FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why We Still Need the Council of Europe

by FABIO LIBERTI

The Council of Europe, based in Strasbourg, is probably Europe’s most misunderstood organisation. Even well-informed people confuse it with the European Council — the periodic gathering of European Union (EU) heads of state or government — and with the Council of the European Union, where ministers from each member state are responsible, alongside the European Parliament, for passing the EU’s laws and approving its budget.

The Council of Europe has nothing to do with the EU. It was created in 1949 by the Treaty of London, two years before the Treaty of Paris which set up the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the first stage of European integration. The Council covers a different geographic area too, since it has 47 member countries (1) — most of the continent — compared with the EU’s 27 members (28 in 2013 when Croatia joins).

The Council started out with 10 members (2) but grew over the years — particularly after the collapse of the Communist bloc in 1989 — to include the entire continent with the exception of Belarus. Its objective is to help create an area of common democratic and legal principles based on the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention is the Council’s main achievement, and any country wishing to become a member of the Council must ratify it, organise free elections, abolish the death penalty and guarantee the rule of law. The task of the European Court of Human Rights, to which citizens can lodge an application directly, is to ensure respect for the Convention.

At a time when the European public, tired of the financial crisis and budget cuts, is calling into question the legitimacy of EU institutions and the purpose of integration, it is useful to turn our attention to an institution such as the Council, which has always put democracy and human rights at the forefront of its activities.

At the end of the second world war, the idea of Europe (which had been around since the 19th century and had grown stronger after 1918) quickly established itself as the best way to avoid another catastrophe. There were three schools of thought among those who favoured European integration: the “unionists” (including Churchill, and to some extent de Gaulle) who wanted countries to cooperate as much as possible while remaining sovereign states; the “federalists” who thought European countries had been so ineffective and shown such a propensity to violence that the best solution was to form a federation; and the “functionalists”, who could also be considered federalist, who believed that any economic and social integration would inevitably lead to political union by the “spill-over effect”. They included Jean Monnet (1888-1979), a French businessman posted to London during the second world war, who was taken with the Anglo-Saxon world and became one of the architects of European unity.

The various currents favouring integration met at The Hague in the Netherlands, 7-10 May 1948, for the Congress of Europe. The Congress brought together important political figures from 17 countries, and was presided over by Churchill (no longer the British prime minister). It closed with a resolution, the Message to Europeans drafted by Denis de Rougemont, appealing for an end to conflict. One of the consequences of this text was a recommendation to create an indirectly elected parliamentary assembly to study the political and legal implications of a European Union or Federation. Federalists saw this as a snub, as they wanted a constituent assembly elected by universal suffrage.

The Berlin blockade, which came a few months later, set the western liberal democratic bloc firmly against the eastern Communist bloc. As the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic were proclaimed, on 5 May 1949, ten countries established the Council of Europe.

It was far from the creation of a European federation: the Council of Europe was an intergovernmental organisation, and signatories did not transfer any of their sovereign power to it. It was expressly excluded from dealing with matters of defence, which were supervised by Nato, set up a month earlier by the same ten countries under the leadership of the US. The start of the cold war saw an increase in tension between the two blocs, particularly over Berlin and Budapest (1956).

Nonetheless the Council retained its humanist vision — sharpened by the extreme violence of Nazi domination and war, and by the happier creative chaos of the Hague Congress. It was imbued with a pluralist vision of Europe (as opposed to a Stalinist people’s democracy) and respect for fundamental rights. While Europe embarked on the road towards union two years later, with the creation of the ECSC, then in 1957 with the European Economic Community (EEC), there remained at the core of the Council something more deeply “political” than integration based on a common market of competition and free trade.

When the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957, creating the EEC, the media and officialdom turned their attention from the Council, to follow the functionalist construction that Monnet, with his method of “small steps”, had envisaged. Economics was seen as the solution to every problem; democracy and human rights were taken for granted, and not worthy of in-depth discussion. General de Gaulle described the Council as “that sleeping beauty on the banks of the Rhine”, referring to its headquarters in Strasbourg. The Council spent the cold war period concerning itself with cultural rapprochement and the civil and legal rights of member states.

The Council enjoyed a rebirth in 1989 when revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) put democracy, in the liberal sense of the word, back at the heart of the debate. Movements like Solidarity in Poland became the symbols of protest against Communist regimes, and they naturally became interested in the work of the Council. In the middle of the glasnost period (3), the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev chose the Council as a “neutral” platform to expound his vision of a “common European home”. Catherine Lalumière, then Secretary General of the Council, convinced of the important role it could play, restored its proactive stance, increased its contacts and developed democracy programmes that were applied throughout the CEE. The Council is often perceived as the antechamber of the EU and its common market, and associated with economic prosperity, even though no legal link exists between the two.

The Council’s revival lasted a decade, until the CEE joined the EU, and it returned to relative obscurity. The timidity with which it demanded a peaceful solution to the bloody conflict in Chechnya in 1999-2000 caused its moral authority to be called into question for a time. There had already been heated debate when Russia joined in 1996. More generally, the failure of many European countries to challenge new members who flouted democratic principles sometimes undermines the organisation’s credibility.

The European public’s disenchantment with the EU is no doubt rooted in the over-importance given to the economy, financial circles and the powers of the European Commission (without any real democratic counterpart), in the process of integration. It is becoming harder to bridge the gulf between populations in crisis, searching for a meaning in a globalised world, and a Union perceived as distant, technocratic, illegitimate and undemocratic. The political philosophy underpinning the Council seems to have been forgotten. Yet if it were applied to the Union, it might give new meaning to integration. Europe’s citizens and leaders could benefit greatly from the lessons of the Hague Congress, the words of Rougemont — and the rediscovery of the Council of Europe.

Translated by Stephanie Irvine.

Fabio Liberti is research director at l’Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS), Paris.

Notes.

(1) Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

(2) Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.

(3) Policy of “transparency” introduced in the Soviet Union in 1985.

This article appears in the excellent Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch features two or three articles from LMD every month.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 29, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot
Patrick Timmons
Dildos on Campus, Gun in the Library: the New York Times and the Texas Gun War
Jack Rasmus
Bernie Sanders ‘OR’ Revolution: a Statement or a Question?
Richard Moser
Strategic Choreography and Inside/Outside Organizers
Nigel Clarke
President Obama’s “Now Watch This Drive” Moment
Robert Fisk
Iraq’s Willing Executioners
Wahid Azal
The Banality of Evil and the Ivory Tower Masterminds of the 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran
Farzana Versey
Romancing the Activist
Frances Madeson
Meet the Geronimos: Apache Leader’s Descendants Talk About Living With the Legacy
Nauman Sadiq
The War on Terror and the Carter Doctrine
Lawrence Wittner
Does the Democratic Party Have a Progressive Platform–and Does It Matter?
Marjorie Cohn
Death to the Death Penalty in California
Winslow Myers
Asking the Right Questions
Rivera Sun
The Sane Candidate: Which Representatives Will End the Endless Wars?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia District Attorney Hammered for Hypocrisy
Binoy Kampmark
Banning Burkinis: the Politics of Beachwear
Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
Ben Debney
The Swimsuit that Overthrew the State
Ashley Smith
Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution
Andrew Stewart
Did Gore Throw the 2000 Election?
Vincent Navarro
Is the Nation State and Its Welfare State Dead? a Critique of Varoufakis
John Wight
Syria’s Kurds and the Wages of Treachery
Lawrence Davidson
The New Anti-Semitism: the Case of Joy Karega
Mateo Pimentel
The Affordable Care Act: A Litmus Test for American Capitalism?
Roger Annis
In Northern Syria, Turkey Opens New Front in its War Against the Kurds
David Swanson
ABC Shifts Blame from US Wars to Doctors Without Borders
Norman Pollack
American Exceptionalism: A Pernicious Doctrine
Ralph Nader
Readers Think, Thinkers Read
Julia Morris
The Mythologies of the Nauruan Refugee Nation
George Wuerthner
Caving to Ranchers: the Misguided Decision to Kill the Profanity Wolf Pack
Ann Garrison
Unworthy Victims: Houthis and Hutus
Julian Vigo
Britain’s Slavery Legacy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail