the Assembly in this process contributes to the democratic legitimacy of our Organisation and all its elected officials.

Fifth, the Council of Europe is an extraordinary database of knowledge and information. The fact that we are reaching out to all European countries, possess monitoring tools, presence in the field, parliamentarians in 47 countries, unique contacts with local and regional governments and maintain close
co-operation with the civil society gives us an exceptional access to knowledge and information.
Properly put together and used, this information should enable the Council of Europe to anticipate – and provide solutions for - major societal and political developments which have to be properly dealt with before it is to late.

The Council of Europe can be a lighthouse for Europe, carefully watching developments and trying to anticipate new social and political crises.

It only takes a quick look at the problems which our societies are facing today to understand that social stability is not guaranteed. We are facing increased mistrust and intolerance within practically all our countries, with convergence of economic problems, social issues and migration.

I am deeply worried when I hear that "if we also could cast our vote in a referendum about the rights of the Muslims, we would have done as the people in Switzerland".

More and more people seem to forget that majority rule does not give the majority the right to harm the legitimate rights of minorities. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human rights restrain the majority.

I have always believed that social rights and human rights are closely linked. If we look at the social conditions in many of the large cities in Europe, one can easily understand why integration is failing, and tolerance is lacking, and why young people find ways to convey their frustration.

The danger is that extreme forces can exploit the situation to promote intolerance and hatred. A negative dynamic may develop, one which will be difficult to control.

I make this point because we need to recognise human rights and social rights as an integral part of the same struggle to create democratic stability.

And I strongly believe that the Council of Europe can, and should be, a forum for better understanding of how we can live together, to prevent the emergence of new dividing lines within European countries.

President, Members of the Parliamentary Assembly,

We need to prevent new dividing lines between nations.

The entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty opens up new possibilities to reinforce the overall architecture of Europe. One of the most far-reaching implications of the new treaty is the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The preparations for this truly historic development have already begun, both in Strasbourg and in Brussels.

When I say "historic", I use the word advisedly. The future accession is an event of huge political and legal importance, not only for the European Union or for the Council of Europe, but for European citizens. It will bring greater clarity in institutional relations between the two bodies and open possibilities for more and better co-operation. It will enable the Council of Europe and the European Union to work together to prevent the emergence of new dividing lines between European countries.

If EU accession to the European Court of Human Rights does not take place, the danger is that two different kinds of
case-laws may develop, one under the Luxembourg Court and one under the Strasbourg Court.

The European Union has huge economic and political power to do good, but the exercise of any power always carries the risk of making mistakes, of breaching human rights.

By accepting to submit the work of its institutions to the same rules and the same scrutiny which apply to all countries in Europe – with the regrettable exception of Belarus – the European Union is sending a very powerful message - that the world is changing – and that the most influential and the most powerful are ready to accept their part of responsibility for that change.

It is equally important that the Russian Federation – another global player on our continent – has decided to approve the ratification of Protocol 14 which will reinforce the European Court of Human Rights.

We can now create a safe haven for human rights stretching from Lisbon to Baku and from la Valetta, over Brussels to Vladivostok.

In these new exciting and challenging circumstances, the Council of Europe and all its integral parts starting with the Parliamentary Assembly can – and should play an important political role. We are the guardians of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The sole purpose of the reform process is to make us fit and able to carry out this task.

It is important to stress that this will not be an administrative reform, but a political one. I will not satisfy myself with moving staff around and changing the structure. Certainly, there will be administrative changes, but these will be driven by policy objectives, not the other way around.

Secondly, the reform will not primarily be about cutting costs. Of course, times are harsh and all our governments are determined to achieve savings, including when it comes to financing international organisations. It is also clear that times are likely to get worse before they get better, so the reform is designed to anticipate that pressure on our budget will continue.

The reform has the following main goals:

· To revitalise the COE as a political body and an innovative organisation.

· To concentrate our work on fewer projects, selected on the highest added value and comparative advantages.

· To develop a flexible organisation that is also more visible and relevant for the citizens of Europe.

To achieve this, the first stage of the reform has four interrelated pillars.
The first pillar is Better Governance:

The main responsibility in this respect lies with the two statutory organs, starting with the Committee of Ministers as the decision-making body, but also with the Assembly which has a crucially important role within the Council of Europe system.

Better Governance should apply to relations between these two bodies – and I am already working on the report on enhanced dialogue and co-operation. In the debate on my reform proposals last week, many Ambassadors pointed out that this was also an opportunity to critically assess the work of the Committee of Ministers and I would certainly encourage you to have the same attitude.

As to the Secretariat, I will strengthen the political aspect of our work by reinforcing the Directorate General of Political Affairs. A new Policy Planning Cell will be created to anticipate challenges and deliver forward-looking analysis.

We must undertake a complete review of communication.
I have initiated an audit of our various communication services and the resources allocated to them.

We shall create a new Budget and Programme Service, under the authority of the Directorate General of Administration and Logistics, in order to ensure that activity planning and resources are directly linked.

We need to evaluate our work. To that end, we need a new quality control tool. This is why I want to establish a new, independent Internal Oversight Service, responsible for all aspects of quality control of our work, first and foremost evaluation and performance audit.

I think we can all agree that we have an excellent, committed and hard-working staff. The staff is a key partner in the reform process but we need new staff measures to ensure mobility, flexibility and control of expenditure.

Second, we have the Operational Pillar:

We need to review the programme of activities, and focus on impact and added value, and not whether an activity is a so-called core activity or enabling factor.

What counts is the impact.

We must focus our activities on areas where we have real comparative advantages – to do what others cannot do. We should move in the direction of fewer, but more effective projects and programmes. In view of financial constraints, we also need to consider more use of Partial Agreements and voluntary contributions.

We need a complete review of our field presence, in order to be as visible and effective as possible.

The objective is to create a network of Council of Europe Offices which should no longer be regarded as an ad hoc appendix to the Organisation, but as an integral part of the Council of Europe system. This will take place in the conditions of strict budget neutrality and without any duplication of other organisations' presence in the field.

The third pillar is about Our Structures:

The Secretariat must be structured in order to achieve the Organisation's political objectives, facilitate transversality and co-ordination, while keeping in mind the need to be
cost-efficient. I should like to repeat again that the nature of the reform is to reinforce the political relevance and effectiveness of the Council of Europe. All administrative changes are driven by policy objectives, not the other way around.

The fourth pillar of reform concerns The European Convention on Human Rights:

This is the basic pillar of our organisation. Therefore the European Court of Human Rights has been called the jewel in the crown of the Council of Europe.

The challenge of the Court is its own success. We need to undertake reforms so that the Court can deal more efficiently with all the applications.

Protocol 14 opens up the pathway for necessary reforms, but they will not be sufficient. More has to be done, and we need to use all our means and tools to improve the judicial systems in member States so that fewer applications reach the Court.

The only thing which we cannot do is to continue to transfer money from the Programmes of Activity Budget to the Court. If we do that there will soon be no money left for programmes or activities. We must look for other solutions.

Dear friends,
You are surely all familiar with the famous essay "The End of History?" written by Francis Fukuyama in response to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Many people believe that his argument has been tested and proven wrong. Confrontations unfold in the world, confrontations unfold in our societies. History has not ended.

But Fukuyama did not say that history was ending. History is happening every day, and it will continue to do so. What he did say, however, was that since the French Revolution, democracy has time and again proven to be a fundamentally better political system than any other alternative.

The ending point of mankind's ideological evolution towards the final form of human government is democracy.

Of course, there are numerous bumps on the road and progress will not be as straightforward and rapid as many among us will have wished.

What is important – vitally important for democracy– is the acceptance of the fact that responsibilities are shared, and rights are equal for all – within nations – and between nations.

Willy Brandt once said that security in Europe is indivisible, it is for all or for none. François Mitterrand stated that nationalism means war. This was why Mikhaïl Gorbatchev came to this very assembly and talked about a Common European House.

Yes, a common European house where we can understand and respect each other.

We also want to build a European house which opens its windows to the world. The world is facing new global challenges, and we should therefore enter a new phase of internationalism. Europe must play a decisive role in that process, and so must the Council of Europe.

Therefore to achieve this aim, we must renew our institutions and our way of thinking. This is the only way we can pay tribute to those who signed the Treaty of London on 5 May 1949 marking the creation of the Council of Europe. In spite of all the errors and some very tragic detours, Europe, as a peace project, has worked. History is ongoing, democracy has prevailed.

But, as we are reminded on a daily basis, in the struggle for peace and stability, there are no irreversible victories. We must not drop our guard.

What we need to do is match the courage, the determination and the vision of the people who conceived and signed the Treaty of London.

This is what the reform of the Council of Europe is all about.