Mrs. Helle Degn
Member of the Danish Delegation
President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
Mr. President,
Thanks for the kind words of my presidential colleague Leni Fischer. Look forward to our cooperation.
I am attending this session wearing two hats. I am, of course, a Member of this Assembly. At the same time I am also serving as President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. I feel no contradictions in these two roles. Both hats are equally useful, pleasant and beautiful. However, I am making this intervention wearing, mostly, my OSCE hat.
Dear Colleagues,
Let me first briefly characterize the two organizations, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. There are several similarities. The aims of the two organisations are, to a large extent the same, even not identical. We both promote human rights and the rule of law. Through them we also promote peace, security and stability.
But there are differences. One difference is obvious - geography. The OSCE embraces the whole of Europe, North America and the Central Asia. Also the structure and legal basis of the two organizations are different. The Council of Europe has its legally binding conventions. Through these conventions, rulings of the Human Rights Courts, and other means, the Council of Europe has a direct and concrete influence on the national legislation of each member state.
The OSCE has no such legally binding conventions. It does have politically binding commitments. In the field of Human Rights it combine the European standards, as set up by the Council of Europe, and the North American standards which are, perhaps, not yet entirely on our level. However, the main difference is that the OSCE still is very much, what it has been from the very beginning of 1975: a political process and a political forum. Its impact was tremendous to the collapse of the cold war and the beginning of the reconstruction of democracy in the entire OSCE region, as well as, in the creation of new security structures. Conflict prevention and solution are in the focus of our activities.
Much of the present conflict prevention and conflict solution work is done quietly, by the OSCE Missions, which are established in practically all trouble spots, and by such instruments as the High Commissioner on National Minorities. The OSCE's nature is highly political.
Mr./Madam President,
There are important areas, where both our organizations, are active. In such case we must cooperate and coordinate. In this respect, I limit myself to the two latest examples, where we have had experience of good cooperation: Election monitoring and the crisis in Albania.
Election monitoring is an important means to help and support new democracies in the development of parliamentary democracy and democratic electoral systems. It is important that the international community, the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe and the OSCE in particular, work together and speak with one voice. That will guarantee results. I was very pleased to learn that our cooperation in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 12-13 September elections worked well. I want to thank my Danish colleague, Ms. Hanne Severinsen, for her contribution to this cooperation. I think we should build on that positive experience.
As far as Albania is concerned, I was pleased to see that the Chairmen-in-Office of both the OSCE and the Council of Europe decisively, and together. We must give their mission our full support. But the parliamentarians need to do more. We have, together with the European Parliament, established the Tri-Parliamentary Mission to Albania, which has visited the country in January and again in July. We need to continue helping the Albanian colleagues to develop democratic parliamentary practices, and in particular, in their work to produce a new urgently needed constitution which, hopefully, would be approved in a referendum later this year.
Mr./Madam Chair,
Finally, allow me to comment briefly on the report of my colleague, Mr. Peter Schieder, on the Council of Europe and the OSCE. First of all, I want to congratulate him for an excellent work. The report is balanced, it is aiming at the right direction of division of labour, and cooperation, in order to reach the best possible result in the promotion of our common values.
I refrain myself to four points only:
1. In paragraph 10 of his recommendations the rapporteur suggest that a clear repartition of tasks be agreed. I share his view that the human rights standards and mechanisms must not be undermined. As far as the human rights standards of the Council of Europe are concerned, I do not fear. They are established by the conventions and the unique instruments, in particular the Court of the Human Rights. The OSCE will not establish any competing similar instruments, but it must be promoting the observation of its commitments in other means. In this, I dare say it should benefit from the achievements of the Council of Europe.
2. It would be most helpful, indeed, if the Parliamentary Assemblies would be associated in the present 2+3 meetings. The proposal of inviting the two Presidents to these meetings would be a good solution.
3. In paragraph 13.ii.c. the rapporteur recommends that the experiences of the Council of Europe on human rights could be better used by the OSCE Missions. I welcome this proposal. The OSCE Missions on the field, to a large extent, are dealing with issues connected to human rights. The support from the Council of Europe should be welcome.
4. I also welcome the proposal of paragraph 13.iii. to explore, on the basis of reciprocity, the possibility of a continuos presence of the Council of Europe at OSCE meetings. This would guarantee the flow of information and the opportunity to hear each other, always when needed. I would suggest that in this respect we, the parliamentarians, would set a good example.
I thank you all on behalf of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. The work and thoughts of this Assembly shall certainly be carried out by me and by the many colleagues who are active in both Assemblies.
Thank you.