Toespraak staatssecretaris Knapen bij het Nederlands Helsinki Comité

Toespraak | 24-10-2012

Speech by the Minister for European Affairs and International Cooperation, Ben Knapen, to mark the 25th anniversary of the Netherlands Helsinki Committee on 24 October 2012

Ladies and gentlemen,

Sometimes our perception of history can change dramatically. Take the Helsinki Accords: we now see them as important human rights agreements, significant evidence of the détente between East and West and the formation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. An important step in the establishment and observance of international law.

But in 1975 they were viewed very differently. A lead editorial in the New York Times makes this clear: ‘The 35-nation Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, now nearing its climax after 32 months of semantic quibbling, should not have happened. Never have so many struggled for so long over so little. […] Every effort must be made […], publicly as well as privately, to prevent euphoria in the West.’

And it wasn’t just the Americans who were dismissive. The Dutch were sceptical about the talks, to say the least. In fact the Soviets actually suspected the Dutch delegation of wanting to sabotage the conference. Referring to the behaviour of the Dutch diplomats, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev apparently told the Dutch foreign minister, Max van der Stoel, that he did not care for the ‘Dutch cabaret’.

So you see: memories sometimes get rosier as time passes. Today the Helsinki Final Act covers all 57 participating States of the OSCE. Ensuring values and principles in a wider Europe, beyond the member states of the European Union. The Netherlands Helsinki Committee represents the values that in our memory are linked to the Accords – which the Netherlands, too, ultimately signed. Thanks to the Helsinki Committee, values like democracy, the rule of law and human rights get the extra attention they deserve. For 25 years now, the Committee has worked to promote compliance with the agreements made in Helsinki. I should like to congratulate you on reaching this milestone.

This anniversary shows how crucial sustained efforts are for compliance with international agreements. Because the battle for compliance is not over. The European Union faces this problem on a regular basis. The EU exists thanks to agreements, rules and laws. The EU functions thanks to mutual trust in compliance with agreements. Yet the EU lacks a method to ensure that trust.

Admittedly, countries are only allowed to join after meeting all the accession criteria and adopting all EU legislation. And implementing it in their own laws, rules and institutions. But what then? What can be done if an EU member state fails to uphold common values like democracy, the rule of law or even human rights?

In such cases, severe legal proceedings are the only option. Like bringing a state before the Court of Justice, or the so-called ‘nuclear option’. Let me reassure you: this last measure sounds worse than it really is. Though suspending a member state’s voting rights in the Council is not something to be taken lightly. Sanctions are mostly not a good way of making member states improve their observance of the rule of law. And so far the nuclear option has never been used. That’s why my country has long urged the introduction of an instrument between soft power and harsh sanctions to promote compliance with EU law.

I know that proposals to enforce the rule of law more strictly within the EU sometimes raise eyebrows. No country wants to be taken to task on the way its political parties function, the role churches play in society or the freedom of its press. This is a sensitive issue, just as it was during the Helsinki talks. I wouldn’t want to deny that here.

Let me be clear. The Netherlands isn’t advocating a system of naming and shaming. It isn’t proposing the award of good and bad marks. It doesn’t want a league table of badly performing states. No, what we want is scope for discussion of concerns and shortcomings in the observance of the rule of law. Perhaps you’re thinking, doesn’t Brussels have enough talking shops already? Would one extra make a difference? My answer is that it certainly would, and I would like to tell you why.

The rule of law in member states is inextricably linked with our future. Not only the future of the member states, but the future of the EU itself. I said earlier that trust is crucial to cooperation in the EU. Actually that applies to any context in which people work together. To international organisations as much as to football teams. Because if you pass the ball to another member of your team, you need to be sure that he will take it and run with it. And not stumble because he is in the pay of some match fixer.

In the EU, too, we want everyone to play by the same rules. We want European citizens and businesses to have access to a single area of justice: every individual member state is, in a sense, part of every other member state. So it’s crucial that German tourists, Estonian investors and French multinationals can trust all the legal systems in the EU.

I often come across newspaper articles that speak of ‘moral hazard’ in the context of the EU. I hear about a lack of trust. And people wonder whether the EU is still a community based on common values. Let us change this as soon as possible. Of course, we can’t just impose trust. But we can strengthen the rule of law in the EU. Because, as I just explained, that fosters mutual trust.

In Brussels, all eyes are currently focused on the next level of European integration. But everyone knows that a high-rise building needs good foundations. It’s the only way to ensure a solid, stable structure. The same applies to the EU. So let us work to strengthen the foundation of the EU – the rule of law in the member states. It will make our partnership stronger, and all the member states will eventually benefit.

My country enshrined the promotion of the international legal order in its constitution a long time ago. The proposals to strengthen the rule of law in the EU are in keeping with that aim. The previous government raised the issue of the rule of law, and this government kept it on the agenda, and the next one will surely follow through. Especially now that the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and EU Commissioner for Justice Viviane Reding have stressed its importance.

The Netherlands’ ideas on a rule-of-law mechanism are firming up. As I said before, we’re not looking for some schoolteacher to monitor and punish. The aim is reciprocity. Sharing best practices in an effective dialogue.

The rule of law is not a one-way street. A good example is the exchange of Romanian and Dutch judges. And when Dutch lawyers went to Bucharest, they got ideas on how to improve their work at home. When they got back they were keen to put what they’d seen into effect. Like the good facilities for journalists in the office of the public prosecutor, and an electronic system that randomly allocates cases to judges to avoid manipulation. We picked the idea out of Romania.

As you can see, by exchanging best practices, we can improve each other’s rules and respect for the rule of law, without having to point to corruption in Eastern Europe or the close links between political power and the media in Italy. Because the point is solidarity, not division. The point is a sense of awareness in the public sphere.

So let us talk about facts. Not about rumours or assumptions. There is enough information available to list the strengths and weaknesses of each state’s observance of the rule of law. Using data from the European Commission and independent human rights organisations, we can investigate where improvement is needed.

Only then would we start discussing matters. We would discuss the situation in each country in small groups. This is an easy way of expressing concerns and preventing crises. And if things did go wrong, we would get together quickly. Because even in such a scenario, a lot can be achieved with diplomatic persuasion.

So a new method for strengthening the rule of law in the member states would not just be one more talking shop in Brussels. The Netherlands proposes an exchange of best practices based on solidarity and reciprocity. To discuss the situation in each member state on the basis of facts. In that way we strengthen mutual trust as well as trust in the EU as a community of values.

Ladies and gentlemen, at the negotiations on the Helsinki Accords, many had their doubts. Participants were suspicious, and played their cards close to their chests. Two very different players, East and West, needed to reach agreement on fundamental issues like security, the economy and human rights.

In the summer of 1975 all 35 countries signed the Accords. That was the beginning of today’s memory of hope and optimism. And that memory is not misplaced. In Europe, that process had started earlier. Together, the European treaties form the foundations on which we continue to build, brick by brick. With solid foundations, with vivid awereness of the rule of law, we can have confidence in the future. I hope that in another 40 or so years we will look back in a positive way on European integration. And that scepticism will have made way for optimism, just as in the case of the Helsinki Accords.

Thank you.