 work and, as the ultimate watchdog for human rights on our continent, continues to be effective.
I hope that will continue to be the future of the Council of Europe and I thank you for your attention.
Thank you very much, Mr Türk, for your most interesting statement. Members of the Assembly have expressed a wish to put questions to you.
The first question is from Mr Santini on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
said that Mr Türk had emphasised with conviction the value of cohesion between peoples. Taking this forward was a sensitive process which could occur only gradually: security issues were sensitive and the views of those concerned had to be taken into account.
Slovenia was Italy’s neighbour in the south of Europe. Many Italians felt that Italy had been the target of flows of immigrants which were, of course, difficult to control. What, then, were Mr Türk’s comments on borders and border policy?
I fully agree with the philosophy of the question. Cohesion in Europe is extremely important for our future, but it has to be constructed gradually and through the effective solving of problems. One of the fundamental problems has been and will be the question of immigration. Traditionally, Europe has been an area of emigration, but some parts of Europe have had more experience with immigration. However, immigration as a pervasive phenomenon is relatively recent and European governments and institutions do not have a well-developed set of policies, let alone a common philosophy, on this matter. We feel that deficit on a daily basis.
Some countries are facing this problem every day and some are less exposed. I suggest that we need concentrated action and to share our experience. The Council of Europe can be of critical importance in that respect. When it comes to the European Union and its policies, execution will take time and will be characterised by differences of opinion. The Council of Europe includes members such as Switzerland, with a long experience of immigration. It has not always found immigration the easiest problem to address, but on the whole it has been successful. Similarly, we must learn from relatively new members of the EU and their immigration policies before they became members. From the richness of diverse national experiences, we need to learn the best possible lessons and use them in the formulation of our common European policy.
Today, I do not wish to enter into specific questions about immigration or particular situations, and I know that Italy is in a particularly sensitive place in Europe as it is – I use the word cautiously – exposed in different directions. As far as Slovenia is concerned, we are taking the question of immigration very seriously. We are an open society, and also an orderly society, and I believe that Italy and Slovenia will be able to develop a constructive and useful partnership in the future.
Mr Türk, thank you for your speech. We took it as encouragement for the Council of Europe. I would like you to share with us your ideas on how the Council of Europe can encourage United Nations reform. Just a few weeks ago, we had a conflict between ministers, ambassadors and parliamentarians, and we pushed each other to another level. That shows how important parliamentarians can be. That is why I would be really interested to hear how you, as someone with great know-how about the United Nations, think that we can be a source of input into the United Nations.
Thank you for the question, Mr Gross. Obviously, it is good that the Council of Europe and its parliamentarians think about global issues, too, because Europe has never thought of itself as an isolated place in the world. It has to interact with the rest of the world, and it has to inspire, wherever that is possible.
To come specifically to the question of the Council of Europe as a possible source of inspiration to the United Nations, I shall mention two examples, although there are many more. You mentioned one of them yourself: the whole experience of the strengthening of the parliamentary role within the Council of Europe. We have to be aware that the role of the parliamentarian dimension has not stayed the same since the beginning. There was an assembly called the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, which had a rather limited consultative purpose. Now we have a Parliamentary Assembly. As I emphasised in my statement, it is important that we understand the basis of legitimacy that that very fact brings, and that we understand the weight of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Assembly, which are special precisely because the parliamentarians represent the people of the Council of Europe.
Furthermore, taking advantage of recent experiences and discussions held in the past month, I would say that the United Nations still lacks a parliamentary dimension. It does not have a consultative, let alone parliamentary, assembly. Of course, one might say that the United Nations is a much more open organisation, and parliamentary democracy is not something that the United Nations has put at the centre of its system, but things are changing. We have seen changes over the past 20 years that certainly call for a parliamentary branch of the United Nations. Perhaps there could be a consultative body to start with, a body that is open to all those member states of the United Nations who would like to express their parliamentary dimension more clearly and with more focus.
I should like to mention another area, one that has proven sensitive for the Council of Europe for many decades, but is now a much more daily and normal consideration: the issue of minorities. There was a time when the Council of Europe was not able to deal with the issue of minorities in all its dimensions, but that is in the past. Now, with the various instruments that we have adopted, and the work of the expert bodies, that has changed. The United Nations is not moving at the same pace, although the problems are such that they require much more sophisticated treatment than they currently receive.
The United Nations too often waits for ethnic tensions to degenerate into open armed conflict before it is dealt with by one of its organs. That is far too late. Things have to be addressed much earlier, and there have to be structures that allow that to take place. That is not happening, and perhaps the Council of Europe, with its current expertise and its historical experience, can be of help. Those are two examples that I can quote today. There are many more, Mr President, but if we wanted to discuss them, we would need to organise a special conference.
That is a good suggestion. Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Kox on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr Türk, thank you for praising our Council of Europe. In doing so, you are in line with all the other presidents and prime ministers who come here and declare their love for our Organisation, but why is it then so hard to put your money where your love is? If you love us so much, why do you starve our budgets, and why do you allow the European Union to take over ever more of our responsibilities, with its own assemblies for southern and northern countries, and its agencies on human rights? Could you give us a clear signal of your true love for our Organisation?
Thank you, Mr Kox. I would like to start my response on a slightly more philosophical note. Love, as you know, is a complicated emotion, and it would therefore take a lot of time to discuss it in all its dimensions, but you mentioned two of those dimensions. One is the budgetary dimension, and the other is the question of competences, which of course arises any time that one links love and politics.
On the budget, Slovenia is a relatively new country, and I must admit very openly that we have not yet fully adjusted to the fact that we are contributing to a number of international organisations. We need to go through a long education period. I say that with a degree of self-criticism, because as President, I could perhaps do more. As someone who has worked in the United Nations, I understand things better, perhaps, than many of my compatriots. There is always a problem when it comes to how to contribute to international organisations, because we are not yet used to doing so. Of course, other countries are richer, older and have more experience, and they could perhaps be more aggressive, in the sense of providing funds.
Secondly, the EU and its evolution is an important matter to discuss. There is a process under way right now. There was a time, years ago in another period, when a special Committee of Wise Men was established to look into those relations. We have a similar need now, partly for the reasons that you mentioned. I am not sure about all the different initiatives that expand the work load within the European Union; one has to consider that.
Above all, I am slightly concerned about an issue that I mentioned at the beginning of my statement – legitimacy. The European Union has a basis of legitimacy through, obviously, the international treaties that constitute it, but it certainly needs more if it is to be really able to express the opinion of the peoples of the European Union in its work. We should not be satisfied with what we have now. The German Federal Constitutional Court, which is often mentioned these days, has addressed the question of what it termed structural democratic deficits. We have to look into that problem as well. I am sure that the Council of Europe can help the European Union on that, and this Parliamentary Assembly could be of importance in that regard. The legitimacy issue within the European Union has to be discussed in a much more focused way.
said that in 1992, one year after its independence, Slovenia had withdrawn the residency status of a large number of people of Romany descent. Such action had been against the Slovenian Constitution. What measures would the President take to address this injustice?
Thank you for your question. You touched on one of the core problems as regards human rights in Slovenia. During the first year of my tenure, which was last year