B Explanatory
memorandum by Mr Mota Amaral, rapporteur
1 Introduction
1. Traditionally, members of parliament are not directly
involved in diplomatic work and, regrettably, sometimes they are
even kept away from decisions on key foreign policy matters. By
way of example, I would like to refer to one important event in
recent years: only a few parliaments of the Council of Europe member states
were asked to express their position on the unilateral declaration
of independence by the Kosovo
Note Assembly.
In the great majority of cases, those European governments which
recognised Kosovo as an independent state did so without consultation
of their citizens’ democratically elected representatives.
Note
2. Of course, parliamentarians are involved in the discussion
of foreign policy issues through the work of their foreign affairs
committees and the organisation of general or specific foreign policy
debates. They can, therefore, challenge their governments’ decisions,
but the extent to which they contribute to the shaping of a country’s
foreign policy is still limited.
3. Opportunities for personal involvement in diplomatic activities
are rare, even if, in recent times, some parliamentarians have taken
part in diplomatic missions and have been appointed to high-profile
mediation roles in conflict or post-conflict situations. Similarly,
the political role that speakers of parliament can play in the context
of bilateral and multilateral relations remains largely unexplored.
4. What can be said with confidence, however, is that over the
last two decades the familiarity of national parliamentarians with
foreign issues has increased, thanks, inter
alia, to the rise in the number of international parliamentary
assemblies or inter-parliamentary groups and the broadening of the
scope for their activities. This positive trend goes hand in hand
with the process of globalisation and the transnational nature of
the main challenges in the world today.
5. This increased familiarity, however, has not yet translated
itself into a direct impact on foreign affairs. On the one hand,
this might be due to the reluctance of governments to make room
for an increased role of parliamentarians who, unlike government
officials and civil servants, are not bound to the government’s instructions
and could therefore convey diverging messages; on the other hand,
this is also due to the need to give further thought to the very
concept of parliamentary diplomacy, in order to transform it from
a theoretical idea into a number of concrete actions. This implies
defining:
- in which contexts
it could be used;
- on which instruments it could rely;
- its objectives.
6. This reflection should take into account, and try to propose
remedies for, certain weaknesses regarding the parliamentarians’
involvement in foreign relations, namely:
- a lack of continuity for international activities. Parliamentarians
are in a position to ensure this, given that they are engaged both
on a national and international level and sometimes sit on more
than one international parliamentary delegation;
- a lack of co-ordination and exchange of information amongst
different parliamentary bodies. This problem becomes particularly
relevant when one considers that the proliferation of international parliamentary
structures increases the risk of overlapping and duplication in
their work.
7. The present report aims to contribute to this effort of reflection,
based on my experience as a member and former Speaker of the Portuguese
Parliament and as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe. The report is also based on the findings of the European
Conference of Presidents of Parliament (Tallinn, May 2006), one
of whose themes was “Bridge building through parliamentary diplomacy”. In
particular, I will try to:
- identify
ways for an enhanced role of national parliaments and parliamentarians
in foreign relations, as a complement to traditional diplomacy;
- recommend ways to reinforce the diplomatic role of our
Parliamentary Assembly.
2 Useful
definitions
8. Some basic definitions should be kept in mind:
- “Diplomacy”describes the conduct of international
relations through the interaction of official representatives of
states or international institutions. It encompasses a broad range
of activities and approaches to exchanging information and negotiating
agreements, which vary widely according to the actors and situations
involved;
- “Preventive diplomacy”is
the range of peaceful dispute-resolution approaches mentioned in
Article 33 of the United Nations Charter: “negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort
to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means” when
applied before a dispute crosses the threshold into armed conflict;
- “Quiet diplomacy” is a practice describing an interstate
or third-party engagement distinct from the traditional diplomacy
of an interested entity. It is defined by confidentiality and discretion.
The aim of quiet diplomacy is to create conditions in which parties
feel comfortable to act, in particular allowing parties to evaluate
positions and interests calmly, to weigh options and consider independent
and impartial advice;
- “Dialogue” is a process through which parties engage with
each other. It is not necessarily aimed at a precise objective but
rather at a better mutual understanding;
- “Facilitation” describes third-party engagement which
provides a forum, space and environment conducive to dispute settlement;
- “Mediation”is a
voluntary and ad hoc tool for peaceful conflict prevention and resolution.
The mediator must be perceived as neutral and must be accepted by
the parties.
3 The national context
9. In democratic systems based on the division of powers,
parliaments conduct their foreign relations autonomously and in
respect of political pluralism.
3.1 Speakers of parliament
10. Speakers of parliament maintain an extensive network
of foreign relations with diplomatic representatives who are accredited
in the country, but also with other speakers of parliament and foreign parliamentary
delegations; they conduct or lead parliamentary visits to foreign
countries and participate in the work of international parliamentary
structures such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union and many others.
11. The extent to which speakers of parliament have latitude to
entertain these relations depends very much on national customs
and traditions. However, in general, it can be said that the speaker
is vested with the responsibility of representing parliament in
all high-level foreign contacts and that, in order to preserve the
non-partisan character of his or her role, the speaker is normally
accompanied by delegations composed of parliamentarians representing
the different political forces present in parliament.
3.2 Parliamentary friendship
groups
12. The number of parliamentary friendship groups has
increased steadily over the past few years.
13. The purpose of these groups is to promote dialogue with the
parliamentary institutions of one or more other countries. To this
end, they seek to hold talks with politicians and other representatives
from their partner states to exchange information, debate various
topics and share experiences. Furthermore, the promotion of democratic
parliamentary structures, the strengthening of human rights, contributions
to the management of crises and parliamentary scrutiny are often
important elements in the groups’ work.
14. As a rule, friendship groups exist at every legislature and
their setting up must be authorised by the speaker or the bureau
of the parliament. Sometimes limits are introduced: for instance,
in France, parliamentary friendship groups are possible only if
three conditions are met: the foreign country must be a member of
the United Nations, must have a parliament and must have diplomatic
relations with France. However, it is possible to set up other kinds
of groups with countries or entities which do not satisfy these conditions.
In Portugal, the existence of a reciprocal group in the partner
state is essential.
15. Parliamentary groups are normally formed on a cross-party
basis. Joining a group reflects a parliamentarian’s special interest
in relations with the partner state or states concerned. The decision
to get involved in a particular parliamentary friendship group may
be prompted by existing personal links, a strong concern with a
particular aspect of foreign policy, the proximity of the member’s
constituency to the national border with the country in question
or demographic, economic and cultural ties between their constituency
and the partner state.
16. In the course of an electoral term, parliamentary friendship
groups are able to invite delegations of parliamentarians from partner
countries and send delegations to visit their colleagues, even if
limits can be placed on the number of visits. These visits help
to foster better reciprocal understanding as well as to further develop
existing contacts.
3.3 Participation of
parliamentarians in foreign visits by representatives of the executive
17. In some countries, parliamentarians are often invited
to participate in official presidential or ministerial visits, according
to the functions which they have in parliament, such as chair or
member of the foreign affairs committee or of a relevant friendship
group.
4 The international
context
18. Traditionally, bilateral exchange visits were mostly
protocol visits. Today, however, more and more meetings are organised
to allow parliamentarians of different countries to discuss issues
of common interest, either in the framework of an interparliamentary
structure or on an ad hoc basis.
4.1 The Inter-Parliamentary
Union
19. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) was established
in 1889 as an association of individual parliamentarians and was
reformed over time to become an international organisation of parliaments
of sovereign states. Today it counts 153 members and eight associate
members.
20. The IPU is a centre for dialogue among legislators, constituting
a unique platform for observing political opinions and parliamentary
trends around the world.
21. Membership in the IPU is not submitted to any condition apart
from being the national parliament of a sovereign state: there is
no statutory requirement for such a parliament to have been elected
in a democratic fashion, or for IPU delegations to have a pluralist
or gender-balanced composition.
22. Although it has a privileged relationship with the United
Nations due to its global membership and the nature of the issues
it deals with, the IPU does not have any structural link with the
United Nations itself; it does not, therefore, exercise any oversight
on United Nations activities nor does it have any consultative function
in that organisation.
4.2 International parliamentary
assemblies
23. Unlike the IPU, international parliamentary assemblies
are bodies or institutions belonging to international governmental
organisations which carry out specific tasks and interact in a structural
manner with other bodies of the organisation in question. This is
the case of the Western European Union, the Council of Europe, the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe, for example. The complexity of their
internal functioning, their powers and the role that they play within
the organisation can vary considerably. At the end of the spectrum,
the European Parliament is directly elected by the citizens and
involved in the European Union decision-making process.
24. During the last few years, it has become common to include
an interparliamentary body in every new international organisation
or forum for co-operation. This is the case of the Euro-Mediterranean
Parliamentary Assembly for example. Moreover, a worldwide campaign
is under way for the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary
Assembly.
4.3 International parliamentary
networks
25. In the last decade, a number of international parliamentary
networks on specific issues have been set up in order to:
- facilitate dialogue amongst
legislators from different countries;
- provide parliamentarians with technical information or
put them in contact with experts;
- make available parliamentary resolutions, motions, questions
and legislation from around the world;
- catalyse joint projects between parliaments.
26. The rise in the number of such structures has been seen by
many as having a direct link with the phenomenon of globalisation.
They cover issues such as conflict prevention and security, nuclear
proliferation and disarmament, poverty reduction, education and
many others.
27. These networks are intended to increase the capacity of parliamentarians
to have an impact at the domestic level, as they can make full use
of expertise developed abroad and translate it into better informed decisions
at national level. They also highlight the interest of international
institutions, such as UNESCO, to maintain close contact and dialogue
with members of national parliaments.
4.4 The Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe
28. It should be mentioned that the first example of
parliamentary diplomacy – as the expression is understood today
– was the work of the Parliamentary Assembly in the 1950s on the
problem of the Sarre region.
29. At present there are many ways in which the Assembly is engaged
in parliamentary diplomacy:
- its
Bureau guides the external relations of the Assembly and its President
conducts high-level visits and has complete autonomy in deciding
his or her agenda and priorities;
- it organises the European Conferences of Presidents of
Parliament, which are composed of speakers and presidents of the
parliaments of the member states of the Council of Europe, parliaments
enjoying observer status with the Assembly and international parliamentary
assemblies. Parliaments from central Asia and the Maghreb countries
are also invited to attend;
- it provides parliamentary co-operation and assistance
programmes aimed at increasing the efficiency of the functioning
and thus also the political role of parliaments, as well as providing
targeted capacity building for parliamentarians. Such programmes
have, for instance, provided assistance to the Serbian and Montenegrin
parliaments in creating effective parliamentary structures. A co-operation
and assistance programme is currently in process with the Moldovan
Parliament;
- rapporteurs conduct field visits to collect information
which forms the basis of Assembly reports, resolutions and recommendations.
In doing so, they establish high-level contacts, not only with other parliamentarians
but also with representatives of the executive, the judiciary, NGOs
and civil society in the countries they visit. Their work focuses
on problematic – sometimes urgent – issues affecting one or several
states. Their aim is to propose solutions and, often, to mobilise
the legal and technical expertise of the Council of Europe’s intergovernmental
sector in order to help states overcome difficult situations;
- the monitoring procedure is a specific feature of our
Assembly and is the most comprehensive and thorough way for it to
follow developments in some member states. The co-rapporteurs engage
in a political process with the authorities of the country concerned,
in order to accompany and facilitate its progress towards the implementation
of Council of Europe standards and the fulfilment of its commitments.
They have also often been instrumental in the handling of crisis
situations such as, the recent post-electoral crises in Armenia
and Moldova;
- the Political Affairs Committee follows in a similar way,
and with the same objectives, developments in Kosovo, as well as
in non-member states (for instance in Belarus);
- the Presidential Committee’s intervention to solve the
political crisis in Albania at the beginning of 2010 is an example
of yet another way in which our Assembly engages in parliamentary
diplomacy;
- all committees organise exchanges of views involving external
counterparts and, within their mandate, can set up ad hoc sub-committees
or other structures. As examples, I would like to mention, as regards the
Political Affairs Committee, the Sub-Committee on the Middle East,
which brings together a delegation of the Knesset and a delegation
of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as well as the Sub-Committee
on Conflict Prevention through Dialogue and Reconciliation (see
below).
5 Priorities for
the diplomatic work of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe
30. All international parliamentary assemblies represent
in themselves an opportunity for dialogue, as they enable legislators
from different countries to meet and discuss issues that might be
of relevance at domestic, bilateral or multilateral levels.
5.1 Promoting the strengthening
of parliamentary institutions
31. In the landscape of international parliamentary assemblies,
the Parliamentary Assembly occupies a special position for the following
reasons:
- it is the only international
assembly whose rules of procedure require national delegations to
reflect the pluralistic composition of their national parliaments
in terms of both politics and gender;
- it works according to precise and comprehensive rules
of procedures;
- it tends to put an emphasis on the political affiliation
of its members (through political groups) rather than their nationality.
Political affiliation is taken into consideration also as regards
the distribution of tasks such as committee chairmanships and rapporteurships.
32. These features are important strengths. In my opinion, the
Assembly should rely on them and be more proactive in promoting
itself as a model. It is not only a gathering of legislators – as
there are many others – but a gathering of democratically elected
legislators, reflecting a plurality of views and working according
to democratic rules. Its first and foremost objective in the area
of parliamentary diplomacy should be the consolidation of the standards
of parliamentary democracy amongst its own members and the strengthening of
parliamentary institutions in non-member states.
33. For this reason, the Assembly should put more emphasis on
co-operation activities with national parliaments, in Europe and
beyond, in order to disseminate models of good practice and enhance
democratic standards. Activities such as the Forum for the Future
of Democracy and the periodic debates on democracy should also be
central to the Assembly’s work, in addition to activities aimed
at improving electoral legislation and practice and the confidence
of the electorate in elections and the political system, beyond
the current activities carried out in the field of election observation.
The new “Partner for democracy” status should be an opportunity
for further expanding the outreach capacity of the Assembly in order
to promote the strengthening of the role of parliaments in countries
which are not mature democracies.
5.2 Devoting more resources
to ensuring the implementation of its decisions
34. It seems to me that, at the moment, the Assembly
and its structures devote more energy and resources to preparing
and adopting resolutions and recommendations than to working for
their implementation. In my opinion, the implementation of Assembly
decisions should not be left exclusively to the will of the recipients
but should be followed up by the committees, sub-committees or rapporteurs
that should engage in a continuous political process with the relevant
authorities in order to achieve concrete results.
35. At the moment, by its very nature, the Monitoring Committee
is the only committee where the co-rapporteurs are systematically
engaged in a continuous dialogue with national counterparts. My
proposal is that, when establishing its work programme, each Assembly
committee should decide which reports are a priority and set aside
resources to allow for follow-up after the adoption of a relevant
resolution or recommendation by the Assembly. This follow-up work
could take the form of meetings with national authorities to monitor
the progress made towards the implementation of Assembly decisions,
in particular at parliamentary level; missions by former rapporteurs
or committee chairs and the organisation of meetings involving Council of
Europe or other experts who could provide advice to the national
authorities on how to implement the relevant decisions, etc.
36. At the same time, there should be a clear responsibility placed
on Parliamentary Assembly national delegations to contribute at
national level to the implementation of, and the follow-up to, texts
adopted by the Assembly.
5.3 Playing a role
in conflict prevention, dialogue facilitation and mediation
37. The escalation of the conflict between Georgia and
Russia into an open war, in August 2008, was an alarm bell for the
Assembly: its members realised once again that peace among Council
of Europe member states could not be taken for granted and that
the Council of Europe had been unable to anticipate the escalation
of tensions into violence, let alone prevent it.
38. It was, therefore, in October 2008, in its
Resolution 1633 (2008) on the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia
that, for the first time, the Assembly expressed the resolve to
“play a role in the field of conflict prevention and resolution”.
The reasoning behind this decision was that “without peace there cannot
be genuine respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law”.
39. Amongst other things, as regards the general question of minimising
the risks of further outbreaks of violence involving Council of
Europe member states, the Assembly decided to study mechanisms by
which it could conduct parliamentary diplomacy in the context of
frozen conflicts in Europe and other situations liable to undermine
peace and stability.
Note
40. The Political Affairs Committee was given the main responsibility
for dealing with these matters. It did so by setting up the initial
ad hoc and then permanent Sub-Committee on Conflict Prevention through
Dialogue and Reconciliation, which had a dual mandate:
- formulating proposals for the
organisation of the international gathering, the “Forum on early
warning in conflict prevention”, which took place in Strasbourg
on 24 and 25 September 2009;
- addressing issues relating to regional stability that
have an impact on Council of Europe member and observer states.
In this context it organised a hearing on peace building in the
countries of the former Yugoslavia (Belgrade, 6 September 2010).
41. The Forum of September 3009 highlighted the scope for a role
of the Assembly and the Council of Europe in the field of conflict
prevention and regretted that, all too often, the Assembly fails
to be proactive; shies away from direct involvement at an early
stage and raises its voice only after a crisis or a conflict has broken
out.
42. This leads me to three main points:
- the Assembly should have the political courage to address
situations that have a potential to escalate into conflicts. In
particular, the Political Affairs Committee, on the basis of the
work of its Sub-Committee on Conflict Prevention through Dialogue
and Reconciliation, should put on its agenda potentially conflictual
situations such as, currently, Moldova, the Crimea, and the Northern
and Southern Caucasus;
- the Assembly should have the political courage to offer
its good services to facilitate dialogue between its member states,
at the parliamentary level or between domestic actors, before conflicts
become violent, through the setting up of a structured political
dialogue;
- once a conflict has broken out, Assembly institutional
figures should make themselves available to act as mediators, provided
that this is accepted by the parties to the conflict.
43. In addition, the Assembly might wish to consider carefully
its media strategy, privileging a case-by-case approach: there is
a trade-off between the need to ensure visibility in the media and
the need to be diplomatically effective; on many occasions, quiet
diplomacy can be more effective than a high-profile debate in order
to achieve political results.
