Peter SCHIEDER
President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

Inaugural Speech

Man denkt und träumt, man ärgert und freut sich immer in seiner eigenen Sprache. Lassen Sie mich deshalb zu Beginn meiner Freude in meiner Muttersprache Deutsch Ausdruck verleihen.

Ich möchte mich bei den Mitgliedern der Parlamentarischen Versammlung sehr herzlich für die Wahl und für das an mich gesetzte Vertrauen bedanken. Mein Dank gilt auch dem Österreichischen Parlament für die Entsendung nach Strasbourg, der österreichischen Delegation für die Unterstützung und der sozialdemokratischen Gruppe für meine Nominierung.

Als ihr Vorsitzender hatte ich natürlich die Interessen meiner Gruppe zu vertreten, aber ich habe dabei auch die Vertreter der anderen Gruppen und ihre Auffassungen kennen und achten gelernt. Jede Gruppe will - von ihrem Standpunkt aus - das Beste für unseren Europarat und unser Europa; und ich habe auch unser Sekretariat schätzen gelernt - selbstverständlich wäre unsere gesamte Arbeit ohne das große Engagement und die Einsatzbereitschaft der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter nicht möglich.

War mein erstes Wort eines des Dankes für meine Wahl so hat mein zweites Wort ein Wort des Dankes an die Gastgeber des Europarates zu sein: Eine Verbeugung vor Frankreich und Paris, dem Elsass und der Stadt Strasbourg.

Der weltoffene, europäische Geist in Frankreich und die Gastfreundschaft, die uns die Stadt Strasbourg gibt, sind ein gutes Fundament für unsere Arbeit.

Dear colleagues, friends,

My inaugural speech is an opportunity to lay out a programme for my presidency, a practical plan of what I intend to do, and a vision of what I intend to achieve.

I intend to change some things and I intend to do some things differently. Nothing dramatic, nothing revolutionary, there is no need for that. We have done well in the past, and we can be satisfied with what we have achieved. Yet, as we all know, the room for improvement is the biggest room in the world. And in this room, a change at the top is a window of opportunity for fresh ideas, different approaches.

The Assembly - and the Council of Europe as such - has no need to reinvent itself. Our original mandate of 1949 - to build and preserve freedom and democracy in Europe - is still valid and far from exhausted. But we need to recognize the new and constantly changing circumstances in which we operate, and we need to adapt our working methods to these new circumstances. We are the oldest political organisation in Europe and within it the Assembly is the oldest existing international parliamentary body on our continent. Age is an asset, because it brings with it wisdom based on experience and on the multitude of legal instruments that we have created over the past five decades. But age can also bring tiredness, and that is what we need to avoid. This is what I intend to contribute to. We must refresh our attitudes, we must refresh our image, and yes, we must refresh our commitment to the values we were set up to defend. And we have to give women a better representation in our Assembly.

Some of this adaptation will be neither easy nor without conflicts. And necessary shifts of power will need understanding, sense and selfdenial.

Two examples - one in each direction: To modernize, democratise and stabilise international organisations their parliamentary dimension must be extended and strengthened. This is in the Council of Europe overdue. Second: To improve the legitimacy of our Assembly to speak on certain issues on behalf all our national parliaments representing it, we have to revise our contacts with them, give them more possibilities to influence us. We have to integrate them better and more comprehensively in our daily work.

Dear colleagues.

The first area of priority will be the completion of the Council of Europe's enlargement. Bosnia and Herzegovina is expected to have the Assembly's approval during this week's session. The invitation from the Committee of Ministers to join the Organisation will hopefully follow soon.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has made considerable progress since it put an end to more than a decade of Milosevic's autocratic regime. Even if much remains to be done, and relations between Serbia and Montenegro remain unresolved - there is hope - and in my view good prospects - that Yugoslavia will soon be able to follow Bosnia and Herzegovina's suit.

With Monaco, the situation is of course not comparable to the one in central and Eastern Europe, but some open questions persist. However, talks continue and I expect progress will follow shortly.

Belarus remains a problem. On the one hand, the attitude of the presidential regime has not changed and remains totally unacceptable in terms of democratic and human rights standards. On the other hand, isolation does little to change the status quo. The Assembly will have to pursue its delicate diplomatic balancing act, between support for progressive forces in Belarus and the need to avoid condoning the dictatorial attitude of the present regime.

Future enlargement will further reinforce the key importance of the Assembly's monitoring. Many of the recent members continue to have difficulties in meeting the Organisation's standards, and the situation is unlikely to be dramatically different when those seeking membership are invited to join. After the fall of the Berlin wall, we have conscientiously adopted a more flexible attitude with regard to accession criteria, because we believed that this would give a greater chance of success to democratic reforms in many former communist countries. But the requirement to eventually honour membership obligations has only been postponed, and not given up. It seems that some political leaders in Europe have an almost a religious attitude when it comes to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. They believe in these values as they believe in the existence of heaven. They want to go there eventually, but not just yet.

With the four countries mentioned above, we shall reach the geographic limit of any future enlargement, as set by the Assembly itself. However, many countries in Europe's neighbourhood, or countries with historic and cultural links with Europe, or simply countries which see in the Council of Europe an inspiration for their own efforts in building democracy and protecting human rights - are seeking closer, formal contacts, both with the Assembly and with the organisation as a whole.

Such requests - of which some have already received a positive reply - present us with a double challenge.

Firstly, we must make it clear that any future status will not be gained automatically, but it will be subject to compliance with our democratic and human rights standards, and in particular the abolition of the death penalty. This is a requirement that applies to countries that seek, as well as to those who already enjoy any kind of status with the Council of Europe.

Secondly, we must make sure that any future co-operation will be substantial. Many of the countries seeking contact are far away and have limited means. They cannot afford to send representatives to Strasbourg only to have their picture taken in front of the Palais or to follow the debates. The later they can do from home, via the Internet. But in making this co-operation a fruitful and meaningful one, the Assembly is facing a similar problem - limited funds. In the present budgetary circumstances, it is difficult to imagine how we could allocate more speaking time to our guests, except at the expense of our members, which would be difficult to accept. The Bureau has decided to look into this and postpone any decisions on granting status to non-member countries until satisfactory solutions are found.

The second area of priority must be a sustained effort to raise the profile of our organisation and - as I already mentioned - the Assembly within it. Our only power is the power of persuasion, our moral authority, and the weight of our commitment to the values we were set up to defend. We must speak, in a loud and convincing manner, to be heard and to be listened to.

To do so, we must be critical with regard to ourselves and with regard to our activities. The public - our citizens, but also politicians and the media - are not ready to accept our contribution to democratic security at face value. We need to provide them with irrefutable evidence of the concrete and substantial impact that our work has on the lives of Europeans. We must demonstrate that what we do will help to raise human rights standards, end oppression where it persists, expand civil liberties and prevent conflicts. This will not be easy - because our vocation is primarily the prevention of chaos and violence, and not the ending of it. We work through a myriad of steps which may not all be overly dramatic - as the land-rovered and walkie-talkied interventions of others often are - but they are crucial in keeping Europe stable and safe. This is a simple truth, yet one often overlooked by those taking decisions within the international community.

We shall also have to make additional efforts to communicate - in a modern, attractive and efficient way - on who we are and what we do. We need to refresh our image, we must use new technologies that are available to us and make sure that we re-confirm our role as a place to debate our societies' problems and a place to seek common solutions to these problems. We represent the voice of Europe's citizens, and our task is to make sure that the acts of governments comply with their common and long-term interests.

We have to deal in our Assembly with new challenges on our continent and we have to offer very practical proposals, for instance for the renewal and stimulation of civic society, renewing politics, and assisting people to practise social behaviour. Or concerning the agreement between the generations: "When I get older, losing my hair." The song of Paul Mc Cartney from the 60s is the big question mark of today's generations: "Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I 'm sixty-four?"

Luckily in our Assembly and the Organisation as a whole an absolute readiness to react to new developments exists.

Our and the Secretary General's statements, the reports, the urgent debates on "Combating terrorism and respect for human rights" are a current example. Our big campaign against racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia is another one.

Even if one regrets it - experience shows clearly: Parliamentarians here in Strasbourg tend to be more progressive than in their parliaments at home where they are afraid of the votes of Tom, Dick and Harry.

There is a positive feedback from the Council of Europe to its Member states. We should  take advantage more methodically of this possible two-way travel - for example to improve the situation of Romas in European countries or for the non-discrimination of gays and lesbians.

Our strength lies in our commitment to human rights and democracy, not as an abstract value or empty words used often and rarely meant, but as a commitment based on legally binding rules and demonstrated in practice, demonstrated when it matters, where human rights are oppressed and when democracy is threatened. In many areas in Europe, the principles embodied in our convention on human rights and others are under threat. We are deeply involved in the crisis areas, from the Caucasus to the Balkans. This is where we have to make a difference, by standing firm for our principles. We should do so not for the applause from the gallery, but out of conviction and commitment to make right where wrong persists.

We must work closely with our partners - in Europe and on the global stage. I come to this post with a longstanding experience of European Union affairs, in the OSCE, in the IPU and at the United Nations level, and I have never regarded in terms of a competition the relations between these different international actors . We all work for the same objectives, but we do not always work in the same way. We need to avoid duplication and waste of effort - but this must apply to everyone, and not only to the Council of Europe.

We shall never be as geographically broad and diversified as the United Nations, or as closely integrated as the European Union, or as field-oriented and flexible as the OSCE - and we were never meant to be. But what we are and what we shall remain is the guardian of values and principles protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and other legal instruments, the last point of reference when it comes to the application or violation of these principles, both by the authorities of our member States, and by the international and supranational institutions which operate within the Council of Europe area. We do not need to be bigger than others, or to do more than them, but we require support in allowing us to do what is our work: to be Europe's democratic and human rights ombudsman, and - in the areas covered by our Statute, signed more than fifty years ago - a vehicle for closer intergovernmental co-operation among all European countries.

Dear friends!

I am determined to invest a lot of energy and a lot of time in the service of this Assembly, and this Organisation as my predecessor has done. I have to thank him, we all have to thank him, Europe as a whole has to thank him - we pay tribute to Lord Russell Johnston. He already proposed a new Summit, I should hope that, before the end of my mandate, the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe would meet again, perhaps in one of our recent member states, to re-confirm their joint pledge to the values of this Organisation, through a shortlist of clear, firm and tangible commitments which shall provide our continent with a Council of Europe able to act resolutely and efficiently for the benefit of human rights, freedom, stability, democracy and the rule of law.