|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
   |
|
|
 |
|
||
|
Complete List of Institute Reports Release Date: January 1999 Get Adobe PDF version of the full report HTML version of the full report |
Contents | Key Points | Foreword | Preface | One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Appendixes: 1 2 3 | Notes | Author The Quest for Democratic Security The Role of the Council of Europe and U.S. Foreign Policy Introduction—The Democratic Revolutions of 1989, European Stability, and the Council of Europe Pressures for democratic reform in the countries of the former Soviet empire re shaped Europe’s political geography after 1989. The wave of democratization that swept Central and Eastern Europe also forced a reconfiguration of Europe’s institutional landscape. These changes provoked difficult and sometimes divisive questions: How will the new states of Central and Eastern Europe relate to the existing Western European structures? How can the instruments of Western European cooperation adapt to encourage stability in the region? In what ways can Western European states and structures promote peace in this historically volatile area? Answers to these questions revealed different approaches and, sometimes, gave rise to controversy. Different observers evaluated differently the nature of the changes taking place in Central and Eastern Europe and the reality and progress of democratic transformation. For example, to what extent was the communists’ transformation into “social democrats” genuine? What about party apparatchiks, who suddenly transformed themselves into business leaders? From this debate ensued queries as to (1) the possibility and risks of integrating the former communist states into the community of Western democracies and (2) the speed with which this process should take place. The Council of Europe was concerned more directly and immediately with this matter. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had made the political decision to take on board all European states as well as the Newly Independent States (former Soviet republics) in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The Council of Europe chose to stay geographically European, but could receive the “new democracies” on relatively short notice—as long as they were ready to accept the organization’s democratic standards. Additional economic or military criteria did not complicate admission, as with the European Union (EU) or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). But the question—passionately debated for some time—remained whether the Council of Europe would continue to be a community of values, or if this community would be progressively diluted as a result of too-rapid enlargement.1 A consensus has emerged among policymakers and academics that stability in the region requires the consolidation of democracy across the continent. Surveys of international conflicts over the past two centuries indicate with high levels of confidence that liberal democracies do not usually go to war with one another.2 Hence, the best guarantee of security for all resides in the democratic aspirations of people in Central and Eastern Europe. Existing institutions of European cooperation, such as the Council of Europe and the EU, together with intercontinental organizations like OSCE, NATO, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) thus find themselves engaged in a common project of promoting democratic institutions and practices in former communist countries. This effort to reinforce security through the proliferation and strengthening of democratic institutions, the growth of democratic civil societies, and development of cooperation between states defines the “quest for democratic security,” foremost on the European political agenda following the events of 1989. A new era had already begun a few years earlier with Gorbachev’s reforms. However, we know today that it was not his objective to dismantle the Soviet Union. Rather, he meant to make it more efficient without undermining the essence of communism. The events of 1989 came unexpectedly to most observers, outsiders as well as those directly participating in the democratic revolutions. The Council of Europe, the oldest international organization of democratic nations in Europe, was thrust into a new role—but one foreseen by its founders—in the 1990s, when it was about to become a truly pan-continental European organization open to the accession of the former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe.3 However, contrary to the practice of the OSCE, these states had to pass a “democratic entrance examination” to join the Council of Europe, in accordance with its standards. Beginning with Hungary in 1989, one former communist state after another applied for Council of Europe membership. This spate of new prospective members was unexpected, even by the council itself. In retrospect, there were a number of reasons the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, upon their release from the Soviet empire, should turn to the Council of Europe. First of all, the council was reaching out to Eastern Europe, more so than was perceived in the West. Under consecutive secretaries general, the council undertook several initiatives to establish links with countries to the east of the Iron Curtain, beginning with Czechoslovakia, in fields of common concern and considered (no doubt erroneously) as nonpolitical, such as cultural cooperation or the protection of the environment. But renewed East-West tensions cut short promising beginnings after the Warsaw Pact’s August 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union’s December 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. It was not easy for the West to assess the way populations on the other side of the divide perceived the council’s institutions. Yet, we now know that those who stood up for democratic reform saw the Council of Europe as an organization of democratic values, the rule of law, and, above all, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Former dissidents who came to Strasbourg after 1989 as parliamentarians or members of government (Vaclav Havel and Tadeusz Mazowiecki, among others) have borne witness to the council’s stature in this regard. Second, the Helsinki process, which began in the early 1970s, also indirectly promoted knowledge of the council as an institution that defended human rights. Before and during the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, later to become the OSCE), the foreign ministers of the West consulted in different forums—NATO, the European Community, and the Council of Europe. Discussions in the council focused largely on human rights. These ideals were included in the Declaration of Principles of “Basket 1” (Principle VII: Respect for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including the Free dom of Thought, Conscience, Religion, or Belief) and in “Basket 3” of the negotiation package, concerned with “Humanitarian and Other Matters.” In the course of the Helsinki negotiations, resulting in the Final Act of August 1, 1975, and in bilateral and informal contacts, member states’ representatives helped to make the Council of Europe better known.4 Some observers have argued that democratic values were not the only incentive to apply for council membership, claiming that after 1989 and 1991 former republics of the Soviet Union and other ex-communist states would join any Western organization they could get into. There may be some truth in this; however, becoming part of the family of democratic nations represented by the council, after what is normally a lengthy “entrance examination,” confers a sort of international recognition of a country’s democratic credentials. Candidate countries may well have surmised that, at a later stage, council membership would facilitate their accession to the EU to promote their economic well-being. For some candidate countries, particularly those whose leaders feared renewed Russian expansionism, council membership was also seen as a stepping stone to NATO membership. Like the council, the EU and NATO are associations of democratic states; adhering to democratic standards in three or more European or transatlantic organizations can only reinforce democratic security all over Europe.5 The same holds true, of course, for OSCE membership. Though designed to be all-inclusive (which did not prevent the suspension of Yugoslavia’s membership) and without specific entry conditions, the OSCE is an important actor in the attainment of democratic standards. OSCE and the Council of Europe cooperate in a spirit of complementarity, as do the council and the EU. This does not exclude a certain amount of competition, however. Part 3 of this study describes the specific nature of the Council of Europe, explaining why it is called upon to play an essential role in offering Western assistance for the construction of viable democracies on the European continent. This section describes the council’s genesis and its intention to create a bulwark against the resurgence of totalitarian regimes after World War II; the establishment of the only fully effective international machinery for the protection of human rights; the provisions of the council’s statute aiming at a community of values; the step-by-step creation of a vast body of democratic European law through more than 150 conventions (though not of equal value),6 as well as through the evolving jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights; the rapid expansion of Council of Europe membership toward Central and Eastern Europe after 1989; and the ensuing discussions of the council’s community of values versus school of democracy concepts. Part 3 will also show how the Council of Europe contributes to the democratic transition in Eastern Europe in different stages: evaluating a country’s evolution toward democracy upon application for membership; applying pressure to meet basic membership conditions before accession; transmitting democratic “know-how”; agreeing with the applicant country on commitments to legislative and other reforms upon acceptance as a member; monitoring the fulfillment of such commitments; and instituting possible sanctions, up to exclusion from membership in cases of noncompliance. Parts 4 and 5 draw some foreign policy conclusions concerning U.S. relations with the Council of Europe in the wider framework of Euro-American cooperation for consolidating democracy on the European continent and establishing a vast area of democratic security. Contents | Key Points | Foreword | Preface | One | Two | Three | Four | Five | Appendixes: 1 2 3 | Notes | Author
Home | Jobs | FAQs | Contact Us | Directions | Privacy Policy | Site Map United States Institute of Peace -- 1200 17th Street NW -- Washington, DC 20036
|