u:>ivuc.;>««iix I I'Oi'K t'ONSi'LTATlo.'1*

.-< -ri* * + CM ARCHI^ ^ FOR CONSULTATION ONLY

* *COUNCIL 1 + CONSEILOF EUROPE *** DE L'EUROPE

COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

CONFIDENTIAL

CMPV224

MINUTES

OF THE 73 rd SESSION

OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

HELD ON 24 NOVEMBER 1983

STRASBOURG

CONFIDENTIAL

- i -

MINUTES

OF THE 73rd SESSION OF THECOMMITTEE. OF MINISTERS

Strasbourg, Thursday 24 November 1983

Page

Morning sitting (CM(83)PV 3) 1

Afternoon sitting (CM(83)PV 4) 39

Appendix I: Agenda of the session 91

Appendix II: Resolution (83)13 on Cyprus 92

84.55502

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3

MINUTES

of the sitting held at 9.45 am on 24 November 1983at the Palais de I1Europe, Strasbourg

PRESENT

AUSTRIA Mr.

BELGIUM Mr.

CYPRUS Mr.

DENMARK Mr.

FRANCE Mr.

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Mr.

GREECE Mr.

ICELAND Mr.

E. LANG

A. VRANKEN (1)

G. IACOVOU, Chairman

U. ELLEMANN-JENSEN

A. CHANDERNAGOR (2)

J.W. MOLLEMANN (3)

K. PAPOULIAS (4)

T. THORLACIUS (5)

(1) Permanent Representative of Belgium, in place of Mr. L.TINDEMANS, Minister for Foreign Relations

(2) Minister for European Affairs, attached to the Ministry ofExternal Relations, in place of Mr. C. CHEYSSON, Minister forExternal Relations

(3) Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, |n place of Mr. H.D.GENSCHER, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(4) State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in place of Mr. I.HARALAMBOPOULOS, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(5) Permanent Representative of Iceland, in place of Mr. G.HALLGRIMSSON, Minister for Foreign Affairs

CM(83)PV 3

CONFIDENTIAL

- 2 -

IRELAND

ITALY

LIECHTENSTEIN

LUXEMBOURG

MALTA

NETHERLANDS

NORWAY

PORTUGAL

SPAIN

SWEDEN

SWITZERLAND

TURKEY

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. J.

Mr. M.

Mr. H.

O'KEEFFE (1)

FIORET (2)

BRUNHART

Mme. C. FLESCH

Apologised for absence

Mr. H. VAN DEN BROEK

Mr. S. STRAY

Mr. J. GAMA

Mr. M. MARIN (3)

Mr. P. SCHORI (4)

Mr. P. AUBERT

Mr. I. TURKMEN

The Rt. Hon. The Baroness YOUNG (5)

(1) Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, in place of Mr. P.BARRY, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(2) State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in place of Mr. G.ANDREOTTI, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(3) State Secretary for European Affairs, in place of Mr. F.MORAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(4) State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in place of Mr. L.BODSTROM, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(5) Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, inplace of Sir Geoffrey HOWE, Secretary of State for Foreign andCommonwealth Affairs•

CONFIDENTIAL

_ O _

CM(83)PV 3

F. KARASEK

G. ADINOLFI

H. LELEU

H.P. FURRER

Secretary General

Deputy Secretary General

Director of Political Affairs

Secretary to the Committee ofMinisters

Mr. G. IACOVOU, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cyprus, took the chairat 9.45 am.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 4 -

The CHAIRMAN declared the 73rd Session of the Committee ofMinisters open. He warmly welcomed all of his colleagues, especiallythose who were attending their first meeting of the Committee:

Mr. J. GAMA, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Portugal

The Rt. Hon. Baroness YOUNG, Minister of State for Foreign andCommonwealth Affairs, United Kingdom

Mr. M. MARIN, State Secretary for European Affairs, Spain

Mr. P. SCHORI, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Sweden.

The Vice-Chairman, Mr. U. ELLEMANN-JENSEN (Denmark)pointed out that this was Mr. G. lACOVOU's first meeting at theCommittee as the new Cypriot Minister for Foreign Affairs and wishedhim well in his new post. f̂e

The CHAIRMAN said that he had received a telex from Maltasaying that it was not possible for the Maltese Foreign Minister toattend as he was in India for the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads ofGovernment. The Permanent Representative of Malta could not attend 'this meeting of the Committee due to a heavy domestic parliamentaryschedule.

The morning sitting would close at 12.30 p.nutf. The lunch atthe Hilton Hotel would be at 13h 00. The afternoon session would runfrom 15h 00 to 18h 00.

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA#

The CHAIRMAN invited attention to the provisional agendaCM(83)OJ2. It was proposed to add an additional item on Cyprus to beitem 2, which would necessitate the renumbering of the subsequentitems. He asked for agreement to this alteration.

mMr. CHANDERNAGOR (France) thought it was understandable ^

that the Chairman should wish to include an additional item on Cyprusin the agenda, but suggested that it might be more appropriate todiscuss Cyprus at the same time as the other political issues, such asEast-West and North-South relations, ie after matters internal to theOrganisation.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 5 - CM(83)PV 3

The CHAIRMAN said that the Deputies' proposal to consider thismatter had been given detailed consideration on the previous Friday,and he considered it should receive attention as an emergency item andtherefore be numbered item 2. He asked for agreement to this.

It was agreed that the item on Cyprus be considered as item 2of the agenda.

The CHAIRMAN said that there was one item of other business:the statement by the Head of the Turkish delegation on the progressachieved in restoring democracy in Turkey and statements by otherheads of delegation. On the previous day, at the informal meeting, hehad received a request from Spain that the Spanish Minister speak onthe subject of the Argentinean elections and the hope that theseoffered for the parallel development of democracy in South America. Hefelt that 'it was not necessary to include this under item 10 (formerlyitem 9). Spain also wished to include a paragraph in the finalcommunique on this subject. He suggested that the Spanish Ministercould speak on this subject during consideration of the item onprogress of European co-operation. This was agreed.

The agenda was adopted as it appears at Appendix I.

Lady YOUNG (United Kingdom) asked the Chairman at whattime the statement by the Head of the Turkish delegation (formerlyitem 9a) was to be taken.

The CHAIRMAN proposed that the items be renumbered so that thestatement by the Turkish Foreign Minister would be numbered item lOa.

Lady YOUNG (United Kingdom) said that she and otherMinisters would have to leave before the afternoon session and askedthat, as this was a matter of great importance, the statement by theHead of the Turkish delegation be taken as item 5.

The CHAIRMAN said that an announcement would be made in thecourse of the morning.

2. CYPRUS

The CHAIRMAN said that item 2 on the agenda had been proposedfollowing the meeting of Deputies on Friday, as per documentCM(83)213. Since he wished to speak on behalf of Cyprus, the Chairmanasked Mr. ELLEMANN-JENSEN (Denmark), as Vice-Chairman to takethe Chair.

(Mr. U. ELLEMANN-JENSEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,Denmark, replaced Mr. G. lacovou in the Chair at 9.55 am.)

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 6 -

Mr. IACOVOU (Cyprus) spoke as follows:

"I should like to thank my distinguished colleagues in theCommittee of Ministers for giving me the opportunity to address themon the critical situation prevailing now in my country, a member Stateof the Council of Europe, as a result of the recent unwarranted andarbitrary secessionist act, the so-called declaration of an ,findependent 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' in the territory ofthe Republic occupied by the armed forces of another member State ofthe Council of Europe.

On 15 November 1983, the so-called 'Assembly of the TurkishFederated State of Kibris' purported to declare an independent'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'. This arbitrary action, aimed atthe destruction of the independence, sovereignty, territorial^integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus, is the result §>f theaggression of Turkey and the illegal occupation by the use of itsarmed forces of 37% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, andof the forced expulsion of 200,000 inhabitants from their homes there.

This escalating act of the continuing aggression against mycountry flagrantly violates the Charter of the United Nations, theUnited Nations Resolutions on Cyprus and all norms of the internationallaw and justice; it violates the human rights and fundamental freedomsof all Cypriots; it violates the letter and spirit of the HelsinkiFinal Act; it violates the European Convention on Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms, the Statute and the principles and purposes ofthis Council, which Turkey undertook to uphold and preserve by hersignature, by becoming a member of the European family.

Turkey is heavily responsible for what is happening in Cyprus.As the European Commission of Human Rights has held, the sole controlover the Turkish occupying forces is vested in the Government ofTurkey, and that their presence in the occupied area engages Turkey'sinternational responsibility of all persons or property over which theyexercise control. (Report of the Commission, Cyprus v. Turkey, 10July 1976 p. 32; Decision on Admissibility p. 21 and report onAdmissibility, Application 8007/77, 12 July 1978, para 21 - 23).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 7 - CM(83)PV 3

This secessionist act in an area where 80% of the populationhas been forcibly expelled by a foreign occupying country is uniquein modern history. What Cyprus has faced over the past nine years isthe worst calamity ever inflicted on it in thousands of years. Forthe first time in the recorded history of Cyprus, the occupying powerhad embarked on a process of importing in an organized manner of tensof thousands of Turks from Turkey, in an obvious attempt to change thedemographic composition of Cyprus. Including the Turkish army, thereis one mainland Turk for every two Turkish Cypriots. Turkey, whichundertook through the 1960 Treaties of Establishment and Guarantee torespect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity ofCyprus, takes a further step to materialisation of her old plans:plans for the partition of Cyprus, through a camouflaged annexation ofthe occupied part.

There is no doubt that Turkey has been always aiming at thepartition of Cyprus and not, as alleged, at the 'protection' of theTurkish Cypriots, a pretext used to invade Cyprus in 1974, at a timewhen no intercommunal strife occurred.

Ample evidence of the above long-term plans against Cyprus wasprovided very recently by one of the Foreign Ministers of Turkey, Mr.Turan Gunes, Foreign Minister at the time of the invasion, who, on20 July 80, the sixth anniversary of the invasion, openly declaredthat 'Cyprus is valuable as a right arm for a country interested inits defence or for its expansionist aims'. Mr. Gunes took a stepfurther and he admitted that 'many states of a certain extent, becauseit suits their interest, want to see the Cyprus problem merely as ourdesire to protect the Turkish Community in the island. Whereas theactual problem is the security of the 45 million Turks in themotherland ..." (Sekiz-Gun, weekly supplement of the Turkish dailyHurriyet, 20 July 1980).

These geopolitical and strategic considerations against Cypruswere disclosed as far ago as 1964, with many provocative andsecessionist statements. I cite that of Mr. Kemal Satir, formerVice-President of Turkey, who in a public statement in 1964 said that'Cyprus will be divided into two sections, one of which will joinTurkey. I also quote the former Prime Minister of Turkey, IsmetInbnii, who addressing, few months later, the Turkish NationalAssembly, said 'officially, we promoted the federation concept, ratherthan the partition thesis so as to remain within the provisions of thetreaty1.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 8 -

This is a rather clear indication of the tactical nature of theuse of federation as an official camouflage of partition. It iswithin the framework of this constant objective of Ankara that oneshould view the attitude of the Turkish side at the negotiating table,an attitude of negativeness, procrastination and broken promises fornine consecutive years.

There had been many rounds, of negotiations, under theauspices and direction of the Secretary-General. And yet, for onereason or another, under one pretext or another, the Turkish side hasmanaged to evade giving any indication whatsoever as to itsintentions on all the important issues of the Cyprus problem. Afteryears of procrastination the proposals were devoid of substance. Onthe territorial issue it proposed to return the buffer zone, which isunder the control of the United Nations, plus 1.5% of the Cyprusoccupied territory. On the constitutional issue it offered thecreation of two separate states in the form of a Confederation,obviously as the first step towards partition.

The Turkish Cypriots themselves are worried. They acknowledgethat 'the world sees the Turkish side as being responsible for thetermination of the talks and for the failure of their resumption, byputting forth conditions which change daily' (Yeniduzen, 20 August1983).

Furthermore, exploiting the time offered to them by adialogue, rendered fruitless through their intransigence, the Turkishside took further steps to convert the occupied part into a provinceof Turkey. Its recent decision to establish a so-called 'centralbank', the abolition of the Cyprus pound and the introduction of theTurkish Lira as 'legal tender', the issuing of so-called 'title deeds'to the usurpers of the Greek Cypriot properties, including soldiersfrom the Turkish army and settlers from Turkey, the introduction of a'flag and national anthem' were clear indications as to where theseactions could lead: - to the preparations for the next move whichactually took place on 15 November 1983.

The purported declaration of an independent 'Turkish Republicof Northern Cyprus' was not only an unwarranted and unjustifiedsecessionist act but also an audacious behaviour towards the UNSecretary General and his personal initiative in the quest for aviable and just solution of the Cyprus problem. This so-called'declaration1 took place whilst the Secretary General's initiative wasin full swing. It took place only a few days after consultationsstarted and were in process regarding Mr. Denktas' own proposal for ameeting with President Kyprianou. It took place on the day theSecretary General's Special Representative in Cyprus was due todeliver a letter to Mr. Denktas with detailed proposals.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 9 - CM(83)PV 3

The action taken in the occupied area of Cyprus has beendeplored by the Security Council of the United Nations by itsResolution 541 (1983) adopted on 18 November 1983. The SecurityCouncil in its mandatory Resolution, considered, inter alia, thatthe purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus is legallyinvalid and called for its withdrawal. It called upon all States notto recognise any Cypriot State other than the Republic of Cyprus andto respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity andnon-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus.

As the President of the Republic of Cyprus declared in amessage to the European Broadcasting Union, this action not onlycomplicates further the Cyprus problem, but it makes clear that theintention of the Turkish side was always to create faits accomplisand to create conditions for the secession of the occupied area fromthe Republic of Cyprus. This cannot be allowed. If such a situationis allowed, a terrible precedent will be created for the whole world.

The Government of the Republic of Cyprus shall never acceptthe results of the invasion or whatever action taken by theinstruments of the invader in the occupied areas. It regards thepurported 'declaration* as null and void.

Turkey is solely responsible for the above secessionistaction, because she continues to exercise actual and exclusiveauthority over the occupied areas of Cyprus through the maintenance ofa large military force and through other overt and covert actions.

The declaration of the so-called 'North Cyprus TurkishRepublic' was passed with the encouragement and support of Ankara.The recognition extended by the Turkish Government, on the same date,of the above non-existent entity is indicative of Turkey's complicity.

I believe that the point has been reached where furtherpassive toleration of the military occupation of Cyprus and thecreation of unilateral and secessionist acts is unacceptable,seriously prejudices the whole edifice of international law and order,creates a most explosive situation in the whole Eastern Mediterraneanarea and poses at the same time a serious challenge to theeffectiveness of the European Community of Nations.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 10 -

I wish to draw the attention of the Council to the Report ofthe Commission of Human Rights, which found Turkey guilty of violatingevery norm of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cyprus. Iwish, furthermore, to draw its attention to their responsibility inexerting all their influence upon Turkey to reverse the abovesecessionist act and rescind recognition of the purported regime. Todemand from the Government of Turkey to abandon her plans against theindependence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity andnon-alignment of Cyprus and adopt an attitude compatible with hercommitments as a member of the International community.

The member States of the Council of Europe, are under the dutyto preserve and safeguard the purposes and principles of thisOrganisation and have the obligation not to recognise the fictitious'state' in the occupied part of Cyprus and to demand its reversal.

At a time when the Council of Europe is striving for thesafeguarding of democracy and the promotion of human rights, one ofits members, Cyprus, faces a tragic situation where human rights andfundamental freedoms are grossly violated by the invader, as amplyevidenced in the Report of the Commission of Human Rights. At a timewhen the Council of Europe is engaged in debates and discussions onits role in the process of European unification, one of its members,Cyprus, faces the danger of division and secession.

And now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose the kind ofaction which our Committee should take on the item in this session. Adraft resolution has been distributed and you are aware of itscontents (1). It is a modest text, which does not contain anythingmore than what the Security Council of the United Nations has adoptedon 18 November 1983 (Resolution 541 (1983)) and what has been statedby the Ministers' Deputies in their meeting of last Friday. Thecontents of the draft resolution reflect completely the views of allthe members of the European Economic Community, as expressed in theircommon statement of 16 November 1983 and many individual statementsfrom member States.

It condemns the purported declaration, which it considers aslegally invalid, and calls for its withdrawal. It declares that itcontinues to regard the Government of the Republic as the solelegitimate Government of Cyprus and calls for the respect of thesovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of theRepublic of Cyprus. Furthermore, it calls for the best endeavours tobe used in the solution of the problems under the auspices of theUnited Nations and for the continuation of the good offices of theUnited Nations Secretary General, entrusted to him by the SecurityCouncil."

CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 - CM(83)PV 3

Mr. TURKMEN (Turkey) said it was necessary to reflect onthe relationship of Cyprus to the Council of Europe. Cyprus had beenadmitted to the Council in 1960 under certain conditions. The Treatyof Guarantee negotiated between the two communities on Cyprus and theUnited Kingdom, Turkey and Greece had guaranteed the territorialintegrity of Cyprus and prohibited partition, but its most importantprovision had been to forbid any fundamental amendment of theConstitution. The Republic had agreed under both constitutional andinternational law to such provisions. But in 1963 the Greek Cypriotshad achieved a monopoly of power over the Turkish community and sincethat date there had been no Turkish community in the parliament or inthe Republic's administration. 150,000 Turkish Cypriots were outcastsin their own island. The Council of Europe had been aware of thosedevelopments at the time, and should have expelled Cyprus, but insteaddecided not to receive Cypriot representatives unless they includeddelegates from both communities. By that decision in 1963 the Councilof Europe had effectively declared that it could not accept what hadhappened in Cyprus as being of a democratic nature. Progress couldonly be made through intercommunal negotiations, and the Committee ofMinisters could not have valid or useful discussions in the absence ofTurkish Cypriot representatives. Mr. Denktas had appealed to beallowed to attend the meeting, but the Ministerial Committee had notbeen in favour of his attendance.

Mr. Turkmen continued referring at length to Mr. Denktas'sremarks in the Security Council:

"I would like now to quote Mr. Denktas's address to the U.N.Security Council on November 17, 1983 and I quote: 'I came here in thehope of being able to contribute to your efforts in search of a wayout of the difficulties which we all face. I did not come here as aman guilty of any failing, to apologise for the action of my peoplewho, after waiting patiently for 20 years, deprived of all theirrights, ignored, ridiculed and treated with contempt by the Cypriotleaders, have decided to put the roof of statehood over their heads inorder to find the dignity which is the due of all men.

I came here not to answer unjust accusations but to explainthe reasons which have prompted my people, after 20 years of waiting,to exercise their undeniable right of self-determination, not only inorder to restructure their 20-year-old administrative set up, whichpassed through different stages, and thus be able to live in dignity,but also in order to find out whether there was any sign ofunderstanding of what injustice was being done to the Turkish peopleof Cyprus by the Greek Cypriot side, as well as, at their instigation,at one-sided hearings by the international world.

I am at the President's and Council's disposal forfacilitating the resumption of negotiations within the agreedprocedure. On this issue my declaration of independence, which I madeon 15 November, is quite explicit. We are for the continuation of thenegotiations under the good offices of the Secretary General. We feel

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 12 -

that the declaration of our statehood will help the negotiatingprocess as it underlines the equality of the parties to thenegotiations, a fact which has been denied, ignored, ridiculed orforgotten by the Greek Cypriot side, with their one-sided presentationof the facts of Cyprus in most international bodies.

I was, I must admit, disappointed to see a deliberate attemptthis morning to distort all facts about my people's equality and itspartnership status in the sovereignty and independence of Cyprus. Itis this distortion and denial of our status which has prevented asolution of the problem within the agreed formula. In fact, the Cyprusproblem arose because of the armed attempt, back in 1963, to destroythe Turkish Cypriot people's vested partnership rights in the Republicof Cyprus. It is because Greek Cypriot leaders thought they could byforce of arms make Cyprus their own at our expense, and relegate us tothe position of a minority within a Greek Cyprus, that the problemarose, and if it continues, it is because they have not receded fromthat policy.

If in the twentieth year of the problem we have had to declareour statehood, it is because of these facts about the Greek Cypriotside.

It would be very unfortunate if, in the twentieth year of thisproblem, and in spite of our protection of our vested rights in thesovereignty and independence of Cyprus at great cost of life, theinternational family of nations should refuse to look at the factsobjectively. It would be very unfortunate if the mistakes of the pastshould be repeated and one of the two contestants should receivebacking against the other, in complete disregard of the facts whichmake up the problem of Cyprus.

Today I listened to the appeal of the Greek Cypriotrepresentative for a condemnation of my people for having put overtheir heads the roof of statehood - of which they were deprived byforce of arms for 20 years.

I repeat. No man can live without the roof of statehood overhis head; no man can live in dignity, in security and in justicewithout that roof over his head. We have been striving forrehabilitation in a bicommunal State, in a partnership State, whichGreek Cypriot arms with the help of Greece destroyed, and to whichthey have never allowed us to return. But we have not succeeded inobtaining that rehabilitation.

Today I listened to the Greek Cypriot representative saying sovehemently that the roof of his statehood existed in Cyprus but,because of the presence of Turkish troops, the Greek Cypriots couldnot give us its protection.

That presentation was a fearful one, and I say: Thank GodTurkish troops are there and they cannot extend their statehood overus, because we know how they tried to cover us in that statehood. Mypeople lie buried in common graves as a result of events in Aghios

CONFIDENTIAL

- 13 - CM(83)PV 3

Vasllios in 1963. The whole population of three villages - from16-day-old babies to 90-year-old people - lie buried in common gravesas a result of events in 1974. Hundreds of other people were similarlydestroyed by Greek Cypriots. That was their understanding ofstatehood. That is what we fought against and struggled against foryears.

No one seems to understand that the problem of Cyprus beganwhen the Greek Cypriot wing of a bicommunal Government, the GreekCypriot wing of a bicommunal State, armed itself, prepared secretly,and then attacked the Turkish Cypriot wing in order to destroy thebicommunality of the State and of the Government, and take over theState and that Government as a Greek Cypriot State and then unite itwith Greece. No one seems to stop and ask how and why the Cyprusproblem started. It started because of this big plan of making Cyprusa bicommunal land, a Greek Cypriot land - at least at the first stage.Therefore, the moment the Turkish Cypriot wing was pushed out by forceof arms from the bicommunal State and Government, the Greek Cypriotwing, which took on itself the right to be the Government of Cyprusceased to be the legitimate Government of Cyprus. And to that GreekCypriot wing, which started sailing under the name of the "Governmentof Cyprus", the Turkish Cypriot people never owed, does not owe andnever will owe any allegiance whatever. Legitimate government is bythe people and for the people, a government in which peopleparticipate.

For 20 years Turkish Cypriots have not participated in theso-called Government of Cyprus, and it is my complaint that members ofinternational forums did not look into these facts and decided, inspite of our protestations, that the Greek Cypriot wing of thebicommunal Government of Cyprus was the legitimate Government of theland.

That is why the Cyprus problem has not been solved; that iswhy it cannot be solved - because Greek Cypriots feel that they haveachieved what they set out to achieve from the beginning, namely, totake over Cyprus. They could not do it by force of arms because ourresistance continued, but the international body handed it over tothem on a piece of paper; and on that basis they think they have gotCyprus for themselves.

It is our resistance to this illegitimacy, to this illegality,which is at issue today. And I ask the representative of Cyprus hereunder what authority he is occupying the seat of my Government. Whereis my Turkish Cypriot representative sitting with him? Who has signedthe paper giving him the mandate to represent Cyprus as a whole? Howcan he use that seat in order to attack the Turkish Cypriots and theirrights and liberties and make us feel that we are their subjects - alittle minority, an ethnic group, a nonentity in our own island withinour own State, which with our signatures we helped to create on thebasis of equality? From A to Z their stand is illegal; it cannot beupheld in any court of law and it should not be upheld in this forum.But, unfortunately, here they are alone and in the General Assemblythey and they only can speak. We are not listened to; we are

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(84)PV 3 - 14 -

condemned. And today occupying that seat, from which he has no legalmandate to speak for the whole of Cyprus and in which he sits withoutthe consent or signature of even one Turkish Cypriot, he has been ableto ask the Council not only to condemn us for existing in Cyprus, forasserting our rights, for preventing the destruction of theindependence and sovereignty of Cyprus - in the name of union withGreece - and for preventing an occupation by the Greek army hand inhand with the unconstitutional National Guard, which was created inorder to destroy us, but he has also asked the Council not torecognise our existence in Cyprus as a State or as a community.

We are just the people of Cyprus. Self-determination is theright of the people; but the people are, of course, by a majorityvote, Greek Cypriots. It was this presentation of facts, it was thismentality, it was this policy, that created the troubles of 1963. Inorder to make Cyprus this, they attacked us. It is against this policythat we have put everything we have on the soil of Cyprus, andsacrificed our children, and finally Turkey had to sacrifice itschildren, in order to prevent this policy from taking root and theindependence, sovereignty and non-aligned status of Cyprus from beingdestroyed.

Today the same mentality, after all that has happened inCyprus, is present here. They are asking the Security Council toignore our existence, to ignore our rights, to ignore the right ofself-determination of a people that has decided to live in statehoodbecause it has been deprived of it for 20 years. And then they will goback to what? To continue the present policy of not having us acceptedas a community in Cyprus. If the Security Council decides not onlythat we should be condemned but that we should not be recognised atall, who is going to benefit from that? Will the Council be helpingthe negotiation process by coming out with such a delcaration? Domembers think that we shall negotiate with people who have calledthemselves the Government of Cyprus for 20 years without ourparticipation in any of the organs of the State, who robbed us of allour liberties, who tried to destroy us in Cyprus? Do members thinkthat they can give them the mandate to continue the slaughter and thenwe will meet around the table and negotiate?

The Turkish Cypriot people have asserted their rights and havecome to certain conclusions about themselves. Whether the Councilaccepts it or not, this is a fact of life. We have not divided Cyprus.Cyprus was divided the moment we were thrown out of the Government.Cyprus was divided when we were forced to live In open-air prisoncamps called "the Turkish areas". The Secretary General was thererepresenting the then Secretary General and he knows what we sufferedand the treatment we received from the Greek Cypriots. Internationalbodies may choose to disregard all these facts, but I plead, in thename of negotiations and peace, that you should not ask, you cannotask and you cannot expect, my community to reverse the decision, adecision taken 20 years late, in order to protect its identity andwhat is due to it under the Republic of Cyprus.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 15 - CM(83)PV 3

In my declaration I have left the door wide open to thenegotiating process. I have asked the Secretary General to be kindenough to continue his good offices, to help us not only with thesummit but with the real negotiations within the agreed procedures, sothat we may come to a conclusion and settle the Cyprus problem withinits correct perspective, by re-establishing the partnership State in abizonal federal form which I agreed with Archbishop Makarios.

I repeat that if the negotiations have not yielded results tothis it is because one of the contestants has been given, as a gift,unjustly, what he should have achieved through negotiations in apartnership situation. By declaring that Greek Cypriots are theGovernment of Cyprus when they are morally, legally andconstitutionally not, but are merely the Greek Cypriot wing of abicommunal State, all the incentive, all the necessity, forre-establishing a bicommunal State has been removed. Therefore theysimply continue to go round the world making propaganda forthemselves, getting more and more seals of approval from internationalforums to the effect that they are the legitimate Government; andfinally in May 1983 they get the terrible seal to the effect that notonly are they the legitimate Government of Cyprus but they areentitled to extend their legitimacy and their rule to the north, overmy people. This is giving the butcher the knife and putting him incharge of the lambs to slaughter at will. But no one understands this,and no one will understand it as long as Cyprus is looked at throughthe eyes of a Cyprus Government.

Now, we hope, having established our own State, that peoplewho look at Cyprus will see a Cyprus Government - we cannot destroyit, it appears, it is there - but they will also see an unrecognisedor semi-recognised Government with another people in it. So thispresentation, this continuous propaganda - "we, the CyprusGovernment", and "the minority" and "the occupation" - will, we hope,lose its effect, and people will have a better sense, a bettercomprehension, of the problem of Cyprus. This is how we hope theproblem will be helped.

As long as they feel that they can get away with this murder,the murder of the identity of the Turkish Cypriot people, the murderof their communal existence and of their rights, and that they can getaway with the idea that Cyprus is a Greek Cypriot land In which thereexists a minority, the Cyprus problem will not be solved and mycommunity's future will be in grave danger. These are the facts whichdetermined the decision of 15 November.

I apologise to the Secretary General because, while he wastesting whether the summit could be or could not be held, we realisedin Cyprus, through our own tests, through diplomats and others,through information that we gathered, what Mr. Kyprianou was playingat, that he was just playing for time, because I had said to the worldthat I would do this before the new Turkish Government took over. Thiswas because, whatever happens to us in Cyprus, Turkey is heldresponsible for and Turkey is punished. We do not like that, becauseTurkey has done nothing except sacrifice its sons in order to save usfrom utter catastrophe, in order to protect and save the independenceand sovereignty of Cyprus. That again I am not in a position to passover, because I do not have the propaganda machine which myadversaries have and which they use so effectively.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 16 -

Today I heard the Minister of Cyprus - who has not seen a Turkyet, who has not shaken a Turk's hand for 20 years, who has been giventhe duty of informing the world that Turks are always wrong and havealways been wrong and that Turks have no right in Cyprus and can onlyhave what is offered them through good will - I heard the Ministertell the Council that Turkey is responsible for every action in theTurkish north.

I am here in defence of my people, as I was here in December1963, while my countrymen were bleeding to death. The SecretaryGeneral's reports will show that they were put under a virtual siegeeconomically; blood plasma was denied them; Red Crescent food wasdenied them. We had either to submit and become a minority in a GreekCyprus or be destroyed. And because I came here, because I told thetruth, for four and a half years I was not allowed to enter myhomeland, and I had to stay in exile in Turkey.

Thank God now I have my State; I have my country; I have mypeople. And they cannot do that to me again. Achieving this status iswrong, according to them. I should allow them to control all the portsin the north as well, so that they can dictate who will come in, when,and what for.

We have engaged in a struggle for liberty, but with ourCyprus. We are part of it; we do not want to break it up. But we wantto live in security because we know Greek Cypriot and Greek policy,which is revived every four or five years, aimed at making Cyprus aHellenistic paradise, and in that paradise Turkish birds are not askedto sing. But we are in that paradise, and it shall not be aHellenistic paradise. It is a Graeco-Cypriot paradise. But they cannotdestroy our identity as the second people in Cyprus which establisheda partnership State with them and which insisted that this partnershipState should be re-established and not a Greek Cypriot State in whichTurkish Cypriots would be a minority and again be treated as they weretreated for 11 years - out of the Administration, out of all itsorgans, out of the budget.' Had Mr. Denktas been permitted to addressthe Committee, he would have made the same remarks."

Mr. lacovou had said that Turkey was responsible for what hadhappened in Cyprus because of the presence of Turkish troops there;but without their presence, the Turkish Cypriots would have beenannihilated. He cited an interview given by Archbishop Makarios inNovember 1974 to the effect that officials of the Greek Government inAthens had urged Enosis and not cared about reaching any localagreement. He said that Makarios had seen loannides and Sampson whohad had a secret plan for a surprise attack upon Turkish Cypriots onthe island which would have eliminated all of them. Turkish forces hadtherefore been forced to go into Cyprus in 1974 in order to protectthe Turkish Cypriots. The Greek Cyprior representative himself owedhis presence at the present meeting to the Turkish forces, sincewithout their presence, Cyprus would have been a part of Greece since1974.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 17 - CM(83)PV 3

Lady YOUNG (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdomdeplored the declaration of independence by the Turkish Cypriots andhad worked hard over a long time to prevent it and also to preventother States from according recognition to it. The United Kingdomregretted Turkish recognition of the Turkish Cypriot state. The UnitedKingdom had called for consultations between the guarantor powers, butGreece and Turkey had to date set incompatible conditions for this.The United Nations Security Council Resolution 541 which had beendrafted by the United Kingdom and received much support called uponother States not to accord recognition and requested the SecretaryGeneral to use his good offices to achieve a just and lastingsettlement. The United Kingdom had circulated the following twoamendments to the Resolution:

Insert new paragraph 3 (before present para 3).

"Calls on all member States not to recognise any Cypriotstate other than the Republic of Cyprus."

Insert new final paragraph (after present para 5).

"Calls upon all States, and the two communities in Cyprus,to refrain from any action which might exacerbate thesituation."

She accepted that since these were subject to the unanimityrule they could not be pressed, but she wished to make it clear thatthe United Kingdom attached very great importance to these amendmentsand especially to the second. Both stemmed from the Resolution whichhad been overwhelmingly approved at the United Nations.

With regard to the second amendment, the United Kingdom feltthat it was most important that all States, and especially the twoCypriot communities, refrain from action to exacerbate the situation,and move forward constructively to endorse the attempts of the UnitedNations Secretary General to achieve a resumption of the intercommunaltalks. She wished the United Kingdom amendments to be recorded so thatthis particular point of concern could be borne in mind.

The CHAIRMAN thanked Lady Young and stated that he understoodthat the United Kingdom proposals had been withdrawn.

Mr. MOLLEMANN (Federal Republic of Germany) said hisGovernment had deplored the Turkish Cypriot administration's decisionto proclaim the independence of a so-called "Turkish Republic ofNorthern Cyprus". The German Government had stressed the importance itattached to the preservation of the unity, sovereignty and territorialintegrity of Cyprus. The resumption of negotiations between the twocommunities under the aegis of the Secretary General of the UnitedNations was the most realistic means of achieving this objective. TheTurkish Cypriot administration's recent decision was obviously afurther obstacle to the attainment of this goal, as indeed wasapparent from the statements by the previous speakers. The Federal

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 18 -

Republic of Germany urged all those involved to revive negotiationsbetween the two communities; it would support any steps which wouldachieve a just and lasting settlement. The guarantor powers shouldmake every effort to bring the two communities together, rejecting anyform of separatism. The members of the Council of Europe would hardlybe setting a good example if they did not make a constructivecontribution towards solving the problems involved. Accordingly, heendorsed the draft resolution which had been submitted and the UnitedKingdom and Italian amendments.

Mr. LANG (Austria) said there was no need to review thehistory of the Republic of Cyprus, which was common knowledge. Hesupported the resolution and the two amendments tabled by the UnitedKingdom delegation. In particular, he endorsed the argument putforward by the United Kingdom Minister in support of the inclusion ofa final paragraph in the draft resolution. Austria provided acontingent of the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus, whichhad been sent there under clearly defined conditions and for a quitespecific purpose. Those conditions needed to be safeguarded in thefuture if this help was to continue. The other partners should alsomake a contribution, however. He endorsed the amendment tabled byItaly, to the original text; this amendment stressed the urgency ofthe Cyprus problem and the need to find a lasting solution. Resultswere needed whereby Cyprus could be unified, in the interests of bothcommunities and on the basis of mutual acceptance.

Mr. FIORET (Italy) made the following statement:

"The declaration of the so-called Turkish Republic of NorthernCyprus is contrary to the international law principles of sovereigntyand territorial integrity, the 1960 guarantee agreements and theCypriot Constitution, which in any case prescribe special safeguardsfor the Turkish Cypriot community.

The Italian Government therefore condemns Turkey's recognitionof the illegal declaration.

The declaration is the more to be deplored, having been madeat a time when the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Perezde Cuellar, was about to revive negotiations between the twocommunities on the basis of a personal proposal for a new method ofnegotiation. Italy continues to believe that negotiation is the onlyviable means of overcoming existing differences.

The Italian Government again expresses its concern about theserious unrest in a part of the world which is already suffering fromtension and conflict and to which Italy, as a Mediterranean country,is particularly sensitive.

In the circumstances, the Resolution on Cyprus adopted by theSecurity Council on 18 November reflects a valid and responsiblereaction on the part of the international community. In endorsing theresolution, we wish to express our appreciation of the constructiveefforts by the members of the Security Council to encourage itsadoption.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 19 - CM(83)PV 3

Points 1,2,3 and 4 of the resolution submitted to us areacceptable to the Italian Government, but point 5, as it stands, isnot.

Italy has always supported the principle that negotiationsbetween the two communities on the island are essential if the Cyprusproblem is to be solved, and that is why it supported the good officesof the Secretary General of the United Nations, whose aim wasspecifically to facilitate such dialogue.

Simply referring to the solving of the problem "under theauspices of the United Nations" without further details will far fromstrengthen the Secretary General's powers of intervention, merely openthe door to greater international isolation of the Cyprus issue.

Point 5 of the draft resolution would be more likely to beaccepted by Italy if it read as follows:

'5. Calls for the good offices of the Secretary General ofthe United Nations to be continued with a view to theearliest possible achievement of progress towards a justand lasting settlement in Cyprus.1

(This wording is, in part, identical to that of the Resolutionon Cyprus approved by the Security Council on 18 November.)"

MR. AUBERT (Switzerland) said the Swiss delegation wassubmitting for the Committee's approval an amendment adding to thedraft resolution - which it endorsed - a sixth paragraph reading asfollows:

"Asks the Ministers' Deputies to examine the ways and meansavailable for the Council of Europe to be able to make itscontribution to the solution of the Cyprus problem, in collaborationwith the mission of good offices of the UN Secretary General underArticles 52 and 54 of the UN Charter, and to report back at its 74thSession".

The delegations present that morning all hoped that the Cyprusproblem could be settled by negotiation. The fact that the Turkishside had expressed willingness to continue dialogue was encouraging.Unfortunately little progress was being made in the negotiationsembarked on under the United Nations aegis, and it was felt necessaryto seek new solutions.

It was essential for the Committee of Ministers to act on theproposals in paragraphs 12 (d) and (e) of Recommendation 974, adoptedby the Standing Committee on behalf of the Council of EuropeParliamentary Assembly on 23 November 1983. Article 52 of the UnitedNations Charter provided for the pacific settlement of local disputesby regional agencies. The fact was that the Council of Europe was theonly regional body which included the four main States concerned -Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, all members of the samedemocratic family.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 20 -

The Committee of Ministers was in duty bound to help find asolution to this grevious problem, not of course encroaching on theprerogatives of the United Nations but co-operating with it in orderto facilitate Mr Perez de Cuellar's difficult task. Under Article 54of the United Nations Charter the Council of Europe would inform theSecurity Council about any action taken or contemplated.

Switzerland had amicable relations with all the partiesinvolved and would be in favour of such an approach. That was why theSwiss delegation was tabling an amendment, which it hoped would beadopted by the Committee of Ministers.

Mr. TURKMEN (Turkey) complained that the draft Resolutionon Cyprus had only been sent to Ministers the previous evening,but that Turkey had rtceived it only that morning, a tactic which hedeplored. The Turkish position was clear: they wholeheartedlysupported the continuation of the intercommunal talks, and the effortsof the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In recognising theTurkish Republic of Cyprus, the Government of Turkey had stated thatit would have preferred to see a negotiated settlement. It hadrecognised the new state on the assumption that talks would continue,that there was no intention to divide the island permanently, and itintended in the long term to see a federal state. He agreed with theItalian amendment, and he had some sympathy with the Swiss amendment,although he did not believe that the Council of Europe could be of anyuse if it continued to ignore the Turkish Cypriot community. Thedraft resolution was selective in its references to the Resolution ofthe United Nations. The UN called for all states to refrain from anyaction which might exacerbate the situation, but there was no mentionof that in the draft resolution. For that and other reasons, Turkeywould oppose the draft resolution.

Mr. PAPOULIAS (Greece) fully understood Mr. Turkmen'svery difficult position. The country he represented was nothing otherthan a dictatorship. He was trying to persuade the Committee thatthere had been no Turkish military invasion of Cyprus and that therewas at present no military occupation there. But the Greeks, havinglived for seven years under a military dictatorship knew what wasmeant. They were fully familiar with such arguments.

This recent crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean was of directconcern to the Council of Europe, firstly because the fundamentalprinciples of its Statute had been violated and secondly because allthe; parties concerned were members of the Council.

On 15 November the leader of the Turkish.Cypriot community,Mr. Denktas, had purported to declare all the occupied territory ofthe Republic of Cyprus an independent state. Yet how could one talk ofindependence for those under the threat of Turkish bayonets? Mr.Denktas had acted with the blessing of the Turkish state. His timingwas an attempt to provide an alibi for the Turkish Government, whichcould claim that he had taken advantage of the power vacuum in Turkeyto declare independence and that Turkey had only learnt of thedeclaration after the event. He (Mr. Papoulias) did not think therehad been a power vacuum in Turkey, certainly not when the President ofthe Turkish Republic and the National Security Council were takingdecisions about election and post-election procedure.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 21 - CM(83)PV 3

What had Turkey done on 15 November? It claimed that it wasnot responsible for the act of secession, but if that was the case itcould order Mr. Denktas to refrain from action.

It was difficult to think of an international institutionwhose principles had not been violated by the purported declaration ofindependence. It violated the Charter of the United Nations and thedecision by the non-aligned countries; it was contrary to aCommonwealth decision and undermined the work of the Secretary Generalof the United Nations, who was doing all he could to find a just andpeaceful solution to the Cyprus problem. Mr de Cuellar had some monthspreviously announced the guidelines he intended to follow in tacklingthe problem. The Cypriot Government had accepted his plan and he haddescribed its response as a positive step.

What had Mr. Denktas done? He had not given any written reply.He had rejected Mr. de Cuellar's move and made a counter-proposal fora summit meeting between himself and Mr. Kyprianou which had beenaccepted by the Cypriot Government. But the main effort of Mr. Denktashad gone into declaring pseudo-independence for Northern Cyprus.

The joint statement by the Ten had condemned the declarationof independence, which was contrary to the United Nations decisions.The Ten continued to consider Mr. Kyprianou's Government as the onlylegitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus and appealed to allcountries not to recognise the unilateral declaration.

Mr. Denktas' declaration was the latest in a whole series ofactions by Ankara and himself which served one purpose only: toprevent a just and equitable solution to the Cyprus problem.

The Council of Europe had some moral power since it reflectedthe conscience of all the democratic peopled of Europe. Thatconscience was fronted by such a violation of all the rules ofinternational law and morality and all the agreements on the status ofthe republic of Cyprus.

The draft resolution before the Committee of Ministers simplyreiterated some fundamental rules relating to the Cyprus problem. Byadopting it the Committee would defend not only a small country underthreat of partition but the ideals of the Council of Europe as well.

Mr IACOVOU (Cyprus) did not want to waste the time of theMinisters in answering allegations made that morning. That had alreadybeen done in the U.N. Security Council. He did however wish to look atwhat was happening at present and he referred to a document written in1957 called "The Cyprus Question : a Permanent Solution" in a map ofwhich it had drawn a line equivalent to the present division of theisland.

He refuted the allegations that the Cypriot Parliamentarydelegation had been asked to withdraw from the Assembly of the Councilof Europe. On the contrary the Assembly in 1964 accepted thecredentials of the Cypriot delegation and it is the Cypriot delegationthat voluntarily chose not to participate in the hope that the problemwas going to be solved in a few month's time. Now, Cyprus is againback in the Assembly and the Rules of Procedures Committee acceptedthe credentials of the Cyprus delegation.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 22 -

Mr Denktas claimed that he (Mr lacovou) had never,shaken thehand of a Turk for 20 years. That was untrue: in 1973 he hadpersonally pleaded with Mr Denktas for permission to allow Turks towork with him. Two had eventually been allowed to do so, one of whomhad subsequently become "Minister of Finance" in Mr Denktas' so-called"administration".

The allegation that the Turks had been thrown out ofgovernment had been often refuted and he could only emphasise thatrepeated lies were not necessarily believed. He told the Committeethat the attitude of Mr. Denktas reminded him of the story aboutsomeone who had killed his own mother and then was pleading leniencybecause he was himself an orphan.

He had before him a Reuter's report of opposition from twoTurkish Cypriot parties to Mr Denktas' views and of their claim thatthe "declaration of independence" had the effect of dissolvingparliament. One "deputy" had described the declaration as being likesigning your own death sentence.

The previous day Mr Kyprianou had addressed the UN GeneralAssembly and had called upon Turkey and the other guarantor powers torestore the 1960 constitution with the unity of Cyprus as providedtherein. He (Mr. lacovou) repeated the call. The draft Resolutionbefore the Committee was balanced and covered the reality of theproblem. It should be agreed as it stood but he would not object tothe Italian version of paragraph 5 or to the new paragraph 6 proposedin the Swiss amendment. He thanked the UK delegation for theiramendment, which would have been acceptable had it been possible toinsert it, but it had been withdrawn.

Mr TURKMEN (Turkey) said that the Greek representative hadportrayed him as a representative of dictatorship on the very day thatthe Turkish Parliament was meeting. His adminstration had prepared theground for a smooth transition to an elected government. If the Greekdictators had not annexed Cyprus and the Turks had not tried to stopthem, then the Greeks might never have returned to democracy. They owedthat to the Turks.

Mr lacovou had referred to the 1957 map and the partition ofthe island. Until the 1959 Agreement, the official Greek position hadbeen Enosis - the annexation of the island to Greece. The Turks hadthen suggested partition, but the 1960 Constitution had tried toexclude both possibilities. The Greeks had never abandoned Enosis, asmany of Archbishop Makarios' remarks had shown.

He agreed with the final paragraph of the draft Resolutionabout supporting the work of the Secretary General, but he opposed therest of the draft Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the discussion to arise lateron the status of the Turkish government. They had listened to lecturesfrom both sides of the argument.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 23 - CM(83)PV 3

Paragraph 5 of the draft Resolution was replaced by theparagraph contained in the Italian amendment (agreed withoutopposition).

The CHAIRMAN proposed the question on the Swiss amendment toinsert a new paragraph 6.

Lady YOUNG (United Kingdom) appreciated the constructiveintentions behind the Swiss amendment. It was, however, the UnitedKingdom's strongly held view that the good offices of the SecretaryGeneral were the best way forward and he should be allowed to continuewithout other intervention. Both the Greeks and the Turks supportedthe role of the Secretary General and she hoped that the Resolutionwould stay as originally drafted.

Mr. AUBERT (Switzerland) said the amendment was certainlynot intended to prevent the Secretary General of the United Nationsfrom continuing his work. What the Swiss delegation was proposing wasthat the Ministers' Deputies should consider ways in which the Councilof Europe could perhaps help to solve the Cyprus problem and shouldreport on them to the United Nations Secretary General. There wasabsolutely no question of involving other parties, as the UnitedKingdom feared. The aim was to enable the Council of Europe tocontribute to a peaceful settlement of the dispute and to facilitatethe mediation and good offices of the Secretary General of the UnitedNations. The Ministers' Deputies could examine the means at thedisposal of the Council of Europe and consider whether the 21 couldmake a constructive contribution to the efforts of the United NationsSecretary General.

The CHAIRMAN called for a vote by show of hands in support ofthe Swiss amendment. The result was as follows : 7 for, 5 against(not carried).

He then called for a vote on the draft resolution withparagraph 5 as amended.

The draft resolution as amended was approved by 19 votes to1 with no abstentions, and was accordingly adopted (Resolution(83)13) as it appears at Appendix II hereto.

(M. G. IACOVOU, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Cyprus, resumedthe Chair at 11.40 am.)

The CHAIRMAN thanked Mr. Ellemann-Jensen for chairing thepreceding discussion. He proposed to take item 4 of the agenda next -Relations with the European Parliament - and thereafter item lOa.

4. Relations with the European Parliament

Mrs. FLESCH (Luxembourg) made the following statement:

"Item 4 of the agenda (Relations with the European Parliament)concerns changes in the furniture of the Assembly Chamber of thePalais de 1'Europe and was included in the agenda at our request.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 24 -

We asked for its inclusion not because we wanted a lengthydiscussion on the question of making the desks or seats a fewcentimetres or millimetres narrower, but because the subject isconnected with that of where the European Parliament works and sitsand therefore has political connotations for us.

As the members of the Community know, the issue is of nationalimportance to Luxembourg, and is one which no Luxembourg Government orpolitical party can afford to ignore.

The Europe of the Communities had its beginning in Luxembourg- at the same time as in Strasbourg. The Commission later establishedits headquarters in Brussels. It is in these three cities that thework of the European institutions has since been carried out.

The common Assembly held its first meetings in Strasbourg, butits Secretariat was in Luxembourg from the outset. It is still theretoday, and the 2,400 or so members of the Parliament's Secretariathave become perfectly integrated in our community. We have made greatefforts, including a considerable capital outlay, to enable theinstitutions in Luxembourg to work there under the best possibleconditions.

Yet now we find that efforts are being made to change thearrangements made by the representatives of governments of memberStates in April 1965 concerning the working centres of the Community'sinstitutions, especially the arrangements for the European Parliamentand its Secretariat. The purpose of the arrangements was to solvecertain problems specific to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg stemmingfrom the establishment of a single Council and a single Commission.The substance of the agreement and the resulting practices have beenconfirmed on several occasions, notably by the Heads of State and ofGovernment, who at the meeting of the European Council in Maastrichton 27 March 1981 unanimously decided to maintain the status quo.

It is true that the events I have just described concern theEuropean Community and not the Council of Europe. But the problemfacing us today is directly connected with this issue, as we shall seein a moment. That is why I wished to point out that the problem ofwhere the European Parliament should sit is of vital importance to ourcountry, the smallest member State of the Community; it is a nationalissue which has highly political overtones.

Those same people who have called for a rapid decision on thequestion before us here have always stressed the political aspects ofthe problem.

The various facets of the question need to be examined here.Let us first look at the legal and factual situation. It is generallyaccepted that the Council of Europe, or more exactly its Committee ofMinisters, owns the Palais de 1'Europe, and the European Parliament isa tenant. There is no official title deed, but the Committee ofMinisters obtained a loan from the French Government to finance thebuilding of the Palais, to be reimbursed by the various member Statesin proportion to their budget contributions although France paid morethan its proportion. The resolutions authorising the loan, which areequivalent to a title deed, were adopted in accordance with Article 20(d) of the Statute.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 25 - CM(83)PV 3

The current issue arose as a result of a letter dated 29 July1982 from Pieter Dankert, President of the European Parliament, toJose Maria de Areilza. The President of the European Parliament wantedto know the Parliamentary Assembly's attitude In an increase in thenumber of seats. Discussions have since taken place at two levels - inthe Assembly and among the Ministers' Deputies.

I do not want to go into detail about these long andcomplicated discussions, but I would nevertheless draw attention tocertain aspects of the case. Legally it is the Committee of Ministers,not the Assembly, which owns the Palais. Another point too is in nodoubt: it was not the Council of Europe, as owner of the AssemblyChamber, that asked for the furniture to be changed to make room formore seats; it was the European Parliament, which rents part of thePalais. The reason given by the President of the European Parliamentwas a simple one: it was to accommodate the Spanish and Portuguesemembers under acceptably comfortable conditions once the countries inthe Iberian Peninsula had joined the Community. The reason was thus inno way connected with the Council of Europe, of which, as we all know,Spain and Portugal are long-standing members. The suggestion thatalterations be made stemmed quite clearly from an event outside ourOrganisation, namely the extension of the European Community.

Perhaps I should remind you at this point that it was in 1977that the Council of Europe let the Assembly Chamber and a number ofoffices to the European Parliament, at a concessionary rent that wasbarely more than half the market rent. During the Deputies' recentdiscussions there was a request, not from my delegation but fromanother one, that the rent paid by the Parliament be revised beforeauthorisation was given to make alterations to the Assembly Chamber.The matter does not seem to have been discussed in sufficient depthand no satisfactory answer has yet been given.

We now should look to the interests of the Council of Europe,and I think the matter should be investigated closely and settledbefore we enter into new commitments to the European Parliament.

*

Our Parliamentary Assembly certainly did not request thealterations to the Chamber. On the contrary, it resigned itself mostreluctantly to changes to its meeting room - understandably, since inits present form, with 474 seats, the Chamber is already far biggerthan necessary for the 170 members of the Council of Europe Assembly.

You will certainly remember that it was opposition from ourAssembly which defected the original plans for structural alterationsto the Chamber.

To sum up, there is no factor even remotely connected with theinterests of the Council of Europe that can be argued in favour ofalterations. The arguments are quite obviously to be found elsewhere.

As I have already mentioned briefly, those in favour ofalterations to the Assembly Chamber base their arguments on theheadquarters policy of the Community institutions, in particular theEuropean Parliament. It is wrong to say that the alterations are

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 26 -

merely a minor technical problem. They have undeniable politicalovertones. You will see this if you read again the debate at theJanuary 1983 session of our Parliamentary Assembly. The members of theAssembly were not mistaken; this is a political issue, not just atechnical one.

As regards the question of the headquarters of Communityinstitutions under the treaties establishing ECSC, EEC and Euratomthis, and the matter of places of work, can be decided by member Statesalone, not by any of the institutions themselves. This principle wasexpressly reaffirmed by a judgment of the Court of Justice of theEuropean Communities in February of this year.

As I said, the question of the headquarters must be solvedamong the Ten. The Luxembourg Prime Minister again raised the matterwith the Heads of State and of Government at the Stuttgart meeting ofthe European Council. He announced that in December - ie in a few daysfrom now - the Luxembourg Government is to submit a paper setting outits views on the subject to the European Council in Athens.

It is an unfortunate fact that the treaty for the accession ofSpain and Portugal has not been finalised and is unlikely to be signedfor several months yet. With the best will in the world, there will bea time-lag between signature and ratification by the parliaments ofmember States and, therefore, entry into force. So the matter is noturgent, as we are the first to regret.

According to the experts the alterations to the AssemblyChamber furniture will take two months. The Ministers of the Councilof Europe will therefore have time to consider the matter when theaccession treaty is signed. Luxembourg hopes that by then the Ten willhave sorted out the headquarters question. There will still be ampletime to make the alterations to the Assembly Chamber needed toaccommodate the Spanish and Portuguese members.

Luxembourg has always supported the entry of Spain andPortugal into the Community and continues to do so and will certainlynot object to the alterations when the time comes. That is why Isuggest that the Committee of Ministers postpone a decision on thematter until the treaty for the accession of Spain and Portugal hasbeen signed."

Mr. CHANDERNAGOR (France) said the French delegation wouldhave preferred the matter to be dealt with at Deputies' level, but theLuxembourg delegation had decided otherwise, as it was entitled to do.It was necessary, in this controversy, to get things into proportion,however. The idea was to make the technical alterations needed toaccommodate the new members of the European Community. The architectsconsulted had, stated that the alterations contemplated would be easyto effect and the two assemblies had agreed together on the work to becarried out.

Was there really no urgency, as was claimed? Would the workreally last only two months? Everyone knew how long it took to prepareand issue calls for tenders. Moreover, it was quite likely that thework would have to be done in the inter-sessions.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 27 - CM(83)PV 3

The only political implication of these practical changes wasthat they reflected the desire for accession of Spain and Portugal tothe Community. One could not on the one hand express that hope and onthe other refuse to do the work needed.

There had been repeated top-level agreements on the locationof the European Parliament's headquarters. It had been settled thatthe sessions were to take place in Strasbourg, the Secretariat was tobe located in Luxembourg and the meetings of political groups andcommittees were to take place in Brussels. In the French Government'sview, technical alterations to the Strasbourg Assembly Chamber in noway called these agreements into question. The unfortunate fact wasthat a decision to postpone the necessary work would undoubtedly beseen as having a political connection with the problem of theParliament's headquarters. The matter was said not to be urgent, yetBrussels had decided to build 316 offices, while the LuxembourgChamber of Deputies had approved a Bill authorising the constructionof a building with 460 offices, which could be extended to accommodate1,520 offices. So everyone was busy making preparations and at the sametime trying to prevent Strasbourg from doing likewise. It seemed thatpeople were trying, by constant shilly-shallying, to make itimpossible for sessions to be held in Strasbourg when the time came.

The Parliament had a contract of a lease with the Assembly.The question of technical alterations had nothing to do with thelocation of the Community's headquarters. The Council of Europe shouldnot become the arbiter in discussions which did not concern it or aninvoluntary accessory to abuse of procedure.

It was necessary to have done with the matter and take adecision, for time was short.

Mr. ELLEMANN-JENSEN (Denmark) felt some sympathy for thepoint of view expressed by Mrs. Flesch, but he did not feel that itwas a matter of any urgency until the accession to the Community ofSpain and Portugal. He supported suggestions to postpone the decisionuntil that time.

Mr. GAMA (Portugal) said that, as his country had appliedto join the European Community, it was concerned by anything whichrelated to the machinery for enlarging Europe. The problem in questionwas a matter for institutions of the Community, and them alone. Yet

* the Committee of Ministers would be failing to act in a Europeanspirit if it took decisions which could be interpreted as a rejectionof the accession of Portugal and Spain to the European Community. Theproblem raised by Luxembourg appeared to concern the internal balanceof the workings of the Community.

Lastly, the Portuguese delegation had been delighted to find,during the discussion, that it fully agreed with the position of theFrench delegation, which appeared to be in favour of the enlargementof the Community, at least as far as the number of chairs needed wasconcerned.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 28 -

Mrs. FLESCH (Luxembourg) disagreed with Mr. Chandernagor'sclaim that there was no connection between the alterations to theStrasbourg Assembly Chamber and the location of the headquarters ofthe European Community. This had been immediately belied, since Mr.Chandernagor himself had gone on to speak of the headquarters issueand had afterwards referred to the building programme approved by theLuxembourg Chamber of Deputies. But that programme was the result ofpressing requests from the European Parliament Secretariat based onneeds which already existed, as was clear from the explanatorymemorandum to the Bill.

Luxembourg had no intention of engaging in any proceduralabuse, but wishes to explain its concern, which had led it to theCourt of Justice of the European Communities.

Moreover, Mr. Chandernagor had spoken of a lease between theParliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament. As far as sheknew, the agreement was between the Committee of Ministers of theCouncil of Europe, as landlord, and the European Parliament, astenant. The contemplated alterations therefore required the consent ofthe Committee of Ministers.

As the Representative of Denmark had pointed out, noalterations had yet been made, for there were other problems to besettled first. To conclude, it was to be hoped that it was not justthe number of chairs which France was in favour of increasing.

Mr. CHANDERNAGOR (France) was entirely in agreement thatthe Committee of Ministers owned the premises let to the EuropeanParliament. He reiterated his view that the proposed alterations in noway called into question the existing agreements on the variousworking centres of the Community.

The fact remained, however, that the Strasbourg alterationsneeded to be made in time, and that the decision to start them shouldbe taken as soon as possible.

The CHAIRMAN asked Mr. Chandernagor if he wanted a decision tobe taken immediately.

Mr. CHANDERNAGOR (France) thought things could not be putoff any longer and that a decision should be taken then and there.Otherwise, as he had already explained, the Committee of Ministerswould, despite itself, provoke unfortunate political repercussions.

Mrs. FLESCH (Luxembourg) pointed out that Luxembourg hadrecommended the adoption of a different procedure. It was asking forthe decision to be postponed until the treaty for the accession of thenew members had been signed. At that point the decision could ofcourse be taken by the Deputies.

The CHAIRMAN put the question whether to postpone a decisionuntil agreement had been reached on the accession to the Community ofSpain and Portugal.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 29 - CM(83)PV 3

The vote was as follows: 5 in favour, 4 against (notcarried).

The CHAIRMAN then put the question, that the Committee ofMinisters agree to the changes to be made to the Assembly Chamberalong the lines of the plans on which the European Parliament and theCouncil of Europe Assembly have given a favourable opinion.

The vote was as follows: 3 in favour, 2 against (notcarried).

The CHAIRMAN concluded frojn the foregoing votes that thematter would remain where it stood.

lOa. Statement by the Head of the Turkish Delegation on theprogress achieved in restoring democracy in Turkey andstatements by other Heads of Delegation

The CHAIRMAN said that in order to save time, MrEllemann-Jensen would take the press briefing so that the sittingcould continue until about 12.50.

Mr. TURKMEN (Turkey) made the following statement:

"On this occasion the discussion of the agenda item concerningTurkey is taking place at a time when our Government is preparing tohand over power to the new Government, which will be invested by theTurkish Grand National Assembly elected by universal suffrage.

The fact that I have the pleasure of addressing you onceagain, contrary to the promise I made to you last May, is due mainly»to a combination of circumstances.

It is only today that the Turkish Grand National Assemblyresulting from the general election will be sworn in. Our Governmentwill therefore continue as a caretaker government for a few days yet.

I should like to give you some information about the generalelection on 6 November. At the time of the election, the number ofpersons over 21 on the electoral role was 19,740,500 out of a totalpopulation of nearly 50,000,000. 18,214,104 people voted, and thenumber of valid ballots was 17,328,735. The turnout was therefore92.27% - a very high percentage in fact, which reveals the people'skeen interest in the election. That is not, as some would have it,accounted for by the system of compulsory voting, which for thatmatter is confined to Turkey. In fact, the fine was the equivalent ofonly 27 Marks. The number of spoiled ballots was minimal - a mere885,369, corresponding to 4.86% of registered votes. This is the sortof figure which had recurred regularly in all Turkish generalelections since 1961.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 30 -

The distribution of votes among the parties and independentcandidates was as follows:

Motherland Party 7,823,827 (45.15%)

Populist Party 5,277,698 (30.46%)

Nationalist Democratic 4,032,046 (23.27%)Party

Independent 195,164 (1.12%)Candidates

Accordingly, the Netherland Party, with 211 seats, has anabsolute majority in the new Parliament. The Populist Party obtained117 seats and the Nationalist Democracy Party 71 seats. None of theindependent candidates was elected.

In accordance with our Government's wishes, this election wasthe culmination of the process of establishing parliamentary democracyin our country.

The transition period in Turkey is therefore over. TheExecutive and the Legislature are beginning to function in accordancewith the Constitution. As I have already had frequent occasion toinform you, the new Parliament will take power, begin legislating and,if it sees fit, amend or repeal existing laws. As a democraticallyelected national parliament, it will henceforth be the body which willdeal with the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly.

I am also able to inform you that local elections, in whichall the existing parties - I believe they number eight or nine atpresent - will be able to take part, are planned for next year.

In accordance with the Constitution, as soon as the GrandNational Assembly Bureau has been established - that is, in a week or10 days' time - the National Security Council, having served itspurpose, will be wound up and all the decrees it adopted will lapse.Its four members will become members of the Presidential Council, abody with purely advisory functions provided for in the Constitution.Before the changeover, these members will retire from the army and bereplaced in the military hierarchy. The army will then have returnedto barracks.

The Turkish people are turning over a new page in theirhistory, proud to have reaffirmed their dedication to democraticprinciples under conditions of political and economic stability. Wehope that the parliament and the new government will now be able toestablish relations of mutual trust with the organs of the Council ofEurope."

CONFIDENTIAL

- 31 - CM(83)PV 3

Mr. SCHORI (Sweden) made the following statement:

"I have listened with great interest to the statement by theForeign Minister of Turkey on the situation in his country. For theCouncil of Europe and its members, it is most essential that we keepour discussion going on this vital issue. It is my government's oftenrepeated view that this Organisation can and should play aconstructive role in furthering the restoration of full democracyin Turkey. Meanwhile the Council should also be a vigilant and firmobserver of its member countries as regards democratic standards andrespect for human rights. In both respects the dialogue in theCommittee of Ministers has, in our opinion, been worth while. Thefact that Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe has no doubt hadsome effect on the political situation.

Within the next few weeks Turkey will again have a parliamentand a civilian government. Formally, this means that the militaryrulers have by and large kept their own time-table for reintroducingdemocratic institutions in the country. We welcome this.

However, the elections recently held in Turkey were not quitewhat we had envisaged when we urged Turkey to restore parliamentarydemocracy. The electoral process was hampered by a far-reachinginvolvement of the military regime. The former political parties werebanned and their leaders forbidden to take part in any politicalactivity. The parties and candidates who were allowed to stand forelection had been hand-picked by the National Security Council.Consequently, it is difficult to regard the elections as an entirelytrue reflection of the will of the people.

On the other hand one could perhaps interpret the weak supportfor the party obviously favoured by the military as an indication ofthe wish of the Turkish people to move from a military rule to acivilian one. At least we hope that this is the way the militaryauthorities have interpreted the outcome of the elections. If so, thefact that the elections have been held could after all be regarded asa step in the right direction. Instead of abandoning hope aboutTurkey's democratic future we should then make renewed efforts both atthe ministerial level and the parliamentary level and exhort the newTurkish Government to take further steps along the road towards fullrestoration of democratic rights and freedoms.

In the months to come it is thus even more essential that theCouncil of Europe continues to keep the situation in Turkey underclose review. We must try to assess the political realities in whichthe new government and the new parliament will have to function andassess whether the foundation of a genuinely democratic process inTurkey may now be laid. In making such an assessment we shall interalia observe with keen attention the following questions.

Will the military continue to interfere in the political lifeeither directly or indirectly?

- Will the political parties allowed by the military performtheir democratic duties in parliament in a convincing fashion?

CONFIDENTIAL,

CM(83)PV 3 - 32 -

Will the new political leaders move Turkey in the direction ofdemocracy and human rights or will Turkey remain a country

- where death sentences are meted out and carried out?

- where mass trials are conducted against trade unionists

- where well-known peace activists and democrats - such asReha Isvan, the country's leading womens' rights activist;All Sirmen, columnist for the "Cumhuriyet" Daily; NedimTarhan, Former Deputy of the RPP and Orhan Apaydin,President of the Istanbul Bar Association - are givensavage prison terms

- where the press is controlled

- where the freedom of organisation is severely restricted?

In a couple of months we will be in a better position toassess developments in Turkey after the elections. The SwedishGovernment has repeatedly stated that the Council of Europe cannotlower its democratic standards to accomodate individual member States.1984 will be a crucial year in Turkey's relations with the Council ofEurope. We now expect the Turkish Government to take concrete andconvincing measures to move Turkey on the road to normal democraticconditions. There is no doubt that for example a general amnestywould be a great impetus to the democratic process and thereinstatement of human rights in Turkey."

Mr. SCHNEIDER (Netherlands) regretted the absence of theForeign Minister, who had had to leave the meeting early, and made thefollowing statement on his behalf:

"It goes without saying that careful note has been taken ofthe statement by our Turkish colleague. It is important that elementscan be identified which are essential for the process of restorationof full democracy in Turkey.

In this context the provisional release should be mentioned ofsome persons in a number of mass trials, and also in particular thegeneral elections of 6 November.

The Netherlands Government has appreciated the fact that theTurkish people have participated in these elections on a large scale.We sincerely hope that this will make the beginning of a process offurther democratisation.

We do not wish to belittle any positive aspects of thesedevelopments, but at the same time we feel compelled to say that theexisting feelings of concern in the Netherlands, raised by reports onmass trials, on the conditions in Turkish prisons and on the humanrights situation in general, have not be allayed. Visible improvementin this field is essential.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 33 - CM(83)PV 3

We sincerely hope that the new Turkish Government andparliament will be able to remove the negative impressions which werecreated by legislation enacted in the last 12 months. In this respectthe hurried prolongation of martial-law rule by four months, only daysafter the general elections and shortly before a chosen parliament andcivil government start to function, has raised new doubts. In spite ofher critical assessment of the situation, the Netherlands Governmentattaches the greatest importance to any contribution to the process offurther democratisation in Turkey. That is why she believes thatisolation.of Turkey should be avoided, in order not to hinder theprocess towards the realisation of a democratic Turkey.

My Government intends to follow further developments with keeninterest and assumes that this issue will continue to be on theagendas of our Committee of Ministers."

Mr. STRAY (Norway) made the following statement:

"My Turkish colleague will remember that Norway as long as thepresent Norwegian Government had been in office has been willing to goa long way in order to give Turkey the benefit of the doubt as far asthe constitutional process is concerned.

We have done so because we realised that the situation beforethe military takeover was extraordinary and that events in Turkeycould not be judged in the same way as in the other member States ofthe Council.

Today also, I will go as far as to say that it ought to bepossible to admit that in order to prevent a return to a similarsituation as Turkey had before the takeover, some otherwiseunacceptable institutional measures might be justified.

From what we have heard in the colloquy yesterday from theTurkish Foreign Minister, we can expect that many of these measuresare of a temporary nature. We all sincerely hope that this willmaterialise.

This being said, Mr. President, I will also recall thatNorway's understanding for the extraordinary situation in Turkey neverhas gone so far that we at any time have found any justification forthe violation of some vital human rights and for the limitation of thefreedom of expression. At this point of developments I will mentionparticularly the ban on political activities of a number of prominentpoliticians, who in the past, true enough, did not manage to stop theterritorist activities as much as the military who seized the power.

Our assessment of Turkey in the near future will depend notleast on how quickly and firmly the newly elected parliament and theexpected new civil government will act to restore full freedom of thepress, allow ordinary free political activities and the establishmentof political parties - and other organisations, and, last but notleast, reverse by means of amnesty or other measures, the harshsentences passed on persons whose only offence has been violation ofrules which are not in accordance with democratic principles.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 34 -

In concluding this short statement I would like to ensure myTurkish friend and colleague that my comments are made out of realconcern for;, Turkey as a true member of the European democratic family.We wish Turkey to further assertain its claim on such a position."

Mr. AUBERT (Switzerland) made the following statement:

"In September 1980, when the military seized power as a resultof a serious crisis, we felt that the Council of Europe could andshould help to encourage that member State, with which we had along-standing friendship, to restore democracy. The Turkish militaryregime, for its part, affirmed that its aim was indeed to createconditions propitious for the establishment of a viable, stabledemocracy. The steps taken by the Turkish authorities were carefullyexamined in Strasbourg. I think the Turkish Government's adoption of atimetable for the restoration of democracy was not unconnected withthe dialogue which took place here; we were keeping a careful andconfident watch to see whether the stages would proceed according toschedule, and they did. The election on 6 November ushered in thefinal phase of the timetable.

However, the conditions under which the election took placedid not entirely fulfil all democratic requirements.

Admittedly, the existence of a choice, even a restricted one,the small percentage of blank ballots and the fact that the resultsbelied certain forecasts revealed the importance of this consultationto the Turkish people themselves. Yet the new 1980 Constitution andcertain laws which are important as regards human rights andfundamental freedoms still impose restrictions which are difficult toaccept, even though they are designed to preserve law and order andprotect the safety of the public. We therefore await with interest thereport which three experts have still to submit to the Council ofEurope Political Affairs Committee on the compatibility of certainimportant laws with the Statute of the Council of Europe and theEuropean Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, it is our view thatthe way in which the legislation is applied in practice is moreimportant than the letter of the law. Accordingly, we expect theTurkish executive and judiciary to display a moderate and balancedapproach, so that Turkey can gradually evolve into a full democracy.

Now that calm and security have been restored in the country,the civil regime chosen by the Turkish people has a special obligationto ensure, in what we hope will be the near future, that all humanrights are respected.

Turkey is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. Innotifying the Council of Europe on 12 September 1980 that it wasproclaiming martial law throughout its territory, Turkey availeditself of Article 15 of the Convention, whereby states may takemeasures derogating from their human rights obligations in the eventof war or other threats to the life of the nation. Article 15 does nothowever authorise, even in exceptional circumstances, any derogation

CONFIDENTIAL

- 35 - CM(83)PV 3

torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Turkishauthorities are therefore bound to respect the right of every citizenunder their jurisdiction not to be subjected to torture orill-treatment. We have certainly taken note of the fact that theTurkish authorities have expressed their resolve to combat theseunacceptable practices and that measures have already been taken, butunfortunately we cannot but observe that there are still many cases oftorture and ill-treatment in Turkish prisons, which seem mainly toconcern political prisoners. We ask that the investigations into allallegations on the subject be pursued and the perpetrators severely ,punished, as some have already been.

As for those human rights which may be suspended in the eventof martial law, such as freedom of opinion and expression and freedomof assembly and association, it will be for the Commission of HumanRights, when it examines the five state applications brought againstTurkey, to establish what use that country has made the provision forderogation in Article 15 of the Convention.

For our part, we expect that the newly-installed civil regimewill in the near future be able to lift martial law, which wasrecently prolonged for four months. In doing so it will be bringingTurkey one step nearer to abiding by the undertakings it gave inaccepting the Statute of the Council of Europe and becoming party tothe European Convention on Human Rights. In the meantime, we considerthat the dialogue initiated here with the representatives of theTurkish Government should be pursued. To conclude, I hope that all thebenefits and safeguards of democracy will be safely restored to theTurkish people, in accordance with the wishes it expressed on 6November last. Let us not forget that today, 24 November 1983 - thedate of the first sitting of the Turkish parliament - is the day ofhope."

Mr. PAPOULIAS (Greece), having heard some of hiscolleagues describe the recent events in Turkey as fairly encouraging,said he was reminded of similar events in Greece 10 years previously.For it was 10 years since the Greek Colonels had drafted aConstitution similar to that prepared by the Turkish military and hadtried to set up an Assembly. These developments had been applauded inseveral quarters in Europe, but disappointment had very quickly setin, for such an experiment could not be successful unless alldemocratic principles and all freedoms were directly applied. Hefeared that the Turkish experiment was doomed to failure. It would beunfortunate and would ill befit the Council of Europe, an organisationbased on freedom and democracy, if, in ignorance of the truth, it wereto welcome a development which could lead nowhere.

What was happening in Turkey? All power was concentrated inthe hands of the National Security Council, which was itself dominatedby the military. Martial law was still in force, whereas evenPapadopoulos had lifted it, in order to mislead the people. There werestill thousands of political prisoners and the courts were stillsentencing. The freedom to organise and the freedom of the press werestill restricted. There were large numbers of Turkish refugees abroad,

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 36 -

who would inevitably face death if they returned to Turkey. There werehundreds of Turkish political refugees in Greece. And what passed fora Constitution denied freedom, indeed it restricted personal freedomstill further. Only political parties and candidates approved by thedictatorship had been able to take part in the recent election; allpoliticians had been banned from politics.

In view of all these factors, the recent developments inTurkey could not be considered as the step towards democracy whicheveryone was hoping for.

Mr. LANG (Austria) said his government had been followingevents in Turkey with concern ever since the military had seizedpower, and it had always hoped that this would be for a transitionalperiod. Unfortunately events during the run-up to the election hadcast serious doubts on the possibility of a return to democracy inTurkey. Of the 15 parties which had applied, only three had beenallowed to take part in the election, and certain politicians whom itwas impossible to suspect *of being extremists had been disqualified;this was a blow to democratic principles, as defended by the Councilof Europe. Professor Inb'nii, for instance, had been prevented fromstanding for election. Yet the results gave the impression that theelection had been properly conducted. The Austrian Government hopedthat these obstacles to a return to democracy would be overcome andthat democracy would be restored as soon as possible; in any case hisGovernment would in future base its action on the facts. It would setparticular store by the protection of fundamental freedoms and theopportunities allowed for political parties to express their views andtake part in elections. Any assessment of the situation in Turkeyshould be based primarily on the relevant principles set forth in theEuropean Convention on Human Rights, which Turkey had accepted.

The fact was that in Austria the public and the government were mostconcerned, having learnt of the severe sentences passed on members ofthe Turkish Peace Committee by the courts-martial. They would becarefully monitoring developments in the hope that the Court ofCassation would lighten the sentences and that the independence of theJudiciary would be respected.

Lady YOUNG (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdomwelcomed the elections of the 6th November in Turkey as an importantstep towards the restoration of democracy and believed that they hadbeen fairly and impartially run. The victory of the Motherland Partyhad demonstrated the independance of mind of Turkish voters. She hopedthat the new Turkish Government would move steadily towards a fullydemocratic system.

Mr GAMA (Portugal) spoke as follows: "I would like tothank our Turkish colleague for his statement on the situation inTurkey, which my delegation has listened to with great interest.Taking into account the information which has just been given to us,namely the wide participaiton of all political parties in futureelections, I would, very much like to express the wish - mostcertainly shared by all around this table -, that we will I hope inthe near future be given the possibility of witnessing new significantsteps towards the full normalisation of democratic institutions inTurkey."

CONFIDENTIAL

- 37 - CM(83)PV 3

Mr. WILLUMSEN (Denmark) spoke as follows:

"As other delegates, I have listened with great interest tothe statement of the Foreign Minister of Turkey on progress towardsrestoring democracy in his country, in particular with regard to thegeneral elections held on 6 November and the consequential changes inGovernment.

Of course, we welcome these events as steps in the rightdirection. But I have to say that, as far as we can see, there isstill no decisive development towards the restoration of a genuinedemocracy. I am sorry to have to say that the circumstances of theelections were really far from democratic, especially in view of thefact that only very few parties and candidates were allowed toparticipate while large political groupings were barred frominfluence. The Government of Denmark also continues to be alarmed byreports of violations of human rights in Turkey.

Therefore, I can only express the hope that the latest eventsin the political life of Turkey will lead to significant steps towardsestablishment of democratic conditions in compliance with the normalrequirements of our Organisation and towards an urgent restoration ofbasic human rights, especially in the field of the treatment ofpolitical prisoners.

In conclusion let me add, for the sake of good order, that thenew political system in Turkey does not affect the case brought beforethe Commission of Human Rights on 1 July 1982 by the governments of 5member States including the Danish Government."

Mr. DOISE (France) made the following statement:

"The holding of a general election in Turkey on 6 November andthe establishment of a civil government are undoubtedly important andsignificant developments, which can be seen as a first step in thedirection which Turkey's partners in the Council of Europe were hopingto see the internal situation move towards. The French Government,which has long been expressing the hope that normal conditions ofdemocracy will be restored in Turkey, can only welcome this andacknowledge the resolve expressed by the Turkish people in theelection.

My Government's satisfaction is however tempered byreservation, based primarily on the way in which the election wasorganised but also on the fact that in 1983 the Consultative Assemblypassed several laws, notably the Political Parties Act and the TradeUnions Act, which are difficult to reconcile with the principles ofthe Council of Europe. It is also regrettable that the politicaltrials often resulting in severe sentences are continuing, that therehas been no appreciable decrease in the number of prisoners awaitingtrial and that the general human rights situation is such that wecannot yet consider that the Turkish people have fully recovered theirrights. It was on account of this constant concern over these issuesthat France and four other member States lodged an application on 1July 1982 with the Commission of Human Rights, which is due to expressan opinion on its admissibility next month.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 3 - 38 -

The fact of making these observations does not imply thatthings will not change in the coming months. Before concluding Ishould therefore like to express the hope that the new civilgovernment and the new Parliament of the Republic of Turkey willshortly be able to translate into practice their desire to contributeto peacemaking and national reconciliation. That they should do so isin the interests of the Turkish people, of their legitimate rights andof future relations between the democratic members of the Council ofEurope and a State which they still consider to be inspired by thesame ideals, even if the misfortunes of recent years have made theirrealisation ever more remote."

Mr. TURKMEN (Turkey) wished to thank all those speakerswho had welcomed elections in Turkey. He would not reply to all thecriticisms which had been made, but as for the restrictions onpolitical activities of ex-members of parliament, that had been due tothe concern not to allow such events as occurred before 1980 to berepeated.

Mr. Lane had claimed that Professor Inb'nii had beenpersecuted, but that was untrue. The professor was likely to beelected chairman of the Social Democratic Party, which continued tooperate in Turkey. Mr. Papoulias had said that real power would remainwith the National Security Council, but that could not be so as theCouncil had been dissolved, and its powers vested in Parliament. Asfor human rights, that could be left to the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. LANC (Austria) wished to clear up anymisunderstanding; he had not said that Professor Inbnu had beenpersecuted by the Turkish authorities, but simply that he had beenbanned from standing for election.

The CHAIRMAN said that in view of the time the Ambassador ofthe Federal Republic of Germany would not be speaking, but hisstatement would be placed on record.

The German delegation subsequently provided the followingtext for inclusion in these Minutes :

"The Turkish authorities have kept to their timetable of 30December 1981 for the restoration of democracy. On 6 November 1983 theTurkish people elected a new parliament after being governed for overthree years by a military regime. The election took place calmly,although steps had been taken beforehand that prevented the formationof free and widespread, democratic opinions.

Within the limits of the opportunities available to them, theTurkish voters have made it abundantly clear that they know theirdemocratic rights and want to assert them. This has given new impetusto the process of revising the democratic system in a friendly andallied country. The Turkish people's decision in favour of moredemocracy deserves our respect. The Federal Republic of Germanyconsiders it an important step on Turkey's road back to democracy. Ithopes that substantial further progress in restoring democraticconditions will follow shortly, not only where political parties andthe Government are concerned but also with regard to full respect forhuman rights."

The meeting was adjourned at 1.06 pm

CONFIDENTIAL

- 39 - CM(83)PV 4

MINUTES

of the sitting held at 3.25 pmon 24 November 1983 at the Palais de 1'Europe

Strasbourg

PRESENT

AUSTRIA Mr. E. LANG

BELGIUM Mr. A. VRANKEN (1)

CYPRUS Mr. G. IACOVOU, Chairman

DENMARK Mr. K. WILLUMSEN (2)

FRANCE Mr. R. DOISE (3)

.FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Mr. K.A. HAMPE (4)

GREECE Mr. K. PAPOULIAS (5)

(1) Permanent Representative of Belgium to the Council of Europe,in place of Mr. L. TINDEMANS, Minister for External Relations

(2) Permanent Representative of Denmark to the Council of Europe,in place of Mr. U. ELLEMANN-JENSEN, Minister for ForeignAffairs

(3) Permanent Representative of France to the Council of Europe,in place of Mr. C. CHEYSSON, Minister for External Relations

(4) Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany tothe Council of Europe, in place of Mr. H-D GENSCHER, Ministerfor Foreign Affairs

(5) Minister of State at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, inplace of Mr. I. HARALAMBOPOULOS, Minister for Foreign Affairs

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 40 -

ICELAND Mr. T. THORLACIUS (1)

IRELAND Mr. J. O'KEEFFE (2)

ITALY Mr. P.M. ANTICI (3)

LIECHTENSTEIN H.S.H. Prince Nicolas of LIECHTENSTEIN (4)

LUXEMBOURG ' Mr. J. HOSTERT (5)

MALTA (Excused)

NETHERLANDS Mr. C. SCHNEIDER (6)

NORWAY Mr. S. STRAY

PORTUGAL Mr. J. GAMA

SPAIN Mr. M. MARIN (7)

SWEDEN Mr. B. ARVIDSON (8)

SWITZERLAND Mr. T. RAEBER (9)

TURKEY Mr. S. KORKUD (10)

UNITED KINGDOM Mr. C. LUSH (11)

(1) Permanent Representative of Iceland to the Council of Europe, inplace of Mr. G. HALLGRIMSSON, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(2) Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, in place ofMr. P. BARRY, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(3) Permanent Representative of Italy to the Council of Europe, inplace of Mr. G. ANDREOTTI, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(4) Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the Council of Europe,in place of Mr. H. BRUNHART, Head of Government

(5) Permanent Representative of Luxembourg to the Council fsf Europe, inplace of Mrs. C. FLESCH, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(6) Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the Council ofEurope, in place of Mr. Van den BROEK, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(7) State Secretary for European Affairs, in place of Mr. F. MORAN,Minister for Foreign Affairs

(8) Permanent Representative of Sweden to the Council of Europe, inplace of Mr. L. BODSTROM, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(9) Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the Council of Europe,in place of Mr. P. AUBERT, President of the Swiss Confederation,Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

(10) Permanent Representative of Turkey to the Council of Europe, inplace of Mr. I. TURKMEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs

(11) Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, in place of theRt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey HOWE, QC, MP, Secretary of State for Foreignand Commonwealth Affairs

CONFIDENTIAL

- 41 - CM(83)PV 4

Mr. F. KARASEK Secretary General

Mr. G. ADINOLFI Deputy Secretary General

Mr. H. LELEU Director of Political Affairs

Mr. H.P. FURRER Secretary to the Committee of Ministers

Mr. G. IACOVOU, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cyprus, took the chairat 3.25 pm.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 42 -

3. PROGRESS OF EUROPEAN CO-OPERATION

The CHAIRMAN explained that this was a traditional item on theagenda which allowed the Committee to take stock of recentdevelopments in the Council of Europe and elsewhere, especially in theEuropean Community and'EFTA. They had received written reports fromthe Greek Foreign Minister as President-in-Office of the Council ofthe European Communities, from the Portuguese Foreign Minister onbehalf of EFTA, and from the Secretary General of the Council ofEurope.

Mr. PAPOULIAS (Greece) observed that Greece had taken overthe presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Communityfor the second half of 1983, and said that the Greek delegation hadprepared and circulated the Community's report to the Committee ofMinisters of the Council of Europe. The report covered the mostimportant aspects of the activities of Community countries both atCommunity level and in the sphere of political co-operation.

Introducing the report, he referred to a number of pointswhich, in the view of the presidency, deserved special attention:

With regard to strictly Community affairs, the Athens summitmeeting to be held on 4, 5 and 6 December 1983 was important for thedevelopment of the European Community. At the last meeting of theEuropean Council, held in Stuttgart, it had been observed that theCommunity was faced with very serious economic and social problems. Ithad also been noted that, in addition to the enlargement andfulfilment of the Community, the solution to these problems required anew Community impetus. Accordingly, priorities had been set theachievement of which should provide the conditions for this newmomentum; improved and less costly operation of the commonagricultural policy, improvements in the operation of structuralfunds, the development of new Community policies and the futurefinancing of the Community, were the necessary conditions.

A special procedure had been adopted to examine thoseproblems. The Greek presidency had prepared proposals which would bepresented at the Athens summit. Since the Stuttgart summit, effortshad been made at all levels to bring about a successful outcome to thenegotiations. At the forthcoming Athens summit concrete decisionswould have to be taken. All the parties concerned had recognised thecritical nature of the present situation and had made efforts toachieve the necessary consensus. Failure at Athens would be a seriousmatter. Success would ensure the revival of the Community and wouldgive new dynamism to its development. In pursuit of this objective, aseries of special meetings had facilitated preliminary exchanges ofviews and had resulted in concrete proposals. A convergence of viewson certain points had emerged from these meetings. At the AthensConference the Greek presidency, together with the EuropeanCommission, had made a general proposal aimed at finding a commondenominator, which had been the subject of the ensuing discussions.

A decision would have to be taken shortly. All states wererequired at this time to show the necessary political resolve to takecourageous stands and achieve a degree of consensus which wouldstrengthen the cohesion of the Community and give it new impetus.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 43 - CM(83)PV 4

Over the past six months, political co-operation had focussedon two major international problems: the Middle East and CentralAmerica.

The Middle East question had been examined because of itsimportance and its proximity to certain Community countries. Therewere two main aspects to the problem: on the one hand, theintransigent attitudes of the adversaries, and on the other,interference by outside forces which played a preponderant role in thedevelopment of the region. The combination of those two factorsexplained the difficulties in the way of efforst to achieve asolution. At the heart of the problem were Lebanon and Palestine,which were influenced by each other. The position of principle of theTen on this subject was well-known. It was essential for us to pursuea flexible and adaptable policy. Our first concern would be to endthe armed conflict between the parties, both Lebanese and Palestinian.The Ten were physically present in Lebanon through the multinationalpeace-keeping force and had agreed to provide observers. The Ten werehelping to prevent an escalation of the conflict to a certain extent.On the political level, recommendations were being sent to theantagonists and discrete diplomatic activity was going on to encourageefforts to achieve a peaceful solution. Repeated visits by Communityofficials to the region bore witness to these efforts, which providedan opportunity to attempt to curb the violence and reconcile thedifferent opinions. The two main sources of crisis referred to couldnot be eliminated unless a just and lasting solution was found to theproblem of the Middle East. However, the forecasts were hardlyoptimistic. The initiatives of recent days might lead to a moreglobal solution. It was only through the courage and politicalresolve of those involved in the Israeli-Arab dispute that a justsolution could be found. That presupposed respect for the principlesrecognised by the great majority of the international community:withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories, self-determinationfor the Palestinian people, and the right of Israel to exist withinsecure and internationally recognised frontiers. However, therepetition of those principles was not enough: action had to betaken, and the countries of the European Community had an obligationto contribute to such action. Those who had the greatest influencealso had the greatest obligations.

Another aspect of the Middle East problem was the war betweenIran and Iraq, which had already caused so much loss of life. The Tenhad made repeated appeals to the two countries to reach agreement andwithdraw behind internationally recognised frontiers, with a view toachieving a just peace. It was in that spirit that the Ten had votedin favour of Resolution 540 of the United Nations Security Council,which could help towards a just solution.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 44 -

Central America was another crisis zone, as was borne out bythe recent events in Grenada. Non-local factors were playing a majorrole in that crisis: foreign interference, violations of humanrights, etc. The Contadora initiative seemed at the moment to be theonly means of promoting a peaceful solution. No progress had beenmade since the adoption of the 21 points by all the countries ofCentral America.

On the contrary, certain recent developments could only giverise to a measure of concern. The Ten had repeated at Stuttgart andat the United Nations the principles which should inform any solution.They wanted to contribute to the efforst of the Contadora group.

If the situation in Central America did not improve, it wasthe peoples of the region who would be the sufferers. They should beleft to devote themselves to the huge task of economic development andtackling great social inequalities.

Mr. GAMA (Portugal) made the following statement.

"Information on the activities in EFTA during the past sixmonths has been presented to you in a written report. I willtherefore use this opportunity to draw your attention to some issueswhich I consider of particular importance.

At their meeting In Porto this very day, ministers of theEFTA countries will discuss co-operation within EFTA against theinternational economic background. The present signs of economicrecovery, although still rather weak in Europe, will hopefullyincrease In strength, become durable and also spread to the poorercountries. As periods of economic growth provide a more favourableclimate for trade liberalisation efforts than periods of economicrecession, a firm commitment to fight protectionist tendencies will beimportant.

In this respect it is important that the industrial countrieskeep their markets open to exports from the developing countries. Onlythrough a revival in trade can the economies of the developingcountries be brought to participate fully in a sustainable recovery.Such participation is essential for a balance and harmoniousrelationship between developed and developing countries.

Being small and trade-orientated economies, the EFTA countriesfully recognise the growing international economic interdependencesand the importance of clear and firm rules for international trade.The EFTA countries have noted with growing concern the erosion of theglobal multilateral trading system and have continually striven forthe reinforcement of the GATT. The tendency towards internationalmeetings with restricted participation, where important decisions aretaken which also affect non-participating countries and organisationshas been followed with the greatest interest by the EFTA countries.They therefore underline the importance for smaller countries to joinforces in order to make themselves heard. The increasing use of EFTAby the EFTA countries for consultation and co-operation on broadertrade and economic matters of common concern is an encouraging signwhich merits attention.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 45 - CM(83)PV 4

The special relationship between the EFTA countries and theCommunity gives rise to the constant need to look closely for ways andmeans of improving the West European free trade area of 17 nations. Itis in a positive spirit, therefore, that the EFTA countries havefollowed, for instance, the discussions within the Community on thestrengthening of the internal EC market.

As a member of the Portuguese Government I would not like thisoccasion to pass without a word on the future enlargement of theCommunity. I want to underline that Portugal will fully participatein the work of EFTA as long as it is a member of that Association,especially as regards the strengthening of relations between the EFTAcountries and the Community. Its future membership in the EC willprovide the opportunity for Portugal to act in favour of thestrengthening of the European integration.

As a fundamental part of the European free trade system, EFTAis a permanent element in European economic co-operation. The futurework within EFTA, EFTA's future co-operation in a global context andthe guidelines for this work will be subject to discussion at a SummitMeeting of Heads of Government of the EFTA countries in May 1984."

The SECRETARY GENERAL made the following statement:

"I am well aware of the topicality and highly political natureof most of the items on today's agenda, and I shall confine the oralpresentation of my report to two subjects which are very important tome and which I consider politically vital to our organisation.

First of all, I welcome the meetings, both formal andinformal, which have been held since yesterday afternoon either byyourselves or by the political directors of your ministries. Over thelast four years, I have followed the political dialogue within yourcommittee which has been developed by yourselves, your Deputies andexperts from the capitals. Today, I am tempted to say that the ideahas proved its worth; the circle of the 21 has become a useful andvalued forum for political discussions in Europe.

It goes without saying that the Secretary General alsosupports any new initiative aimed at using this broad Europeanpolitical forum to deal with topical issues to which the Council ofEurope can make a useful contribution. I am thinking in particular ofthe two proposals for the holding of European ministerial conferenceson research and on human rights, which you will be examining today.

My second remark relates to the European Community's SolemnDeclaration on European Union, and more particularly to those parts ofit which directly concern the Council of Europe.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 46 -

I note with satisfaction that the Declaration: affirms thewill of the member States of the Community to construct European unityon the basis - and I quote - 'of the fundamental rights recognised inthe constitutions and laws of the member States, in the EuropeanConvention for the Protection of Human Rights and the European SocialCharter1;

reaffirms firm support for, and participation in, the Councilof Europe's cultural activities; and

- expresses an intention to take full account of the Council'swork in approximating legislation.

I welcome any declaration on the part of the Communityreferring to an improvement in the co-operation with the Council ofEurope. Nevertheless, I still have some fears that we may be facedwith an extension of intergovernmental co-operation between the Ten inthe cultural and legal fields.

Looking at the catalogue of cultural co-operation activitiesprovided for in the Solemn Declaration of the Ten, I note that most ofthe proposed activities overlap with work in which the Council ofEurope has been engaged for many years. I also see that the recentreport of the European Parliament on the strengthening of Communityaction in the cultural sector - and I quote - 'considers that theallocation of one per cent of the Community budget to the culturalsector is a realistic objective', which means 1.5 thousand millionFrench francs per annum, or more than four times the total annualbudget of the Council of Europe. Faced with the reality of thepresent political and budgetary situation, I must - as SecretaryGeneral of the Council of Europe - remain vigilant and critical.

Our common aim is the development of specific actions infields which form the basis of every reaffirmation of Europeanidentity and unity among the four hundred million citizens of thedemocratic countries of Europe.

Harmonisation of law, cultural co-operation and co-operationin the youth field are key sectors for the strengthening of suchunity. This is the best means of preparing the candidate countriesfor accession to the Community and facilitating their subsequentintegration. It is also the best means of achieving greater Europeansolidarity with those states which have not acceded (and will notaccede) to the Community.

The Community and the Council of Europe have the same goal,namely the strengthening of Europe's identity and unity. I sincerelyhope that on the basis of the homogeneity and unity of your Europeanpolicy - and at this point I should like to appeal particularly tothose who bear political responsibilities in the member States of theCommunity - that through such a European policy, the spirit of

CONFIDENTIAL

- 47 - CM(83)PV 4

complementarity of action which is mentioned in the StuttgardDeclaration will take practical shape in the years to come in amultitude of joint endeavours linking the Community and the Council ofEurope. European Music Year 1985 is an excellent example of this,being jointly financed on an equal basis by the Council of Europe andthe Community.

Given the size of the respective budgets of the Council andour Community partners, you will easily understand that the Council ofEurope cannot co-finance several projects at the same time. Thecomplementarity and participation of the Council of Europe musttherefore more often take the form of making its institutionalstructures - such as the European Youth Centre - and its know-howavailable for the purpose of joint activities with the Community.

This does not seem to me to present any obstacles, providedthat there is the political will to promote the common objective forthe largest posssible number of European citizens.

In conclusion, and in connection with this common objective, Iam perplexed by a phrase found in that part of the press releaseissued by the Council of Ministers of the Community on 22 June 1983which relates to relations with the Council of Europe. In thepenultimate line of that press release, there is the phrase - and Iquote - ' given the different aims of the two organisations'. Ibelieve, on the contrary, that we have a common aim, which is Europeanunity.

The Council of Europe and the Community take differentapproaches towards the same goal. I therefore consider that thepassage which you wish to include in your final communiqui relating tothe Stuttgard Declaration and the role of the Council of Europe in theprocess of European revival should mention the fact that bothorganisations have in common the goal of European unity."

Mr. MARIN (Spain) presented a proposal prepared jointly bythe Spanish, French and Austrian delegations, referring to therestoration of democracy in Argentina and expressing a desire to seethe new regime firmly established. As everyone knew, Argentina hadsuffered under an atrocious dictatorship. During that period humanrights had been violated, thousands of "disappeared ones" had beenmurdered in military barracks, and the economic situation of thecountry had deteriorated to the point of total bankruptcy.

Spain had experienced a similar situation not so long before,and Spaniards were in a position to testify that certain members ofthe armed forces, who claimed to be the saviours of the fatherland,were in fact destroying the very fabric of their nation. But, Spainalso knew that peoples resisted dictators, as Argentina had shown.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 48 -

On 10 December 1983, the elected candidate, Mr. Alfonsin,would be sworn in as the constitutional President of the ArgentinianRepublic. That occasion would mark, for him and for his people, thebeginning of a very difficult road. They should be encouraged, andthat was the purpose of the balanced proposal submitted to thecommittee today for approval. The proposal expressed Europe1s deepsolidarity with Argentina and emphasised the democratic principles ofthe Council of Europe, which would henceforth be those of Argentina.

There was no doubt that all delegations would support theproposed, which read as follows:

"The Ministers have greeted the Republic of Argentina'speaceful return to democracy and, on this historic occasion, they wishto express their solidarity with the Argentinian people. At thistime, they reaffirm their support to the democratic process and there-establishment of human rights in Latin America. They express thehope that the Argentinian example will be followed soon in othercountries of Latin America. This evolution, which represents abenefit in itself to the peoples of the region, will furthermore allowthe strengthening of their relations with Western European countries,to the advantage of both sides."

The CHAIRMAN said that he understood a formal Resolution wasnot proposed, but that reference to the issue would be included in thefinal communique, and that the drafting group was currently working ona t ext.

Mr STRAY (Norway) said that the objectives of the Councilof Europe and of the European Communities represented two aspects ofthe common desire for European unity. Co-operation amongst the Ten hadbecome the mainspring of European integration, and more members werelikely to join the Community in future. Some European countries, wouldfor equally valid reasons, choose to remain outside, and a major taskfor the years to come was to ensure that an enlarged EuropeanCommunity did not weaken its ties with other European countries. Therole of the Council of Europe was important to maintain these links,and the Council should continue to produce contributions and analyseson this subject. At the next meeting, they would hear reports fromseveral working groups. The Assembly had unanimously supportedResolution 805 for the setting up of an independent commission ofprominent statesmen from the Community and from the non-Communitystates. The Norwegian Government fully supported the idea of examiningthe perspectives for broad and balanced European co-operation into thenext decade. It welcomed the return to democracy in Argentina, andsupported the Spanish proposal to welcome this in the finalcommunique.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 49 - CM(83)PV 4

Ambassador ARVIDSON (Sweden) stated that in the absence ofState Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Schori, he would present theSwedish view. He noted that the Assembly had made an importantcontribution by adopting Resolution 805 based on Mr Lied1s very goodreport and noted with satisfaction that the committee and the Assemblywere working in close co-operation on the important task of definingthe Council's role. He continued as follows: "The relations betweenthe Council of Europe and the European Communities have often beendiscussed in this committee. Our Secretary General in his report tothis meeting has underlined that the Council and the Communities havethe same goal of European unity and that each should be given themeans of pursuing its own line of action to achieve this goal."

Mr ARVIDSON, with reference to the guidelines adopted by theCouncil of the European Communities last June, recalled that theSecretary General has expressed some fears that we may be faced withan extension of co-operation between the Ten, especially in thecultural and legal fields. The Assembly in its Resolution 805 hasexpressed similar concern.

The Council of Europe had a function of potentially greatimportance as a bridge between the members and the non-members of theEuropean Communities. It is of couse important that both the Counciland the Communities contribute in their own way to the goal ofEuropean unity. Both have responsibility for the progress of Europeanco-operation. It is our hope that the Communities will uphold andstrengthen the policy of co-operation with the full Council of Europemembers.

At present there exists certain overlapping of work, orparallel work which could be avoided in order to achieve as far aspossible maximum complementarity between the activities conducted.There is no doubt a need to improve awareness of each others'activities. One way to achieve this would be if the Council could beadmitted as an observer to meetings organised by the Commission, whichare of interest to the work of the Council. During the Assembly'sdebate recently it was noted that there is at present no realreciprocity in this respect.

The aim of the Council is, in the words of the Statute, toachieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose ofsafeguarding the ideals and principles which are their commonheritage. The goal of the European Communities is to reach fullintegration and a closer union among their member States. During theAssembly' s debate it was pointed out that the objective of the Councilis not to establish a common policy, but to provide a forum for thediscussion of common problems, leading to a broader understanding andco-operation.

The objectives of the two organisations are, however,sufficiently close to conclude that both are working for the goal ofEuropean unity. We support the Secretary General on this point.Sweden has welcomed the development to strengthen the politicaldialogue in the Council of Europe. In the Committee of Ministers,

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 50 -

Sweden appreciates the political exchange of views between theMinisters as well as the meetings between the political directors. Wesupport and take an active part in the exchange of views betweenexperts on East/West (CSCE), United Nations and North/South questions,as mentioned by the Secretary General today. We are, however, notaiming at co-ordination of foreign policies. That is why we do notfind it appropriate - as has been mentioned in the report of ourSecretary General - to change the Council' s present relations with theUnited Nations in order to make it possible for the Council of Europe1 to express the views of the entire European democratic Community'. Wethink the present arrangement is satisfactory."

He supported Spain's proposal for a reference to therestoration of democracy in Argentina.

Ambassador SCHNEIDER (Netherlands) spoke as follows:

"The Netherlands Government holds the view that any activitycontemplated by the Community but not covered by the Treaties of Romeand Paris must be scrutinised very carefully to see whether such anactivity is not already taking place within the Council of Europewhere it could possibly be developed to attain the desired result. Ifan intensification or enlargement of the activity is contemplated, weshould try first to attain this within the Council of Europe. ForInstance, we consider the Council of Europe the primary instrument forEuropean co-operation in the field of culture. We also recognise theimportant role of the Council concerning the environment, legalco-operation and approximation of laws.

We have declared this point of view on several occasions, alsoin the Committee of Ministers at the level of Deputies, and I wouldlike to repeat it here. This has been our guiding principle in thediscussions on the 'Solemn Declaration on European Union',particularly regarding the cultural paragraph. We considered itnecessary to have included a direct reference to the complementarityof the activities in the cultural field with those of the Council ofEurope. Only when this was provided for, did we find the paragraphacceptable.

The Netherlands Government assumes that the activities of theCouncil of Europe in the important fields just mentioned will continueas before. They should not in any way be encroached upon byactivities of the Community."

Ambassador PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) spoke as follows:

"Cyprus is one of the members outside the EuropeanCommunities, belonging to the greater Europe of the 21. As such, wewelcome the progress made by the 10 member States of the Communitytowards the goal of European union. But Cyprus also wishes toempahsise the need to make complementary progress within the widercircle of the Council of Europe.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 51 - CM(83)PV 4

Already in 1981, one of the initiators of the StuttgartDeclaration, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republicof Germany, Mr. Genscher, said that "the political regrouping of theEurope of the Ten in political union should be accompanied by astrengthening of the Council of Europe". The Minister for ForeignAffairs of Austria has already spoken, in his report on hisexploratory mission, of the need and importance of a new impetus to begiven to the Council of Europe's work. The Secretary General of theCouncil of Europe has spoken in a similar vein. I too would like totake a stand along those lines.

If the Council of Europe is to benefit from new politicalimpetus it is clear in my mind that the activities of the Council ofEurope cannot be dispersed but must be concentrated in future with dueimportance being given to the aims and principles on which theOrganisation is founded.

First and foremost, we must concentrate on human rights in thewide sense of the term. It is not just a question of preserving theOrganisation's achievement in this field but of striving to deepen andbroaden the rights already guaranteed by texts adopted in theOrganisation.

The achievements of the Council of Europe in legalco-operation is second to none. Its contribution to the creation of aEuropean legal area is undoubted. The potential of the longexperience gained must be exploited to the full.

As for cultural co-operation, I should not have to dwell onthis matter in view of the fact that a working party of the Ministers'Deputies is already in the throes of drawing up a report on thesubject, which underlines the priority already accorded to it by theCommittee of Ministers. However, I should like to place on record mysupport for the Secretary General' s approach in attempting to bringthe European idea closer to the people of Europe. This approach wasfollowed in the early years of the Organisation and has since lostsome of its intensity. We must do our best now to revive its Europeanfeeling by all possible means.

Lastly, I should like to mention the protection of theman-made and natural environment which, by definition, cannot beconfined to the geographical boundaries of the member States since Ithas implications far beyond their borders.

Yesterday in the Colloquy Mr. Lied, the Assembly's Rapporteuron "European co-operation in the 80s", introduced his report. There Ismuch food for thought in Resolution 805 and the accompanying report.But I would like to stress one point in particular and that is theneed to ensure that the gap between the Ten and the other members ofthe Council of Europe should not grow any wider. All proposalsdesigned to promote harmonious and complementary co-operation must becarefully examined and concrete measures introduced to that end.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 52 -

Finally, a word about the Secretary General's statement inwhich he mentioned the fact that the Counil of Europe and the EuropeanCommunities are striving for common aims even if the means differ. Wesupport that statement and we feel sure that all my colleagues will doso also."

The CHAIRMAN gave a warm welcome to Mr. Lane, who was new tothe Committee of Ministers, but by no means a stranger to the Councilof Europe, who had been inadvertantly left out of the list read out inthe morning.

Mr. LANG (Austria) thanked the Chairman for his words ofwelcome and added that, as an old habitue of the Council of Europe,though not of the Committee of Ministers, he did not see himself as anewcomer.

European co-operation was characterised, firstly, by thedevelopment of the Community through a process of internal dynamismpeculiar to that institution and, secondly, by the greater differenceswhich existed between the member States of the Council of Europe,which limited the possibilities of integration within thatinstitution. That was how matters stood and, in the circumstances, itcould not be otherwise. Nevertheless, care should be taken to ensurethat, wherever possible, the rule should be one of co-operationbetween the two institutions rather than competition. One of the mostimportant tasks of the Council of Europe was certainly to strengthen afeeling of Europen identity in democratic Europe and prevent thepost-war division of Europe into two parts from becoming a divisioninto three parts. Like his Norwegian and Swedish colleagues, hesaluted the work of the Parliamentary Assembly's Rapporteur, Mr. Lied,as reflected in Assembly Resolution 805. He did not wish to go intothe details of the proposals made in the resolution, other than torefer to the proposal to set up a commission of prominent statesmen toconsider the future prospects for wider co-operation in Europe. Thatcommission would have to review the activities that could be carriedout within the Council of Europe and the European Communitiesrespectively; it was clear that, even if a definition and distributionof activities between the two institutions were achieved, there wouldbe fields in which there would be contiguity or even overlapping.

For that reason, it was in the interests both of those stateswhich were members of the Communities and of those which were not, towork towards flexible machinery for co-operation between the twoinstitutions. Such a procedure would also enable the resources of thetwo institutions to be properly utilised, which was fundamental in adifficult economic situation. There was one particular problem whichaffected most member States, namely the second stage of Europeaneconomic integration, following the completion of the first stage withthe dismantling of tariff barriers between the member States of theCommunities and those of the European Free Trade Association. Thesecond stage called for the examination of technical questions ofcommon interest, and it was to be found in this connection that thestates outside the Ten might not be able to participate as closely asthey would wish. There again, machinery for co-operation should bedevised, which the Council of Europe might not be able to institutebut to which it could contribute.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 53 - CM(83)PV 4

Mr. ANTICI (Italy) made the following statement on behalfof Mr. Fioret, the Secretary of State, who unfortunately was preventedfrom attending and regretted being unable to participate in thediscussion of this item, which was of particular interest to Italy.The following statement fully reflects the position of the Italiangovernment: ,

"In taking the floor at this 73rd Session of the Committee ofMinisters, I would like first of all to express my thanks for thereports that have been presented to us on European co-operation, thestrengthening of which is more than ever urgently necessary during aperiod of serious problems and international tension. Italy fullyappreciates the range of activity of this Organisation, the Council ofEurope, in which democratic Europe finds its broadest expression, andcontinues to make an active commitment to its development. This isparticularly true of the political role of the Council of Europe.

To this end, we ought to try to make the best possible use ofthe opportunities offered by this institutional framework, in order tocompare points of view and promote a dialogue between the Ten, on theone hand, and the Eleven, on the other, on all the most topicalsubjects of international political Interest. The recent innovationin respect of meetings of political directors is certainly a stepforward in this direction and makes the dialogue between the EuropeanCommunity and the Council of Europe more meaningful and fruitful. Onthe basis of this ongoing experiment, we should give even moreeffective substance to this dialogue, so that the conclusions reachedmay highlight more clearly the areas of convergence between ourrespective views whenever possible - and I believe that it is oftenpossible. Thus, each member State could usefully refer to such aconclusion when taking action at international level. Moreover, ouragreed conclusions could be presented more forcefully outside, bearingin mind the political significance they woudl have as an expression ofthe views of a democratic geographical entity as large as ours. Ithink we shall have an opportunity to come back to the ideas that Ihave just mentioned in the light of the opinions and suggestions thatthe Deputies have been asked to submit to us.

With regard to the relationship between the Council of Europeand the Community, a matter that is often raised - and rightly so - Iwish to repeat here that the two organisations, while retaining theirspecific character, must work together towards the objective of closerunion between our peoples. But Instead of dwelling on the abstractdemarcation of areas of competence between them, we must on thecontrary multiply our combined efforts, and In this connection I amthinking more particularly of the Council of Europe, in order fully toexploit the existing potential and give the necessary impetus andmomentum to European Go-operation, thus providing the responseexpected of us by public opinion. The contacts with the Community arefruitful, but they should be geared to closer complementarity betweenthe actions of the two organisations. In this connection, we are infavour of seeking forms and procedures designed to give more substanceto the prespects for fruitful collaboration, while deepening existingcontacts.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 54 -

This Italian approach has not been confined to declarations ofprinciple but is the expression of a concrete political orientation,the most recent manifestation of which was the Solemn Declaration onEuropean Union approved by the Ten on 19 June 1983 in Stuttgar. Thatdocument is the fruit of a joint German-Italian initiative which againproposes that the aim of political unity be attained through a set ofmeasures covering the entire process of European integration. Thisdeclaration took full account of the importance of our co-operation inthe cultural and legal fields. It is in the general interest thatsuch co-operation should be given priority by both organisations,particularly in view of the fact that the Ten's full support for, andparticipation in, the work of the Council of Europe are an establishedfact, as indeed the Stuttgard Declaration explicitly exphasises.

Before concluding, I would like to mention a basic aspect ofthe work of the Council of Europe which highlights its fundamentalimportance and its very identity. I am referring to the Convention onHuman Rights and the European Community' s accession to thatinstrument. Respect for human rights is a cornerstone of the Communityof the Ten. That is why we are deeply interested in this possibledevelopment, which would result in reinforcing the image of Europe asa land of freedom and democracy. I should like to recall here thepassage in the Stuttgard Declaration concerning the determination ofthe Ten to promote democracy, on the basis of the fundamental rightsrecognised in the constitutions and laws of the member States, in theEuropean Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and in theEuropean Social Charter, notably freedom, equality and social justice.This is not mere imagery because such accession, despite all thetechnical and legal difficulties it still entails, would ultimatelystengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the EEC, whosedeveloping legislation continues to have more and more impact on theindividual lives of citizens.

Some of the preceding speakers have mentioned that it would bedesirable for the Council of Europe to state its view on the recentrestoration of democracy and human rights in Argentina and, at thesame time, to express the fervent wish that this process ofdemocratisation should be developed in other countries of LatinAmerica. The Italian delegation wishes to emphasise how muchimportance it attaches to this development, which also paves the wayfor the strengthening of ties with the Council of Europe, and wishesto associate itself with the idea that this point should be madeoutside by the Committee of Ministers, in particular through the presscommunique.

The CHAIRMAN proposed that the meeting should continue underthe chairmanship of Mr. Stray, as he had to meet the press.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 55 - CM(83)PV 4

He understood that during the press briefing about themorning's proceedings, the journalists present had been aware that aResolution had been adopted. He asked if there were any objections tothe Resolution being made public.

An objection was made (Turkey) and therefore Resolution (83)13would not be made public.

(Mr. S. STRAY, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Norway, replacedMr. G. lacovou in the Chair at 4.32 pm.)

Mr. HAMPE (Federal Republic of Germany) wished tocongratulate the Secretary General on the quality and thoroughness ofhis report describing co-operation within the Council of Europe overthe past six months. The federal government had studied the reportwith great interest as usual. It attached particular importance tothe political discussions within the Council of Europe, and welcomedin particular the fact that they had been expanded to includediscussions between the political directors of the 21, which it washoped would become a permanent feature of the political dialogue.These exchanges of views reflected the resolve of the member States touse the Council of Europe as a political instrument and to strengthenits role in the process of European unification. In that connection,he wished to congratulate the Council of Europe on the success of thefirst Strasbourg Conference on Parliamentary Democracy. With thatConference, the Council of Europe had made an important contributionto reinforcing the sense of identity and community among thedemocratic states of Europe and the democracies outside Europe. TheGerman Government welcomed the intention to continue that dialogue.

The Secretary General had given particular importance to theStuttgart Declaration in his report. The reference by the Ten to theachievements of the Council of Europe in the field of human rights asa basis for European unity and the assurance that they would activelysupport cultural co-operation as well as legal co-operation within theCouncil of Europe did not appear to have sufficiently allayed theCouncil' s anxiety. The German Government considered that theactivities of the Council of Europe and those of the Communitiescomplemented each other in a natural and constructive way and, ofcourse, served the same purpose: European unification. The GermanGovernment would work to ensure that the Communities and the Councilof Europe were enabled to achieve that objective, each with theresources at its disposal. He then referred to two activitiesmentioned by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in hisreport. In the field of cultural co-operation, the Council of Europehad had remarkable successes with the two European art exhibitions anda series of conferences. These activities, which had created a greatdeal of public interest, were such as to promote the politicalobjectives that were the target of cultural co-operation within the

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 56 -

Council of Europe. European Music Year, which the Council of Europewas preparing jointly with the European Communities, served the samepurpose and was an excellent example of the potential for co-operationbetween the smaller and larger circles of European countries. TheGerman Government welcomed the fact that the Secretary General laidgreat stress on youth co-operation in his report. The visit by thePresident of the Federal Republic of Germany to the European YouthCentre showed the importance that the German Government attached toco-operation within the Council of Europe in the youth field. TheCouncil of Europe offered politically committed young people in Europethe possibility of discussing problems of mutual interest in aEuropean context. The German Government considered it essential tocreate and strengthen a feeling of European identity among the youngpeople who would perhaps be the politicians of tomorrow. Itconsidered that the Council of Europe1s participation in theorganisation of International Youth Year was timely and desirable. TheEuropean Youth Conference proposed by the Secretary General wouldenable young people to make their problems and their wishes known tothe general public and to engage in a dialogue with politicalofficials. He thought that action should be taken on the SecretaryGeneral's proposal that during International Youth Year the Ministersresponsible for youth should make a concrete and effectivecontribution to the solution of youth problems.

Mr. GAMA (Portugal) said that he had read carefully thereport on the progress of European co-operation very carefully, andwished to emphasise that the unjustified postponement of theenlargement of the Comunities to include Portugal and Spain diminishedthe credibility of an organisation which claimed to stand for genuinesolidarity between peoples and countries. It was a scandal ofhistoric dimensions that Strasbourg, the capital of Europe, shouldlend itself to demonstrations of chauvinistic protest againstenlargement of the type planned for 2 and 3 December next, iedemonstrations against the very basis and raison d1 etre of theEuropean idea. What had become of the European spirit and Westernculture, when a few fanatics demanding the expulsion of immigrantscould now join the enemies of Europe who were clamouring against theadmission of Portugal and Spain into the Community?

The report, for its part, referred to the need to giveconcrete shape to a political will which was thought to be reciprocaland sufficiently strong to overcome isolated difficulties. Thatpolitical will should lead to the enlargement of the Community and notto excuses for delaying that decision. The way in which thedifficulties were overcome would be a test of the real politicaldetermination of Europe.

The Portuguese delegation also supported the proposal putforward jointly by the French, Spanish and Austrian delegations,stressing the importance attached by the committee to Argentina'sreturn to democracy and the process of re-establishing human rights inLatin America. The presence of the Portuguese Prime Minister at theinvestiture of Mr. Alfonsin would bear witness to Portugal'sattachment to democratic values.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 57 - CM(83)PV 4

Mr. DOISE (France) presented the apologies of Mr.Chandernagor, who could not be present, and said the French Governmenthad been very Interested in Mr. Karasek's report, more particularlythat part of the report which related to youth. Like the FederalRepublic of Germany, France would warmly welcome an initiative for theconvening of a Conference of European Ministers responsible for youthin 1985, International Youth Year. France would like the Deputies tobegin considering that proposal immediately.

Mr. RAEBER (Switzerland) made the following statement onbehalf of Mr. Aubert:

"The question of the relationship between the Council ofEurope and the European Community has occupied Europeans, and hasoccupied our attention here in the Committee of Ministers for a longtime. We have noted with satisfaction therefore that the EuropeanCouncil at its summit meeting in Stuttgart, and the Council of theEuropean Communities at its meeting on 21 and 22 June, concernedthemselves once again with this Issue. Both bodies expressed the viewthat the harmonisation of legislation and the cultural activitieswithin the Communities should be developed taking full acount of thework of the Council of Europe, and that there should be constructiveco-operation between the two organisations.

The Council of the Communities took the view that "no lineshould be drawn a priori between matters within the province of theCouncil of Europe and those within the province of the EuropeanCommunities". We are aware that the Communities constitute a uniqueinternational law entity, with some of the characteristics of a state.We must therefore accept the fact that, although their ultimateobjectives are to some extent identical, the nature and aims of ourtwo institutions are very different and that, consequently, a preciseand definitive demarcation or allocation of functions is not possible.

In view of these facts, how can we intensify and furtherimprove relations between the Council of Europe and the EuropeanCommunities?

We find that, from a formal standpoint, co-operation betweenthe two institutions is regulated satisfactorily. There is Article230 of the Treaty setting up the European Economic Community, whichprovides for the establishment of all useful forms of co-operationbetween the Community and the Council of Europe. There was also anexchange of letters in 1959 between Walter Hallstein, then Presidentof the Commission of the EEC, and Ludovico Benvenuti, then SecretaryGeneral of the Council of Europe.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 58 -

However, some of the provisions mentioned in those texts haveonly in small measure been translated into reality. For that reason,I would like to propose ehre that we try to give new impetus to thesearrangements and that we apply them, on both sides, in a moreconsistent manner. In this connection, we believe it would be usefulfor periodic discussions to be held between the Ministers' Deputiesand the representatives of the Commission of.the European Communitieson specific problems of interest to the two organisations.

Consideration should perhaps also be given to the idea ofissuing a standing invitation to the President of the Commission ofthe European Communities to attend formal meetings of our committee asan observer and giving him the floor during the debate on Europeanco-operation. Apart from the practical aspects, his presence herewould be a visible token of successful co-operation.

I also note that contacts between the Commission of theCommunities and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe havegrown in recent times. The Communities are represented with observerstatus on a growing number of expert committees in the Council, whichmeans that they play an active part in the preparation of Council ofEurope conventions and recommendations. Lastly, the Commission of theCommunities and the Secretariat of the Council of Europe are lookinginto the question of what European conventions could be acceded to bythe Communities. These are instances of closer co-operation which Iwelcome and encourage.

Furthermore, we consider that the work programme of theCouncil of Europe should respond to widely felt needs within bothmember and non-member States of the Community. Thus, in certainfields subject to internal Community regulations, thought should begiven to finding solutions on a broader European scale - that of theCouncil of Europe. Such solutions would perhaps go less far than thoseprovided for in the Communities, but they would have the advantage ofcovering practically the entire area of Western Europe. In suchcases, consideration should be given - more frequently than at present- to the parallel drafting of regulations.

In this same connection, the non-member States of the EuropeanCommunities would stand to gain from following the development ofCommxmity regulations more closely, not only in economic andcommercial law but also, for instance, in the protection of theenvironment. We must find a way - and I stress this because it isimportant - of working out rules which are at least consistent, if notalways identical, and which wherever possible, ensure theharmonisation of regulations adopted by the Euroepan Communities andthe Council of Europe.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 59 - CM(83)PV 4

It is moreover unnecessary, for this purpose, always to haverecourse to European conventions, whose preparation often takes a verylong time. One could just as well make more frequent use of the otherinstrument of intergovernmental co-operation, r ec ommenda tions ofthe Committee of Ministers. As you know, the member States of theCouncil of Europe have to make an honest assessment of the manner inwhich the substance of those recommendations can be implemented.Moreover, recommendations frequently serve as a basis for nationalregulations and accordingly contribute to European harmonisation ingiven fields.

Mr. Chairman, I should like at this point to say how pleasedwe are that the political dialogue - that is, the exchange of viewsbetween the Political Directors of the Ten and those of the non-memberStates of the European Communities - has become established practice.This innovation is the outcome of a heartfelt proposal of my own. Theusefulness of this exchange of ideas - and I believe that this view iswidely shared - underscores the importance of the Council of Europe asa link between the member and non-member States of the EuropeanCommunities. *

Finally, permit me to observe that the Strasbourg Conferenceon Parliamentary Democracy, in which parliamentarians from the OECDStates participated, gave tangible shape to an idea to which Ipersonally was very attached. In our view, there is no doubt thatthese discussions on the present-day problems of democracy wereuseful. The treatment of such themes must form part of the work ofour organisation. Unfortunately, the conference prompted relativelylittle public response, perhaps partly because it was held immediatelyafter the autumn session of the Parliamentary Assembly. We shouldtherefore choose a more suitable date for any future conference ofthis type."

Mr LUSH (United Kingdom) said that he did not propose togo into detail on the many valuable suggestions for Europeanco-operation that had been made, although he looked forward to seeingprogress made with them.

Referring to the proposed draft for a three paragraphcommunique relating to Latin America, he pointed out that the UnitedKingdom had a certain special connection with Argentina. The UnitedKingdom Government welcomed the elections in Argentina as a steptowards the restoration of democracy, just as they welcomed theelections in Turkey. They supported democratisation and respect forhuman rights in South America, agreed that this evolution shouldbenefit the people of the region and hoped that it would strengthentheir links with western Europe. However, they found it difficult toaccept the second half of the first paragraph. The United Kingdom wasstill in a state of hostilities with Argentina which had not agreed toa cessation of hostilities. He hoped that the return of democracy toArgentina would lead to a restoration of good relations between theUnited Kingdom and Argentina, but at present it was difficult for hisgovernment to associate itself with warm expressions towards Argentinain general.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 60 -

Mr. HOSTERT (Luxembourg) presented the apologies of Mrs.Flesch, who could not be present, and read out the following statementon her behalf:

"There has been talk over the past year of a genuine renewalof the Council of Europe as a political forum, and Luxembourg has notdragged its feet in underlining the importance it attaches to ourOrganisation: since the last session of the Committee of Ministers Ihave had the honour to receive the Secretary General, Mr. FranzKarasek, in Luxembourg and to put him in touch with all the ministerswho deal directly with Council of Europe affairs. We also had thepleasure, for the first time, of hosting the mini-session of theParliamentary Assembly in our country. You can see, therefore, thatat national level we have taken full account of the renewed importancethat is attributed to the political role of the Council of Europe.

We are not alone in this because the Heads of State and ofGovernment of the Ten, at the Stuttgard summit meeting, mentioned theCouncil of Europe in the Solemn Declaration on European Union whichthey approved at the conclusion of their proceedings. They referredin particular to the fundamental rights secured by the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights. Some weeks later, the Ministers forForeign Affairs of the Ten in turn responded to the proposals made bythe former Austrian Foreign Minister, Mr. Willibald Pahr. Politicaldiscussions have been intensified within our organisation: at expertlevel, we have discussed not only the CSCE and the United Nations but,at the instigation of my French colleague, the Minister for EuropeanAffairs, Mr. Andre Chandernagor, North-South relations and moreparticularly the UNCTAD session in Belgrade. Naturally, we arecontinuing our informal and official talks between ministers, and wehave begun convening meetings between the Political Directors of thenon-member States of the Community and those of the "troika" of theTen. Unfortunately, these meetings are not prepared within theCouncil of Europe, nor is action normally taken on them in ourorganisation, since in all but rare instances our exchanges of viewsdo not result in binding common decisions of the type taken among theTen. But the very fact that we have agreed to hold such meetingsshould demonstrate to our neutral and non-aligned friends that at atime when the Community is preparing to enlarge its membership for thethird time, we are absolutely committeed to maintaining the closestpossible contact with those European States which, for reasons oftheir own choosing or otherwise, do not join the Community. Why do wedo this?

The reason has been clearly explained, notably by thePresident of Switzerland, Mr. Pierre Aubert: we all share the ideal-, f democracy. Indeed, we are the largest association of democraciesin the world. Not that there are not states nearly everywhere whichcall themselves democracies, but the title may be deceptive and infact disquise totalitarian regimes of a type very different from thatwhich we hold dear and which is characterised above all by political

CONFIDENTIAL

- 61 - CM(83)PV 4

and economic freedom, for in my view political freedom cannot existunless there is also economic freedom. That is why I eagerly welcomethe initiative taken by our Parliamentary Assembly in October of thisyear for the organisation of the first conference of democracies. Ifervently hope that there will also be a second one, that it willenjoy even greater success, and that it will bring together an evenlarger number of democracies from every continent.

However, the Counil of Europe is not just a politicalorganisation: its province embraces every field except nationaldefence. I recall the excitement created within our Organisation bythe initiative of the German and Italian Foreign Ministers tointensify legal and cultural co-operation among the Ten. In my view,there is no doubt that the Council of Europe has done remarkable workin the field of harmonising legislation; it is not for nothing thatLuxembourg tops the list of ratifications of European conventions, andif further proof were needed of the importance that I attach to ourwork in this field, of the esteem in which I hold it, I have this verymorning signed the Convention on the Compensation of Victims ofViolent Crime, which was opened for signature today. We shall alsogive our full support to this organisation's activities in thecultural field and indeed the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Mr. PierreWerner, stressed in his Europe Day speech at the University ofFribourg in Switzerland that there is no single European culture, aview that I wholly share. The concrete proposals of the SecretaryGeneral and the Council of Europe1s work in preparation for EuropeanMusic Year deserve full support. Of course, there have been a greatmany special years organised by different organisations, but even so Ifail to understand why the Secretary General does not even mention theimportant idea repeatedly put forward by Luxembourg, of designating aEuropean Year of Contemporary Painting. Basically, all that would beneeded would be to copy the organisational arrangements devised forInternational Music Year, to co-ordinate exhibitions, conferences andpublications which are prepared independently and to append the sealof the Council of Europe to them; and all this would not cost muchother than some effort of administrative organisation and would alerta wide public to the ideas of the Council of Europe. Is ourOrganisation once again to throw away its lead in this important idea?

There are further fields of international co-operation inwhich the Council of Europe would gain a great deal by emphasising itsrole - what the organisation does in the fields of youth, educationand local government for example, though there are many others. Itstrikes me particularly that the Conference of Local and RegionalAuthorities fills a need. Intergovernmental operation exists in anumber of organisations; within the Community of the Ten, the citizenstake direct decisions on a number of questions relating to Europeanunification when the European Parliament elections take place, but atthe intermediate level, that of local and regional authorities, ourconference is really the most dynamic and the most appropriate forumfor European contacts at a time when the ideas of decentralisation andregionalisation are more topical than ever.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV A - 62 -

In order to give our organisation the new momentum which itdeserves, I attach great importance to the discussions of the fourworking parties the Deputies have set up to deal not only with therole of the Council of Europe in the process of European revival, towhich I referred earlier, but also with working methods, human rightsand cultural co-operation. With regard to working methods, I haverepeatedly said that our organisation would benefit greatly in termsof cohesion if our permanent representatives were in a better positionto exercise their co-ordinating role, and in particular if thedocuments emanating from steering committees or senior officials camebefore them for finalisation and the settlement of importantoutstanding issues, before being passed on to the specialisedministers. At the same time, our permanent representatives would bebetter placed to understand the value of this work and, who knows,they might induce our governments to increase their budgetaryappropriations above the sad zero growth level in a number ofparticularly interesting fields. The working party on human rightsshould in a general manner endeavour to ensure that our Westernconception of human rights - which in my view is that of human rightspure and simple - is persuasively developed. It has always seemed tome to be difficult to establish a close link between respect for humanrights and the level of economic development: one does not have to bevery rich in order not to practice arbitrary imprisonment, torture andeven killing. Let our work on behalf of mankind be a referencestandard and a shining example to those world organisations whichconfuse human rights with political slogans! And let the workingparty on cultural co-operation emphasise concrete actions, among whicha European Year of Contemporary Painting would occupy a special place.If we work along the lines that I have very briefly mapped out, itseems to me that the Council of Europe will be assured of a promisingand influential future."

Mr. Hostert also saluted the work done by the Council ofEurope in a number of fields such as the harmonisation of legislation,and pointed out that Luxembourg had that very morning signed theEuropean Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crime.Moreover, Luxembourg headed the list of countries that had ratifiedCouncil of Europe conventions. He was pleased to support theinitiatives of the Secretary General in the cultural field andemphasised that they had the approval of his Minister. However, hisauthorities regretted that the Secretary General had not taken up theidea of a European Year of Contemporary Painting. It was an ideawhich would be easy to implement, as the same organisationalarrangements as for European Music Year could be applied.

He drew attention to a number of important ideas concerningthe four working parties of the Ministers' Deputies.

Laslty, he supported the idea put forward by Spain concerninga text on the restoration of democracy in Argentina.

The SECRETARY GENERAL thanked all those who had taken part inthe debate and shown interest in his report. He was gratified by theviews put forward, in which he saw an encouragement to continue alongthe path on which he had embarked.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 63 - CM(83)PV A

(Mr M. MARIN, State Secretary for European Affairs, Spain,replaced Mr S. Stray in the Chair at 5.05 pm.)

5. PROPOSED MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. LANC (Austria) said that Austria attached particularimportance to the excellent work of the Council of Europe in the fieldof human rights. Central to the European system of protection ofhuman rights were the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and itsprotocols. That system had for the first time given individuals theright of access to independent international legal bodies, and fromthe global standpoint was indisputably one of the greatestachievements in the field of human rights protection. A furtherimportant step towards perfecting the system of protection hadrecently been made with the adoption of Protocol No. 6 concerning theabolition of the death penalty. Austria had signed that Protocol atthe earliest possible date, on 28 April 1983. The Austrianauthorities were convinced that the strengthening, improvement anddevelopment of the European Convention on Human Rights should alwaysbe one of the primary tasks of the Council of Europe.

Despite all the progress on human rights, a degree ofstagnation had been noted within the Council of Europe in recentyears, and this was a cause of concern to the Austrian authorities.The system of protection afforded by the European Convention on HumanRights had not kept pace with the emergence of new categories of humanrights in the economic, social and cultural fields. Moreover, therewere unfortunately growing difficulties in the procedures of thejudicial bodies, which diminished their effectiveness. In thecircumstances, the Austrian authorities had felt that a new politicalimpetus was needed to overcome these difficulties. It had thereforeproposed the organisation, within the framework of the Council ofEurope, of a conference of ministers responsible for human rights intheir countries. Such a ministerial conference should of course bewell prepared and would be seen as significant both within and outsidethe Council of Europe. A ministerial conference on human rights wouldcertainly give a valuable boost to the Council of Europe and wouldsignificantly emphasise the extent to which the governments of theCouncil of Europe member States were committed to the protection ofhuman rights. At its previous session, the Committee of Ministers hadset up a Committee of Senior Officials which had met twice to examinewhat themes could be dealt with by a ministerial conference. Havingbefore him the report of the committee and its recommendations, hewished to thank the members of the commitee for their valuable andconstructive work. The report showed a clear majority of therepresentatives of member States were in favour of such a ministerialconference. The proposals put forward by the Chair at the commitee'ssecond meeting had also been approved by the majority. Broadlyspeaking, the proposed themes were: first, the evaluation andconsolidation of the Council of Europe1s work in the field of humanrights: perspectives and challenges.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 64 -

He wished to submit a proposal which had already been made byhis predecessor, Dr. Pahr, namely that the Committee of Ministersshould take a decision at the current session to convene a ministerialconference on human rights. It was important that such a conferencebe carefully and thoroughly prepared, and he proposed that a committeeof governmental experts should be instructed to bring about theconditions needed to ensure success. The date and place of theconference could be determined in the light of the preparatorycommittee's results.

In this connection, he observed that a meeting of experts onhuman rights was scheduled to be held in Ottawa in the framework ofthe Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Naturally, theEuropean Conference on Human Rights would have to take place beforethe Ottawa meeting. It would then be possible to transmit a signaltestifying to the firm commitment of the states of Western Europe tohuman rights, a signal which could not be ignored in Ottawa.

(M. G. IACOVOU, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Cyprus, resumedthe Chair at 5.14 pm).

Ambassador SCHNEIDER (Netherlands) spoke as follows:

"The Netherlands Government has always, in principle, favouredthe idea of a Ministerial Conference on Human Rights. Such a Conferenceshould, however, as the distinguished Minister from Austria stressed,be carefully prepared. It is clear that such a Conference would createexpectations with the public in our countries, which should not bedisappointed.

During the two meetings of Senior Officials held so far inpreparation of the agenda for such a Conference, no subjects emergedwhich were considered by all participants as suitable.

Possible subjects discussed at the two meetings by the SeniorOfficials were either of insufficient political importance (forexample: improvement of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission andthe Court) or controversial (for example: the extension of theEuropean Convention with social, economic and cultural rights).

In view of the fact that for the time being no suitable topicsfor such a Conference have emerged, I think no firm decisions shouldbe taken yet at this ministerial session. In the meantime experts ofthe member countries should continue their work on the identificationof suitable topics."

Mr. DOISE (France) confirmed his support for the Austrianproposal to organise a ministerial conference on human rights. Healso agreed with the two sets of conference themes proposed by theCommittee of Senior Officials.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 65 - CM(83)PV 4

Mr. HAMPE (Federal Republic of Germany) said that as hisdelegation had stated at the 72nd session of the Committee ofMinisters, it had no reservations about the holding of a conference ofministers responsible for human rights. He wished to reiterate thatstatement, but given the importance of such a conference and thepublic interest it would arouse, he thought that themes of politicalimportance, capable of producing concrete results, should be selectedfor the conference. The subjects that had been placed before theministers that day could more usefully be dealt with by the Committeeof Ministers or the Conference of Ministers of Justice. Accordingly,he proposed that the Committee of Senior Officials should continue toexamine possible themes.

Mr WILLUMSEN (Denmark) made the following statement:

"Particularly in times of economic recession, we find itimportant to stress that economic difficulties should not affect thelevel or scope of protection of human rights in our countries. Norshould they cause a set-back in our common efforts to improve thehuman rights regime. A ministerial conference on human rights could bean important manifestation of this attitude. We favour the suggestionto include a stock taking element as well as a more action orientedsubject in the conference. At this juncture, however, we find itdifficult to define a specific subject which would warrant aministerial conference. Certainly no subject has up till now beenreceived by concensus. We have an open mind on this issue, however,and perhaps it might be useful to extend the mandate of the SeniorOfficials for another six months and to consider having a conferencein 1985 instead of 1984."

He added that he was not convinced of the need to wait for theOttawa Conference.

Mr. LUSH (United Kingdom) said that human rights were thegreatest achievement of the Council of Europe. He respected thesystem, which was working well, although procedural improvements wereneeded. Nevertheless, it was possible to be proud of the progresswhich had been made.

He had to express doubts when he heard of stagnation in this field:the Court was in fact extending the scope of the Convention by caselaw. On the question of the need for a Ministerial Conference, hethought that if there had been general agreement about the subjects tobe covered and if there had been themes of political importance andthe Conference was likely to produce substantial results, non-onewould have opposed such a conference. He questioned the need for oneIn 1984 with the themes as outlined in paragraph 8 of the report. Henoted the comments of the officials who had prepared the report onthose themes. Paragraph 6 of the report had recognised that such aconference had to be well prepared with limited themes of which at

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 66 -

least one should be of major political importance. However, some ofthe officials could not see a single suitable theme for a MinisterialConference, and thought that those proposed could be dealt withelsewhere. Reservations had been expressed about subjects I(c) and(d) while the subjects of II(a) and (b) were also rejected by someofficials. The UK agreed with their view. Other subjects had beenrejected by officials because they were already under discussion inthe Council of Europe. The United Kingdom could therefore not agreeto a conference to discuss those themes in 1984.

Mr. ANTICI (Italy) observed that everyone present wasaware of the difficulties encountered so far in connection with theholding of a conference on human rights. Nevertheless, the Italiandelegation was very sympathetic to the arguments put forward by theAustrian delegation. Indeed, it seemed to him that the proposedconference should have a political significance which have the effectof enhancing the political potential of the Council of Europe. Inother words, it was a question of stimulating thought about the way inwhich fresh impetus could be given to what was no doubt the mostrepresentative, the most innovative and the most remarkable sector ofthe Council's activities.

For that reason, the Committee of Ministers should reaffirmthis very day its interest in such a conference and emphasise theimportance it attached to it. With regard to the date, it was perhapspremature to attempt to fix it now, especially since it was basicallya matter of inviting experts who were for the most part disposed 'tocontinue their work. Moreover, those experts would have to be madeclearly aware of the political importance and the significance the.Committee of Ministers intended the conference to have. It was thataspect which should guide the work of the experts and which should beemphasised once again today.

Mr. RAEBER (Switzerland) made the following statement:

"From the outset, Switzerland has supported the Austrianproposal for the holding of a ministerial conference on human rights',which constitute a highly important field of intergovernmentalco-operation within the Council of Europe.

It does indeed seem to us desirable for a review to be carried out atpolitical level of everything that has been achieved in the 30 yearsduring which the European Convention on Human Rights has been applied.We also think it would be useful for us to exchange views on thechallenges facing our countries in this field. A ministerialconference could also have a political impact with a view to themeeting of the group of experts on human rights which could be held inOttawa in 1985 in the framework of the CSCE.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 67 - CM(83)PV 4

Should our committee not be in a position today to take adecision of principle on this issue, I would like to propose that afinal decision be deferred to our next session and that the terms ofreference of the Committee of Senior Officials be extended so as toenable It to meet once again during the first quarter of 1984. Thecommittee could carry out a more detailed examination of themes thatwould be of particular interest from the point of view of the Ottawameeting, modify its proposals accordingly, and thus establish a basisfor discussion which would enable us, I hope, to take a decision byconsensus."

Mr. VRANKEN (Belgium) made the following statement:

"Belgium confirms its support in principle for the holding ofa ministerial conference on human rights, in connection with which ithas made concrete proposals together with other delegations, both inthe Committee of Ministers and in the group of senior officialsresponsible for preparing the conference.

After several years of co-operation in the establishment andapplication of a system of protection based on international contromby bodies not beholden to states, Belgium is convinced of theusefulness of carrying out a thorough evaluation at political level ofthe results achieved and the adjustments rendered necessary ordesirable in the interests of the smoother functioning of thismechanism, while bearing in mind that it serves as a point ofreference for other systems established in other areas of the world.

Moreover, my country takes the view that our committee has anobligation to remain alert to the possible impact that the appearanceof certain disqquieting social phenomena and the emergence of newtechnologies - if they are not controlled within the framework of ourdemocratic societies - may have on the condition and well-being of theEuropeaan citizen, whose personal fulfilment presupposes respect forhis integrity and his most basic rights.

We are therefore in favour of continuing the effortsundertaken for the preparation of a conference on human rights, basedon a balanced approach to the problems we encounter today and thechallenges awaiting us in a field where solidarity among the 21 mustbe affirmed vigorously and clearly.

In view of the progress made by the preparatory committee, wesuggest that supplementary terms of reference be given to a jointcommittee composed of a small number of our Deputies and of seniorofficials, which would be responsible, with the active co-operation ofthe Secretariat, and after securing contact and co-operation with thecompetent national bodies, for submitting a detailed report to ourcommittee at its autumn 1984 session.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 68 -

At that time, the Committee of Ministers would take a definitedecision on the conference.

Further to a number of very positive statements that have beenmade around this table, we also feel that the preparations should takeaccount of the work to be done in connection with the meeting ofexperts on human rights to be held in Ottawa in 1985, as part of thefolloww-up to the Madrid Conference."

Mr. WINSNES (Norway) made the following statement:

"This is the second time the Committee of Minister is invitedto pronounce itself on the principle of holding an ad hoc MinisterialConference on human rights. My government Is ready to take a positivedecision on this today. It is true that discussions held so far havebrought out slightly divergent views on the content of such aconference. In our view it should, however, be possible to reconcilethe positions.

The European Convention on Human Rights is the most importantlegal instrument ever created by the Council of Europe. As it has nowbeen in force for 30 years, we feel it is time to evaluatedevelopments, look at ways of improving the machinery, and ofconsolidating the Council of Europ's work In this field. A conferencecoud also deal with the human rights challenges posed by the rapiddevelopment of science and technology. Within this general frameworkwe think the conference should concentrate on a limited number ofsubjects. It goes without saying that we should be flexible about thetiming of the conference and give priority to its thoroughpreparation."

Mr. BUKOWSKI (Austria) noted these speakers who had beenin favour of holding a conference on human rights and the welcome thathad been given to the idea. There had, however, been somedisagreement about whether or not the conditions were right, and aboutsuitable subjects. Some speakers had wanted the Committee of SeniorOfficials to consider further the possible subjects for a conference,especially in view of the forthcoming Conference of Experts on HumanRights which would be held in Ottawa in the framework of theConference on Security and Co-operation. He supported thatsuggestion.

Mr. DOISE (France) thought that, while it was indeednecessary to take account of the Ottawa meeting, the two groups ofexperts should nonetheless be kept separate, and care should be takento maintain the specific character of the Council of Europe.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 69 - CM(83)PV 4

Mr. BUKOWSKI (Austria) continuing, said that his countrywished to associate itself with the proposals made among others by theSwiss and the Belgian representatives to renew the mandate to theSenior Officials, who should be supplemented by experts on CSCE, andto widen the terms of reference so as to include preparations for theOttawa Conference. The question of a ministerial conference on humanrights which could be taken up at the next meeting of the Committee ofMinisters in May 1984.

The CHAIRMAN summing up, noted that the Committee of SeniorOfficials would be invited to continue its work. It could also takeaccount, inter alia, of questions concerning the Ottawa meeting ofhuman rights' experts scheduled for May 1985. It was for governmentsto designate the Senior Officials but CSCE experts could of course beincluded in delegations. The question of the advisability of holding aMinisterial Conference on Human Rights would be examined again at aforthcoming session.

6. PROPOSED MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH

Mr. DOISE (France) read out the following statement onbehalf of Mr. Chandernagor:

"As agreed at the session last April, our committee today hasbefore it the report of the senior officials responsible for examiningthe French proposal for a ministerial conference on research.

My delegation considers that the meeting held in September,the conclusions of which are before us, afforded a worthwhileexamination of the subjects that could be dealt with by theconference. We are pleased that the senior officials reachedagreement on the need to strengthen scientific co-operation betweenour member States: it seems to us that this must be a priorityobjective If we wish Europe to make up the ground it has lost to theUnited States and Japan; we already lag too far behind in severalsectors.

We are also pleased to note the interest shown by theCommittee of Senior Officials in closer links between the existingresearch centres in our countries. President Mitterrand, in hisspeech to the Parliamentary Assembly, referred to 'centres ofexcellence'. The report of the senior officials refers to a 'networkof centres of reference". Those in charge of research in the variousmember States are indeed unanimous in advocating more exchanges amongour researchers and closer links between our research institutions infields where research is often very advanced at national level, but inwhich co-operation at European level is still inadequate to enable ourcountries, collectively, to reduce the gap that separates them fromAmerican or Japanese research achievements.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 70 -

The report before us clarifies the role of the Europeannetworks of centres of reference, and the criteria for determining thefields in which they are needed; the final choice can be made only onthe basis of wide-ranging consultation among the European scientificcommunity, which has already been undertaken In France and othercountries.

However, the report contains other very interesting proposals,and I would draw attention in particular to the following:

mobility among scientists: it will be necessary for theconference to propose specific measures to promote suchmobility;

- the best use of national means of co-operation: there is muchroom for improvement in this field;

- training of researchers, engineers and managerial staff, andlet us not forget the pooling of the most important scientificequipment and of testing facilities.

After reading this report, my delegation considers that theresults of this first meeting of the senior offcials justify theholding of a ministerial conference on research and that our committeecould either take such a decision as of today or instruct the Deputiesto do so in the light of the report of the second meeting of thesenior officials, ie. next February.

If there is agreement on the objectives and the mainproposals, in particular on the establishment of networks of referencecentres, the Conference of Ministers will provide the politicalimpetus by confirming that agreement and defining some of its termsand conditions, in particular those scientific fields that would serveas pilot areas for the establishment of networks, and precise measuresto facilitate mobility among researchers.

The French Government confirms that it is ready to host thisconference in 1984, at a date convenient to the largest possiblenumber of states, which could be decided by our Deputies.

I observe that, among the proposals for the forthcoming Athenssummit, under the heading "revival of the Community", there is aspecial section on research. It proposes the intensification ofco-operation between research centres in the Community states, butdoes not rule out more co-operation with centres in Europe of the 21.This would therefore be a particularly opportune time for aministerial conference on this subject."

Mr. PEREIRA BASTOS (Portugal) said that Portugal wasfollowing with interest the preparatory work for the MinisterialConference on Research. The French initiative deserved his country'sfull support. In this connection, account should be take of theU-2000 Conference which had recently been held in Strasbourg.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 71 - CM(83)PV 4

Portugal was also in favour of the idea of preparing aMinisterial Conference on European Youth. It would be a good thingfor this conference to be held in Strasbourg, which would beconsistent with the existing recommendations on increased use of thePalais de 1'Europe, which had not always been acted on hitherto.

Mr SCHNEIDER (Netherlands) said that the NetherlandsGovernment was in favour of the proposed Conference on Research,provided that it was carefully prepared. With this in mind he agreedfully with the proposed next meeting of the committee of highofficials, enlarged by representatives of the European organisationsconcerned. Apart from the identification of suitable themes for theMinisterial Conference, the preparatory committee should examine whatkinds of co-operation were not yet provided for by the existingorganistations, and identify the type of activity needed to fill the

gap-

Mr PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) said that he strongly supported theMinisterial Conference on Research and was happy to agree to theproposed meeting of experts in January.

Mr. RAEBER (Switzerland) said that Switzerland supportedthe French proposal to convene a conference on research in 1984. Sucha conference would help strengthen co-operation in this field amongall the member States, to the greater benefit of all. The Council ofEurope would thus demonstrate its vitality and its interest inresearch, a fundamental activity.

. He said that Switzerland also approved the French proposal tohold a Conference of Ministers responsible for Youth in 1985.

M. BUKOWSKI (Austria) supported the French proposal toconvene a Conference on Research.

The CHAIRMAN said that he felt there was general supportwithin the Committee for the idea of a conference.

Mr WILLUMSEN (Denmark) still had some doubts. He wouldprefer to wait until after the next ministerial meeting, in May.

Mr LUSH (United Kingdom) agreed with Mr Willumsen.

Mr PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) felt there was no need to constrainthe committee' s options by waiting until May, and he would be happyto refer the matter to January's meeting of Deputies.

Mr. VRANKEN (Belgium) shared the views expressed byDenmark and the United Kingdom. The decision to convene a conferenceof such importance should be taken at ministerial level, not a Deputylevel. Moreover, the results of the work of the senior officialsshould be awaited.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 72 -

Mr. DOISE (France) supported the proposal made by Mr.Papademas that the Deputies should be left to take the decision. Thatwould not be an innovation. Such decisions were frequent. Hereferred in this connection to the Conference of Ministers of Labour,which was also an important conference.

Mr. RAEBER (Switzerland) supported the standpointexpressed by Cyprus and seconded by France. The conference was anevent of importance, and indeed urgency, and should be organised assoon as possible. That did not rule out thorough preparations. Anagreement had emerged to the effect that preparations were at asufficiently advanced stage for a decision to be taken. That decisioncould just as easily be taken at Deputy level.

The CHAIRMAN said that the question was whether the Ministersor their Deputies should take the decision, and he suggested that itbe referred to the Deputies, and if they could not agree then theMinisters would be able to.

Mr. WILLUMSEN (Denmark) agreed with the Chairman, with theproviso that there should be no majority vote among the Deputies.

Mr. LUSH (United Kingdom) and Mr. VRANKEN (Belgium)agreed.

The CHAIRMAN said that the decision would be referred to theDeputies, and if there was no agreement would then be referred to theMinisters.

3. PROGRESS OF EUROPEAN CO-OPERATION (cont'd)

The CHAIRMAN drew attention to document CM(83)198. Theproposals on imbalances between member States of the Council of Europewere intended to achieve action without the need for substantial newresources. The idea was to use experience and existing facilities todevelop programmes designed to further the aims of the Council. TheChair would welcome any request that the Deputies should examineCM(83)198 with a view to its implementation.

Mr. PEREIRA BASTOS (Portugal) made the followingstatement:

"Portugal supports the suggestions in document CM(83)198presented by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers on theprogramme of balanced development in Europe. In our view, thesesuggestions are a valuable supplement to the Lisbon Declaration onthis subject. Moreover, we feel that they take into account thedifficulties that all our countries are currently experiencing. Iwould like to refer in particular to paragraph 7 of documentCM(83)198, the content of which is in line with our positionconcerning the action which the CLRAE proposes to take in the contextof its Resolution 122 of 28 October last."

CONFIDENTIAL

- 73 - CM(83)PV 4

Mr. WILLUMSEN (Denmark) said that his country consideredthe question as being very important. He pointed out that Denmark hadjoined the Resettlement Fund, and said he would accept the Chairman'sproposal.

Mr. LUSH (United Kingdom) agreed with Denmark, but wishedto clarify whether the intention was to refer the document to theDeputies. They should not anticipate the outcome of the Deputies'consideration.

The CHAIRMAN confirmed that that was the intention.

7. EAST-WEST RELATIONS

The CHAIRMAN recalled the previous night's informal discussionon the state of East-West relations following the Madrid Conference.He felt that Madrid had been very useful, and that East-West relationswere not as bad as sometimes made out. He applauded the preparatorywork for Stockholm.

Mr. BUKOWSKI (Austria) recapitulated the statement thathis Minister had intended to make. During the autumn, East-Westrelations had deteriorated alarmingly. The attack on a civilianKorean Boeing, and the growing tensions in Central America and theMiddle East underscored this trend. The growing East-Westconfrontation was especially reflected in the question, which was veryimportant to Europe, of the deployment of medium-range nuclear weaponsin Europe. The current situation did not give grounds for any greatoptimism, with the return of the two super-powers to an attitude ofrigid confrontation not seen since the early 1960s. It was preciselyin such a situation that the maintenance of a realistic and objectivedialogue between the military and political blocs in Europe wasimportant. The CSCE process was an important contribution to that.The Austrian authorities were pleased that it had been possible tobring the Madrid meeting to a successful conclusion with the adoptionof a final document and a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of theparticipating states. The Madrid concluding document was the firstimportant agreement between East and West since the Helsinkiagreements. Unlike what had happened in Helsinki in 1975, noexaggerated hopes or illusions about possibilities for East-Westco-operation had emerged from Madrid. Even so, the Austrianauthorities considered that the adoption of a concluding document wasa positive sign. That document contained substantive provisionsconcerning pratically all aspects of East-West relations. On numerouspoints, it had been possible to obtain concrete clarification of theprovisions of the Helsinki Final Act. Austria set great store by thatdocument and had published it in its entirety on the 30 September1983. One of the fundamental aspects of the CSCE process was itsinner momentum. Thus it had been possible in Madrid to agree on anextensive timetable of follow-up meetings. Austria considered allthese events, in particular the meeting of experts on human rights andhuman conctacts, as equally important parts of the ongoing CSCEprocess. Austria appreciated the fact that the next meeting of theCSCE would be held in 1986 in Vienna.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 74 -

The Conference on Confidence and Security building Measuresand Disarmament in Europe would begin in Stockholm on 17 January 1984as part of the follow-up to the Madrid Conference. For the firsttime, confidence building measures would be discussed in an enlargedEuropean framework, and the discussion would subsequently be extendedto cover disarmament questions throughout Europe, from the Urals tothe Atlantic. The preparatory meeting for the Conference had justbeen held in Helsinki as scheduled and, as at Madrid, it was clearthat the desire to continue the dialogue in calm atmosphere stillexisted on all sides. It had been possible to decide on theorganisational framework and the date of the Stockholm Conference.Together with the Madrid concluding document, the Helsinki decisionsprovided a good basis for success in the Stockholm talks.

The CSCE process constituted one of the basic elements ofEast-West relations. Accordingly, Austria welcomed the closeattention given to these questions in the Council of Europe, the onlyforum representing all the pluralist democracies of Europe. Inparticular, it supported the recommendations of the ParliamentaryAssembly to the effect that the Committee of Ministers should reportin the autumn o 1984 on the implementation of the Madrid concludingdocument and set up a committee responsible for preparing follow-upmeetings to Madrid.

Austria attached considerable importance to the CSCE process.A small, neutral country like Austria not only had a vital interest inreviving detente, but it believed that through its active co-operationin the broadest European assemblies, it could make an importantcontribution to detente, which was in the interests of all Europeans.

The CHAIRMAN said that paragraphs on this item would beincluded in the final communiqu§ on the meeting and would be based inpart on views which had been expressed at the informal meeting theprevious day.

8. NORTH-SOUTH QUESTIONS

The CHAIRMAN invited Mr. Papademas to introduce the report bythe Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies on the exchange of views onthe Vlth Session of UNCTAD which had taken place on 22 September 1983(document CM(83)186).

Mr. PAPADEMAS (Cyprus), Chairman of the Ministers'Deputies, made the following statement:

"Following the discussions on North-South questions during thelast Ministerial Session, an exchange of views on the Belgrade Sessionof UNCTAD was held on 22 September 1983 during a meeting of theDeputies, with the participation of experts from 13 capitals. Time didnot permit the organisation of such an exchange of views before theBelgrade Session but it was generally agreed that it was worth whilehaving an opportunity to discuss the outcome of that Session and thefuture prospects in the North-South dialogue.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 75 - CM(83)PV A

As the report on the exchange of views in document CM(83)186shows, the participant felt that on the whole UNCTAD VI had been adifficult conference indeed, but that it could nevertheless beregarded as positive insofar as it had kept the dialogue going andthus helped to avoid a confrontation between the developed countriesand the Group of 77.

It was regretted that the group of States to which the Councilof Europe countries belong, together with the United States and othernon-European countries, was unable to go as far as Council of Europemembers would have liked and that in nearly every case the group'spositions were seen to be brought down to the least commondenominator.

Several participants also thought that UNCTAD VI failed totake advantage of the economic reconciliation in order to give thedialogue a constructive tone. The reason for this was not only thatEuropean proposals were tardy and contained minimal solutions, butalso the lack of flexibility of developing countries. If there is anincreased recognition of interdependence, this has not yet resulted ina significant new behaviour.

There was a feeling at the meeting that it was important forthe future to intensify co-operation between European and non-Europeancountries. Exchanges of views to this effect could also usefully beheld within the Council of Europe whose members have specialrelationships with the countries of French speaking Africa, theCommonwealth and Latin America.

In this respect - and this might be the conclusion of themeeting of 22 September 1983 - this exchange of views was considered astep in the right direction. The French delegation was warmly thankedfor proposing it and the hope was expressed that there will be furtheropportunities for such exchanges of views in the future."

Mr. DOISE (France) thanked the Chairman of the Ministers'Deputies for presenting a very interesting report, and read out thefollowing statement on behalf of Mr. Chandernagor:

"I am glad of the opportunity to deal with the problem ofinternational economic co-operation and development in this forum. Asyou know, it was on the initiative of President Mitterrand that theCouncil of Europe added North-South questions to the other problemsdiscussed in the framework of the political dialogue within theOrganisation. We do believe that Europe has a definite politicalresponsibility in the North-South dialogue. We European countrieshave a duty to hold consultations and exchanges of views on thisdialogue and on ways of breathing new life into it.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 76 - CM(83)PV 4

It was against this background that the meeting of 22September last was held, and I was pleased by the very constructiveexchange of views which it afforded - an exchange all the more usefulsince it was the first opportunity for the European countries to standback and evaluate the Vlth Session of UNCTAD.

As has been said by many others before me, the BelgradeConference did not meet the expectations of the developing countries,as its results did not prove equal to their problems. But I thinkthat the European countries were also disappointed. They, too, wereentitled to expect more.

However, rather than deplore the results, we must now turn tothe future, the Belgrade Conference also has some positive aspects.For one thing, in a very unfavourable international economic contextit kept the North-South dialogue alive. For another, some progress -modest perhaps, but genuine all the same - was made on a number ofpoints: for example, in respect of raw materials and internationaltrade.

But it is not enough to maintain the dialogue between Northand South. It must be boosted, so that it produces concrete results.International economic co-operation is more necessary than ever.Despite a degree of recovery in several developed countries, theinternational economic situation continues to be very difficult. Thecrisis is affecting every country. The developing countries, andespecially the poorest among them, are the hardest hit: zero growth,falling per capita income, falling raw material prices, reducedexports; not to mention third world debts which have reached theawesome figure of 700,000 million dollars: it is time for theinternational community to reflect as a whole on a more globalapproach to this problem.

The crisis is also felt in the industrialised countries, wherethe recovery that has started is still fragmentary and fragile. Allcountries are feeling the constraints of budgetary austerity andreadjustment. But the necessary efforst must be made on a concerted,not an isolated, basis.

For our part, despite the budgetary difficulties which we,too, have not been spared, we have decided not to diminish but, in thecontrary, to increase our participation in international economicco-operation. This applies to our official development assistance.It also applies to our involvement in the North-South dialogue. In1984, our official development assistance will increase by 16.2%. Thestart of global negotiations is again on the agenda of the presentsession of the United Nations General Assembly. France's commitmentto global negotiations and its action in this field are well known.Of course, we remain ready to examine all the proposals that have beenmade, and there are several new ones. But we are aware that muchremains to be done to reduce the divergencies between North and Southas regards the objectives and the conditions of such an exercise.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 77 - CM(83)PV 4

There is also the proposal for a monetary and financialconference, which has been put forward separately by several countriesfrom both North and South including, of course, France. Discussion ofthis proposal has already begun in numerous capitals, but this is along-term task which must be prepared very carefully.

Pending these two ambitious exercises, which should facilitatecertain structural reforms, we must continue the North-South dialoguein all the existing assemblies, in a pragmatic and concrete manner.In this connection it is very important for the developed countries,and primarily the European countries to demonstrate theirdetermination to ensure implementation of the resolutions andrecommendations adopted at the Vlth session of UNCTAD. For our part,we have established a 10-point follow—up programme on the basis ofwhich concrete action could be undertaken, taking the Belgrade resultsas a starting point. This programme places emphasis on measures tostabilise raw materials prices, including the rapid introduction ofthe Common Fund, and measures to increase the resources made availableto the developing countries (LDCs) in particular.

The North-South dialogue has reached a deadlock, and we regretthis because it has become one of the essential components ofinternational life. We welcome all initiatives aimed at giving it newvigour. In this connection I thank the Portuguese Government forhosting the Conference to be organised by the Council of EuropeParliamentary Assembly in April of next year in Lisbon on the theme ofEurope's role in the North-South dialogue. I think this conferencewill make a very useful contribution to the relations betweendeveloped and developing countries.

Indeed, I am convinced that Europe, because of its history andits culture, has a fundamental role to play in these relations andthat it has much to offer the countries of the South, but that it alsohas much to learn from them.

That is what I wanted to say about the current state of theNorth-South dialogue, Mr. Chairman."

Mr. Doise expressed the wish, in conclusion, that this subjectshould once again be placed on the agenda of the Committee ofMinisters.

Mr. PEREIRA BASTOS (Portugal) made the followingstatement:

"The interdependence of the different regions of the world isa well—known fact which makes greater international co-operationnecessary. Quite apart from the moral imperative of suchco-operation, we believe it is the only way out of the present crisis.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 78 -

Being aware of its responsibilities In this field, and despiteits small size and limited resources, Portugal will continue to beactive In the field of co-operation, and is ready to participate inthe North-South dialogue.

With this in mind, we are looking forward with great interestto the Conference "North-South: Europe1s role" which will be held inPortugal in April of next year. We hope that meeting will contributeto a better understanding and analysis of this important questionwhich concerns us all, namely, the North-South dialogue as a frameworkfor co-operation between Europe and the other continents; but also asa framework for balanced relations within Europe. One cannot speakwith conviction and authority about 'North-South' problems in relationto other geographical regions if one is not capable of consideringthem in the European context and in relation to one's closestneighbours."

Mr. VRANKEN (Belgium) made the following statement:

"The internationalisation of the world economy characteristicof the post-war period has accelerated over the last ten years.

As a result, our countries have - in theory at least - becomemore aware of world economic interdependence and, more particularly,of the economic and financial interactions among the industralisedcountries themselves and between industrialised and developingcountries.

This interdependence has been brought into even sharper focusin the last few years, particularly by the impact of the slower growthof world production and trade and the decline in employment, with theresulting pressures in favour of protectionism.

This alarming situation caused the member states of OECD, lastyear and at the beginning of this year, to study most of the aspectsof economic interdependence; following that exercise, the SecretaryGeneral of OECD published under his own responsibility, but with thebroad agreement of the Western countries, a remarkable documententtiled: "World economic interdependence and the evolvingNorth-South relationship."

From that document I draw the following conclusions:

The continued development of the countries of the South isconditional on a reinvigoration of the economies of the North.Conversely, however - and this is what interdependence is all about -''jrre can be no sustained recovery of the world economy without theparticipation of the developing countries, mainly because of theirshare in world trade.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 79 - CM(83)PV A

If we accept this two-pronged proposition, I fail to see whywe hesitate to draw the necessary conclusions, namely thatInternational co-operation based on the recovery of the world economyand sustained growth must necessarily involve the pooling and effectiveuse of sufficient financial resources to enable the developingcountries to maintain their imports at the level necessary for theirdevelopment and to contribute to the revival of the economies of thedeveloped countries.

I think we forget all too often that the markets of thedeveloping countries, despite the crisis, have helped to sutain theeconomies of the developed countries since the mid-1970s, and thatthey absorb one-third of the exports of the Western countries -excluding intra-Community trade in the EEC.

I therefore think that, apart from the first thing theinternational community should do, namely - for moral, humanitarianand economic reasons - act to ensure greater security of foodsupplies in numerous areas of the South, its second obligationshould be to strengthen the capacity of the countries of the thirdworld to obtain imports that are essential (for their development).

The technical means of increasing the financial resources ofthe developing countries are fairly clearly identified, are not'lacking. I do not wish to dwell on these means, but would merelymention the worrying nature of the serious and currently very realrisk of a decline in the capacity for intervention of internationalorganisations like the IMF, IDA and UNDP.

The question that arises in this connection is, first, whetherwe are prepared to Step up the efforts of the European countriesand, secondly, whether it would not be desirable for all the countriesof free Europe, which we here represent, to make known to ourprincipal partner, the United States, the reasons for our concernabout that country's intention to reduce its contributions to a degreethat jeopardises the fate and the effectiveness of those institutions."

Mr. RAEBER (Switzerland) said Switzerland considered thatthe exchange of views held on 22 September 1983 between the Deputiesand the experts in connection with the North-South dialogue had been avery fruitful one. Switzerland would certainly not be opposed tofurther exchanges of this type in the future, provided that thesubjects dealt with did not duplicate the discussions held in otherinternational organisations such as UNCTAD or OECD. Consequently, thetheme or themes selected should be of particular interest to themember States of the Council of Europe, in other words they should bethemes it was wished to tackle in an exclusively European context, notrequiring the presence of non-european context, not requiring thepresence of non-european industrialised states such as the UnitedStates, Canada, Japan, etc.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 80 -

The Netherlands delegation asked for the following text tobe Included in these Minutes:

"The North South dialogue seems to be In an Impasse afterUNCTAD VI: there is a lack of movement and a lack of confidence. Stillmost countries of the world, rich and poor alike, experience a slowingdown of growth or even a negative growth especially in the poorestcountries. There are some delicate signs of economic recovery. Thequestion at this moment is: will economic recovery gain momentum andwill ail countries benefit from it?

During UNCTAD VI we agreed that the world is an interdependentworld, and that there is a necessity to find common solutions to thecurrent problems. But in answering the question "how to solve thepresent crisis" the international community was deeply divided, as italso was divided about the role that governments could play insupporting or initiating structural changes. Although no agreementcould be reached in Belgrade on a common policy to solve the economicworld problems, it does not mean that UNCTAD VI was a total failure.Small but by no means insignificant steps were taken in the field ofcommodities, trade, money and finance.

Several factors brought about the limited results of UNCTADVI, for example

the economic crisis;the limited flexibility in positions of the delegations; andthe long agenda to be dealt with in such a large conference.

Doubts have been expressed about

the usefulness of such large conferences;the comprehensive agenda;the system of regional group positions.

We have to think about these problems, about the future ofUNCTAD, about the usefulness of a possible UNCTAD VII. Or, in a moregeneral way, how to stimulate an effective North South dialogue.Several proposals have been made to intensify such a dialogue. Themost recent proposals are

a so called "two step" approach from the G-77 in their meetingIn New Delhi;

the convening of an international Monetary Conference.

Our delegations in the General Assembly of the United Nationsare during this month dealing with these problems.

Essential is that we should create again an atmosphere ofconfidence in which the international community can respond to one ofthe great tragedies of our time."

CONFIDENTIAL

- 81 - CM(83)PV 4

The CHAIRMAN said that in the discussions at the previousday's colloquy and that day1s meeting there had been evident interestin North-South questions, particularly in the political dimensions ofthe subject. The Council should keep developments in this area underconstant review and he therefore asked the committee to agree to arequest that the Ministers' Deputies should consider a new exchange onNorth-South questions at a suitable future date.

This was agreed.

9. UNITED NATIONS

The CHAIRMAN asked Mr Papademas for a brief exposition of thelast exchange of views as set out in document CM(83)169.

Mr PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) said that as, with the exception ofthe Chairman, everyone present had been at the meeting reported in thedocument mentioned, he had nothing to add.

The CHAIRMAN asked whether the deliberations at the meetinghad been useful and whether a further exchange was desirable.

Mr PAPADEMAS replied that the meeting had been useful and hadnow become established practice. The Ministers' Deputies thought thatthey should continue to be held twice a year.

This was agreed.

11. DATES OF FORTHCOMING MEETINGS

235. The CHAIRMAN proposed that the 74th session should be held on10 May 1984 to coincide with the meeting of the Parliamentary Assemblyin Strasbourg and provisionally that the 75th session should be heldon 22 November 1984.

236. These proposals were agreed.

10. OTHER BUSINESS

a' Statement by thg Head of the Turkish delegation on theprogress achieved in restoring democracy in Turkey andstatements by other Heads of Delegation

The Italian delegation had provided the Secretariat with thetext of the following statement for insertion under item 10(a) of theagenda for the present meeting.

"The elections on 6 November 1983 did not permit the broadparticipation of political groups or the lively debates characteristicof European democracy, but nevertheless represent a step forwardtowards the full restoration of parliamentary institutions in Turkey.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 82 -

On the Italian side, it is hoped that genuine debate will bebrought about in the Turkish parliament as quickly and completely aspossible, enabling the political forces represented there to expressfully the democratic aspirations of the Turkish people.

We also hope that, with regard to the political life of thecountry, further conditions for renewed and effective representationof the will of the people at all levels will be brought about. In ourview, it may be considered that such a process is organically completeonly when precise guarantees are introduced in respect of civil rightsand individual freedoms, removing the restrictions imposed by theemergency measures which have again been extended until next spring.

These two wishes are expressed in the conviction that Turkeycan and must take its proper place in the Western world, where italready makes a specific and important contribution as a member ofNATO."

12. FINAL COMMUNIQUE

The CHAIRMAN announced that the drafting group responsiblefor preparing the draft communiqu§ proposed the following text:

"1. The Committee of Ministers of the 21 nation Council ofEurope (1) held its 73rd Session in Strasbourg today under theChairmanship of Mr. George lacovou, Minister for Foreign Affairs ofCyprus. In the light of their contacts with parliamentarians the daybefore at the annual Colloquy and of their discussions at their latestinformal meeting held the previous evening, Ministers considered thesituation in the Eastern Mediterranean, concentrating on the recentevents in Cyprus and on Turkey. Mid-way between the adoption of theconcluding document of the CSCE Madrid meeting and the opening of theStockholm Conference on Security- and Confidence-building Measures andDisarmament in Europe, they continued their review of the state ofEast/West relations. Finally, they exchanged views on the progress ofEuropean co-operation.

2. Under the chairmanship of the Minister for Foreign Affairs ofDenmark, Mr. Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, Ministers considered the situationin Cyprus following the purported declaration of independence of theoccupied part of the island. Deploring this declaration, they calledfor its withdrawal, confirmed their support for the respect of thesovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of Cyprusand declared that they continued to regard the Government of theRepublic of Cyprus as the sole legitimate government of Cyprus.Furthermore, they called for the best endeavours to be used in thesolution of the Cyprus problem under the auspices of the UnitedNations and for the pursuit of the good offices of the United NationsSecretary General.

(1) Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Federal Republic ofGermany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein,Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 83 - CM(83)PV 4

3. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey made a statementabout the general elections held in Turkey on 6 November 1983,stressing that the programme for restoring democracy had thus beenfulfilled in his country.

The other Ministers noted that the timetable set by theNational Security Council had been fully respected and considered thisas a helpful step towards the return of Turkey to parliamentarydemocracy in keeping with the Council of Europe's Statute.

4. Ministers discussed the situation in Lebanon and the violencewhich has caused such great suffering there and cost the lives of manyinnocent people- Fully supporting the independence, sovereignty,territorial integrity and unity of Lebanon, as well as the authorityof its legitimate government, they stressed the need for the urgentwithdrawal of all foreign troops from its territory, with theexception of those whose presence is requested by the LebaneseGovernment•

5. Ministers welcomed the Republic of Argentina's peaceful returnto democracy and expressed their feelings of solidarity to theArgentine people.

On this occasion they reaffirmed their support for the processof democratisation and the restoration of human rights in LatinAmerica. They expressed the hope that the example of Argentina willsoon be followed in other countries in Latin-America.

Furthermore such a development, beneficial to the peoples ofthe countries concerned, will enable their relations with the WesternEuropean States to be deepened to their mutual advantage.

6. Ministers expressed concern that relations between East andWest continued to be strained. Recalling that the atmosphere ofdetente had been seriously jeopardized over the last few years inparticular by the events in Afghanistan and Poland, and more recentlyby the destruction of a Korean civil airliner, they stressed the vitalneed to restore a genuine atmosphere of detente. In this context theyregretted in particular the interruption of the Geneva negotiations onthe Euromissiles.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 84 -

Ministers expressed their satisfaction at the conclusion ofthe Madrid review meeting of the CSCE. Although the results obtainedat that meeting had not entirely lived up to expectations, provisionsin the concluding document such as those dealing with thereunification of families, with religious freedom and with tradeunions were significant clarifications of the Helsinki Final Act.

The decision to hold the Stockholm Conference on Confidence-and Security-building Measures and Disarmament in Europe commencing on17 January 1984 was considered by Ministers as an important element ofthe follow-up to Madrid. They would do their utmost to ensure itssuccess which would make a significant contribution to improving theclimate of security in Europe at the present time.

Ministers underlined the need for the thorough preparation forthis Conference and the other meetings to be organised before the nextCSCE review meeting in Vienna in 1986. Their Deputies' exchanges ofviews, with the participation of experts, could make a usefulcontribution in this respect.

7. Ministers examined relations between the Council of Europe andthe European Communities. They referred to the Solemn Declaration onEuropean Union adopted at the meeting of the European Council inStuttgart on 19 June 1983, in particular those parts of it whichreferred to the Council of Europe and its achievements. Thisdevelopment was welcomed in the spirit of complementarity, which,given their common aims, is an essential feature of the institutions'co-operation which is likely to assume even greater importance in thefuture. In the light of a report on the role of the Council of Europein the process of European unification, Ministers will study theproposals to be made by their Deputies for Introducing furtherpractical means of strengthening this co-operation.

8. Ministers welcomed the second exchange of views held on 23November at Political Director level. These exchanges enhance mutualunderstanding between participants and form an important part of theon-going political dialogue between all members of the Council ofEurope.

Another example of the development of the political dialoguewas their Deputies' first exchange of views, with the participation ofexperts from capitals, on North/South questions with particularreference to the Vlth Session of UNCTAD. Ministers agreed with theview expressed that the Vlth Session had been positive insofar as ithad helped to avoid a confrontation between the developed countriesanu tlv Group of 77. They expressed the wish that this first exchangev . !r! be followed by others.

9. Ministers asked the Committee of Senior Officialsexamining the subjects which could be dealt with by a MinisterialConference on Human Rights to continue its work, taking account interalia of the Ottawa meeting of experts on human rights, in the CSCEframework, scheduled for 1985, and to report back at a forthcomingFession of the Committee of Ministers.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 85 - CM(83)PV 4

10. Ministers instructed their Deputies to decide on the questionof a Ministerial Conference on Research in the light of the report ofthe second meeting of Senior Officials who are examining the subjectswhich could be dealt with by such a Conference.

11. The Committee agreed to hold its 74th Session on 10 May 1984."

The CHAIRMAN noted that a number of written amendments hadbeen presented (*). He invited delegations to examine the textparagraph by paragraph.

(*) Paragraph 3

Swiss proposal to delete the phrase "in deeping with theCouncil of Europe's Statute" after the words "parliamentarydemocracy" and to add the following passage:

"They also stressed the importance of the rapidre-establishment of respect for all human rights in Turkey inkeeping with the Council of Europe's Statute; they consideredthat the dialogue with the Turkish representatives should becontinued along those lines in the Committee of Ministers."

Paragraph 4 :

German proposal to insert the words "internal reconciliationand" after the words "the need for".

Paragraph 6 :

Portuguese amendment to delete the last sentence of the firstsub-paragraph and to insert the following text:

"In this context they took note with regret of the Sovietdecision of interrupting Geneva's negotiations on theeuromissiles and expressed their hope that the necessarydialogue on the matter would soon be resumed."

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 86 -

Paragraph 1;

Mr. KORKUD (Turkey) proposed that the words "the processof democracy in" be Inserted before the word "Turkey".

The CHAIRMAN asked for comments on the Turkish Ambassador'sproposal. There were no comments. This was agreed.

Mr. HAMPE (Federal Republic of Germany) suggested that atparagraph 1 in the 9th line there be inserted after the phrase CSCEMadrid meeting, the words "which they welcomed".

The CHAIRMAN asked for comment on Mr. Hampe's proposal.

Mr. WILLUMSEN (Denmark) pointed out that the proposedinsertion was not necessary since an opinion to this effect wasexpressed in paragraph 6. He therefore opposed the German proposal.

Mr. HAMPE (Federal Republic of Germany) said that the texthaving just been distributed, he had not seen item 6. He withdrew hisproposal.

Paragraph 2

Mr. RAEBER (Switzerland) proposed that the first sentenceof point 2 of the communique should read as follows: "Under thechairmanship of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, mr. U.Ellemann-Jensen, Ministers considered the situation in Cyprusfollowing the purported declaration of independence of the northernpart of the island by the Turkish Cypriot leaders."

He said that his proposed wording better reflected the wordingof the resolution on Cyprus adopted that morning; moreover, it broughtout the fact that the occupation was a consequence of the co-existenceof two communities on the island.

Mr. PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) said that he was not in agreementwith his Swiss colleague. Of course there were two communities inCyprus; but northern Cyprus was occupied by foreign troops, who werein an area which was 37% of the island and had been inhabited by 80%of the population prior to occupation. This should not be forgotten.The purported declaration of independence related to land which wasunder occupation.

Mr. ANTICI (Italy) proposed deletion of the words "underthe auspices of the United Nations" in the last sentence of point 2.

He said that the reasons for this amendment were contained inthe statement made by the Italian Secretary of State, Mr. Fioret, onpage 18 of CM(83)PV3. The deletion of these words would have theadvantage of achieving consistency between that part of the communiqu£and the resolution adopted that very morning by the Committee ofMinisters.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 87 - CM(83)PV 4

Mr. PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) reminded the Italian Ambassadorthat the problem of Cyprus was already within the purview of theUnited Nations; the UN Secretary General's good offices derived fromthe authority of this body. He asked him not to insist on hisproposed amendment.

Mr. ANTICI (Italy) insisted that the communique adopted bythe Committee of Ministers be consistent with the text of theResolution.

Mr PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) said that, as his final word, hewould accept the Italian proposal on the understanding that his ownposition had been put on the record.

The CHAIRMAN noted that there were no objections to theamendment proposed by the Italian delegation.

Mr. KORKUD (Turkey) proposed replacing the first twosentences of paragraph 2 of the draft communiqu§ with the followingtext: "Ministers considered the situation in Cyprus following thedeclaration of independence of the north of the island, they adopteda resolution on this matter, with Turkey voting against." Thefollowing sentence, as amended by Italy, could remain. His delegationcould not accept the disclosure in a Committee of Ministers communiqueof the content of a resolution against which it had voted and whichcould not therefore be published.

Mr WILLUMSEN (Denmark) said that the Turkish proposalwould not be acceptable to some of the countries present. He suggestedkeeping the text unaltered but with a footnote saying that this wasnot accepted by the Turkish delegation.

Mr PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) said that he had accepted the Swissand Italian amendments on the understanding that the text as inparagraph 2 would not be further altered. He wished the paragraph toremain as It was; otherwise the wise Danish proposal should beaccepted.

He recalled that the Committee had spent 1 1/2 hoursdiscussing Cyprus while the Ministers were present, and had adopted aResolution with only one vote against. The press had learnt of theResolution, and there had been great interest shown in it. Because ofthat, the Committee could not issue a communique which conflicted withits earlier resolution. He would accept the addition of a notementioning the Turkish reservations, but he would not be able to agreeto the deletion of the whole paragraph on Cyprus.

Mr LUSH (United Kingdom) proposed a compromise. Hesuggested that the word "purported" should be deleted from the text,that the work "occupied" should be replaced by the word "northern" andthat a new sentence should be inserted to the effect that thecommittee had passed a resolution to which Turkey did not agree, withconsequential grammatical amendments to the rest of the existingsecond sentence.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 88 -

Mr. KORKUD (Turkey) thanked the United Kingdom delegatefor his effort at a compromise, but said he could not accept thatsolution, given the fact that the proposed wording still divulgedthe content of the resolution.

Ambassador PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) said that given Turkey'sposition, no agreement was possible. He wished to stick to theoriginal text with the Swiss and Italian amendments, but no moreamendments. He repeated that the communique had to be a truereflection of what had happened earlier that day.

Mr RAEBER (Switzerland) proposed that paragraph 2 of thecommunique be postponed until the end of the discussion.

Mr PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) said that if paragraph 2 was notagreed to, he would be unable to agree to the rest of the communique.

Mr. KORKUD (Turkey) maintained his position concerningparagraph 2.

The CHAIRMAN suspended the sitting for a period of tenminutes.

Sitting suspended at 7.10 pm.

The meeting resumed at 7.30 pm.

The CHAIRMAN asked the Turkish delegation if they maintainedtheir position on paragraph 2 of the communique.

Mr. KORKUD (Turkey) said that he was not able to changehis position.

The CHAIRMAN asked the Cypriot delegation to state itsposition.

Mr PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) stated that his position remainedunchanged: the draft of paragraph 2 was the minimum which could gointo the communique which accurately reflected the truth. If, as aCommittee, they were not honest wih themselves, the picture would bedistorted. He emphasised that the resolution had been adopted by theCommittee by 19 votes to 1. The Turkish delegation could have put in afootnote, but they did not want to do that, they wanted to throw outthe whole paragraph. He could not accept that.

Mr WILLUMSEN (Denmark) said that they had listened to allthe arguments from both sides. They would have to give up the idea ofa communique. That was an unusual step but they could live without it.The work of the Council of Europe would go on.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 89 - CM(83)PV 4

The CHAIRMAN said that he had taken the feeling of theCommittee and had spoken to the Secretary General and the legaladviser. He had concluded that there were no prospects for an agreedcommunique. He did not propose to try to achieve one following the twostatements which had just been made.

He thanked warmly the delegations for their co-operation whilehe had been in the Chair for the 73rd Session of the Committee. He wassorry that they had been unable to conclude with an agreed communique.Nevertheless as Mr Willumsen said the Council of Europe's work wouldgo on.

Mr. DOISE (France) regretted the situation that hadarisen.

Mr. VRANKEN (Belgium), speaking as the most seniorPermanent Representative present, said that it was the first time thata meeting of the Committee of Ministers had been unable to reachagreement on the drafting and publication of a final communique. Sucha situation had not even arisen during the darkest hours of the Councilof Europe. The absence of any desire for compromise seemed evidenceof a hard line which was unusual in relations between the members ofthe Council of Europe. The delegations involved were taking a veryheavy responsibility in creating a situation that was extremelydamaging to the Council of Europe.

Mr PAPADEMAS (Cyprus) wished to record how shocked he wasthat the Committee was not in a position to issue a communique,particularly when the Committee had supported a resolution by 19 votesto 1 and then been unable to agree about the communique. He wishedthere was a way out of the difficulty. He much regretted that theTurkish delegation had not agreed to express their reservations on thecommunique but he emphasised that it was not Cyprus which had blockedit.

Since Turkey had been the only country to vote against thereslution, it ought to have agreed to that fact being mentioned in afootnote.

Mr. KORKUD (Turkey) stressed, for his part, that everymember State retained the right to use the existing rules ofprocedure. That was no reason to block the entire communique. Theresult obtained had not been wanted by Turkey. He regretted that theattempt to reach a compromise had not succeeded. He shared theregrets expressed in this connection.

Mr. WILLUMSEN (Denmark) also shared the regrets that hadbeen expressed.

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 90 -

Mr. WILLUMSEN (Denmark) said that the Danish Minister forForeign Affairs should have been making the statement which he wasabout to make, and was sorry that he was unable to be present. Onbehalf of the members of the Committee he thanked the Chairman for thecompetent way he had done a difficult job.

His Foreign Minister had earlier formed the impression thatthe Council of Europe was in good hands during the chairmanship ofCyprus. His Minister would have been even more enthusiastic if he hadbeen present during Mr. lacovou's chairmanship that afternoon. Heoffered his warm thanks and his best wishes to the Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN thanked Mr. Willumsen for his kind words and forhis sympathy for Cyprus.

The SECRETARY GENERAL associated himself with the vote ofthanks to the Chairman. He, too, regretted the absence of acommunique. Nevertheless, he felt that the Council of Europe would beable to survive such an omission, inasmuch as the conclusions of themeeting were substantial and could inspire action by the Council ofEurope in the months ahead.

The CHAIRMAN thanked the Secretary General and offered histhanks to the Committee for their co-operation and understandingduring the proceedings.

The sitting rose at 7.40 pm.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 91 - CM(83)PV A

APPENDIX

AGENDAfor the 73rd Session of the Committee of Ministers,

held on Thursday, 24 November 1983 at 9.30 am,at the Council of Europe, Palais de 1'Europe, Strasbourg

1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. Cyprus (CM(83)213).

3. Progress of European co-operation (CM(83)195, CM(83)196,CM(83)197, CM(83)198 and CM(83)205).

4. Relations with the European Parliament.

5. Proposed Ministerial Conference on Human Rights (CM(83)206).

6. Proposed Ministerial Conference on Research (CM(83)211).

7. East/West relations.

8. North/South questions (CM(83)186).

9. United Nations (CM(83)169 and Addendum).

10. Other business

a. Statement by the Head of the Turkish Delegation on theprogress achieved in restoring democracy in Turkey andstatements by other Heads of Delegation.

11. Dates of forthcoming meetings.

12. Final communique^

CONFIDENTIAL

CM(83)PV 4 - 92 -

APPENDIX II(item 2)

RESOLUTION (83)13 ON CYPRUS

(adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 24 November 1983at its 73rd Session)

The Committee of Ministers, at its 73rd Session held in Strasbourg on24 November 1983,

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve agreater unity between its Members;

Having heard the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs ofCyprus and the statements of other Ministers and Representatives ofmember States in the Committee,

1. Deplores the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot leadershipof the purported independence of a so-called "Turkish Republicof Northern Cyprus";

2. Considers the declaration referred to above as legallyinvalid and calls for its withdrawal;

3. Declares that it continues to regard the Government of theRepublic of Cyprus which is represented in the Committee ofMinisters as the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus;

4. Calls for the respect of the sovereignty, independence,territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus;

5. Requests that the good offices of the Secretary General ofthe United Nations may continue with maximum intensity with aview to obtaining the most rapid progress possible towards anequitable and lasting solution in Cyprus.