COUNCIL OF EUROPECONSEIL DE L' EUROPE

COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

^5th session

Strasbourg, ConfidentialCM (69) PV M-

MINUTES

of the sitting held on12 December 1969 at 10 a.m.,

at OECD Headquarters,19 rue de Franqueville, Paris

CMPV013

PRESENT;

MM. K. WaldheimP. HarmelS. Kypr ianouP. HartlingJ. de Lipkowski (1)V7;- ScheelP. PipinelisH.S. Bjornsson (2)P.J. HilleryD. Coppo (J>) •

AUSTRIABELGIUMCYPRUSDENMARKPRANCEFEDERAL REPUBLIC OF- GERMANYGREECEICELAND .IRELANDITALY

V.

(1) Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replacingMr. M. Schumann, Minister for Foreign Affairs.

(2) Ambassador Extraordinary- and Plenipotentiary, PermanentRepresentative of Iceland to the Council of Europe,replacing Mr. E. Jonsson, Minister for Foreign Affairs.

(J') Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replacingMr. A. Moro, Minister for Foreign Affairs (Chairman).

16.25702.2/11

CM (69) PV ^• - 2 -

MM. G. ThornG. Borg Olivier-P.J. Gelderman (1)G. LyngT. Nilsson'W. SpuhlerI.S. 9a£layangilG. Thorns on (2)

LUXEMBOURGMALTANETHERLANDSNORWAYSWEDENSWITZERLANDTURKEY- -••"-•UNITED. KINGDOM

L. Toncic-SorinjS. SforzaH. LeleuH. Beesley

Secretary GeneralDeputy Secretary GeneralDirector of Political AffairsSecretary-of the Committee ofMinisters

Mr. A. MORO,-. the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs,took the Chair at 10 a.m.

The Chairman declared open the- M-5th session .of theCommittee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

After congratulating Mr. Toncic-Sorinj on his election asSecretary General and paying tribute to his qualities, hecalled him to make his solemn declaration in accordance withthe Statute.

1. Solemn declaration by the Secretary General..

. . The. Secretary General,. Mr. Lujo Tonclc Soring .made thesolemn declaration laid down by Article }6 (e) of the Statuteof the Council of Europe.

./"•

(1) Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, PermanentRepresentative of the Netherlands to the Council of Europe,replacing Mr. J.M.A.H. Luns, Minister for Foreign Affaire.

(2) Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, replacingMr. M. Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign andCommonwealth Affairs.

- 3 - CM (69) PV 4

The Chairman thanked the Secretary General and tookformal note of his declaration.

2. Adoption "of the agenda

The Chairman said that the morning sitting would end at •1 p.m. and the afternoon sitting begin at 3.30 p.m.

He pointed out that a provisional agenda had been drawnup by the Secretary General. Item 3 was entitled "Situationin Greece - Recommendations 5 7 and 569 - Motion for thesuspension of Greece". This it.m had been placed on the agendafor three reasons. Firstly, at its last session in Londonin May 1969 the Committee had discussed Recommendation 5 7 ofthe Consultative Assembly and in Resolution (69) .18 had decidedto keep the recommendation on its agenda and had declareditself ready to take a decision at the present session.Secondly, the Consultative Assembly had addressed to theCommittee of Ministers Recommendation 569 on recent developmentsin Greece in the juridical, field. The examination of this .recommendation was included in item 3 at the request of theMinisters' Deputies. 'Lastly, the governments of Denmark,Norway and Sweden had announced the tabling of a formal motionconcerning Greece, in application of the Statute of the Councilof Europe. If there was no objection to the inclusion of thisitem in the agenda, as worded, in document CM (69) OJ 2 prov.,its inclusion would be considered as final. Otherwise theCommittee would have to decide by a simple majority vote inaccordance with Article 20 of the Statute.

Mr. S. Kyprianou, (Cyprus), asked the Chairman on whatmotion the vote wnich he had said might be necessary ivouldbe taken, as he believed it was necessary to clarify theprocedural position. • .

The Chairman noted that there was no objection to the :inclusion of item 3 or of any of the other items. He saidthat the French delegation proposed to make an announcementconcerning the .Council buildings, and suggested including itunder item.6 "Other business".

The agenda, thus amonded, was adopted.

./.

CM (69) PV ]4 - 4 -

3. Situation in Greece - Recommendations 5 7 and- $69 - ' ' 'Motion for the suspension of Greece

The Chairman, recalling that this item had been includedat the roouest of the Dan.i.sh., .Norwegian-and Swedish Governments,invitod the representative of one of these governments "topresent the 'motion submitted to the Committee.

Mr. T. Nils son (.Sweden) said that at the meeting of theCoramit'coe of Ministers in London on 6 May 1969 a resolutionon the situation in Greece was adopted in which it wasexplicitly declared that the Committee was ready to take adecision at the present meeting on the basis of therecommendations of the Consultative Assembly. In its .Recommendation 54-7 the Assembly had concluded, that Greeceseriously violated the Statute of the Council and consequentlydid not fulfil the conditions for membership. The Assemblyrecommended the Committee of Ministers to draw its conclusionsto the attention of the Greek Government and to take actionhaving regard to Articles J>, 7 and 8 of the Statute. TheCommittee of Ministers had already acted by drawing theconclusions of the parliamentarians .to the attention of theGreek Government. The Ministers thereby had hoped, that Greecewould realise the necessity of returning to a democratic regimewithout delay or withdraw from the Council of Europe.

What, was the responsibility today when Greece had notfulfilled, the hopes expressed at the last meeting. Certainly •the credibility of the Committee of Ministers and of the Councilof Europe v:as at stake. The confidence in and the respect forthe Council of Europe would be seriously harmed if theMinisters could not now arrive at a firm decision in this matter,The Committee had not taken any rash decisions in this -grave'.-uestion. Its attitude had up to now, rather been one of waitand sec. Nor had the Assembly, consisting of responsiblepoliticians of all shades of democratic political opinion beenover hasty in their actions. They and the Ministers had over 'the years urged Greece to return to democratic conditions. Inthe Committee of Ministers and in-other organs of'the Council ofEurope tho Greek Government had been given ample time to explainand to correct the situation. But now the moment had come when.as members of .the Council of Europe and as representatives ofgovernments in democratic nations the Committee had to take adecision implying action.

./.

- 5 - CM (69) PV If

The Statute of the Council of Europe left no doubts as tothe conditions for membership. The Statute was a mutualcontract and it was a joint responsibility to see to it that,it was respected.

Had anything happened since the meeting in May whichindicated that Greece was now willing to follow the principleswhich'were fundamental for the work of the Council of Europe?Not in the opinion of the Swedish Government. Now and thenthe Ministers 'had listened to Greek declarations, as they^ •did in London already seven months ago, that Greece wouldrestore human rights and eventu?lly return to democracy. Newlaws had been promulgated and a few more articles of theconstitution had come into force. This might sound promising.But these laws were not inspired by democratic ideals.

As regards the constitution, Mr. Nilsson mentioned thatthe first parllamentary elections would be carried out -by thenational revolutionary government and the.second depend onits decrees. So long a;: civil liberties were suppressed andthere'was no other indication of a speedy return to .democracy,one was cntitle.d to doubt that elections would bo democratic.And it should not be- forgotten that Greece was still governedby martial law with all that this implied of arbitrariness.

Against that background even a timetable of gradualrestoration of human, rights and civil liberties did notinspire his government with any confidence. Concrete proof .bysolid actions showing a change of heart of the Greek Governmentwas needed.

In.the May resolution, the hope was expressed that thereport of the European Commission of Human Rights would bemade available to the Committee of Ministers as soon aspossible. Some governments had earlier stated that they didnot wish to take a decision on the recommendation of the.Assembly until the report had been transmitted to the Committee.The Commission's careful-and. thorough investigation should notbe discussed at the present meeting but the report was availableto governments.

Mr. Nilsson wished in this context to refer to the notedated 7 December 1969 from the Greek Permanent Representativeto the Secretary General. In this note a language was usedwhich, by far, exceeded what the Committee was used and willingto listen to. The Swedish Government entirely supported theSecretary General when in his reply he had expressed thestrongest reservations as regards the allegations contained inthe note. •

./.

CM (69) PV H - 6 -

The .Swedish Government v.ras anxious to pay tribute to theobjective and arduous legal work of the Commission. But it couldnot be accepted that the proceedings before that organ wereused as an argument for not accepting the political responsibilitythe Committee had under the Statute. It. had been suggested thatthe Ministers should postpone the decision in view of the factthat they could not deal with the report of the Commission. Acase before the. Commission or the Court did, however, in no wayprejudice the powers vested in the Committee when it acted underthe Statute. The sub-judice argument, which never -had been valid,should not prevent a decision.

Other arguments for a postponement of a decision had also ^been heard. Political, commercial or strategic reasons for yetanother delay had. been advanced. But they were not relevant ifthe Ministers acted as they had to act, namely in accordancewith their obligations under the Statute. A -further postponementof the unavoidable decision vrould seriously weaken the respectfor the ideals for which the Council of Europe stood.

This was a serious juncture in the history of the Council ofEurope-, because it was grave when the Committee was asked to suspenda member.

In the hope that the decision would be agreed to by as manymember states as possible the Scandinavian delegations had •accepted to amend their resolution in accordance with a proposalfrom the German delegation..

According to the Statute the Committee could have gone evenfurther but in the hope that the Greek people would -understandthat Europe expected Greece to return to democracy, the Scandinavian—'delegations suggested that Greece be suspended from the 'organisationto which Greece had no right to belong under its present regime.The Greek people would certainly understand that it was itspresent, government's policy which did not correspond to the obliga-tions of the organisation.

True to the democratic principles the Committee had firsttried to persuade Greece to restore democracy. Now it had cometo a moment when persuasion uas not enough. The Ministers wouldhave to take a firm decision.

Finally, Mr. Nilsson mentioned that the draft resolutionpresented by the delegations of Denmark, Norway and Swedenwith amendments proposed by the delegation of the FederalRepublic of Germany, which he had introduced, had beendistributed at the opening of the meeting (Misc. 4-1).

' ./.

CM (69) PV 4

Ho understood that several other, delegations wished tojoin the original sponsors.

The final version of the resolution, which circulatedlater in the Committee, read as follows: "Situation in Greece.Draft resolution presented by the delegations of Denmark,Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,Luxembourg, Iceland, Ireland and the Federal- Republic of Germany,Italy and Belgium.

The Committee of Ministers,

Having considered Recommendation 5 7 of the ConsultativeAssembly, adopted on }0 January 1969 on tho situation in Greece,and Recommendation 569, adopted on 2 October 1969* on recent,developments in Greece in the juridical field,

Recalling its Resolution (69) 18 of 6 May 1969 on thesituation in. Greece,

Having; decided in this resolution to bring the conclusionsof Recommendation 54-7 to the attention of the Greek Governmentin order that the latter might draw the necessary conclusions,

Having declared itself ready by the same resolution totake a decision^at the present meeting,

Deploring that the Greek Government has not takeneffective measures for the restoration of human rights andfundamental freedoms in Greece and for a speedy return topolitical liberty and the rule of law,

Noting that the Greek Government has not drawn thenecessary conclusions from Recommendation 5! 7 of the ConsultativeAssembly and Resolution (69) 18 of the Committee of Ministers;

1. Declares that Greece hag seriously violated Article 3 ofthe Statute containing the conditions for membership ofthe Council of Europe,

2. Suspends Greece from its rights of representation untilsuch time as satisfactory progress has been made in thatcountry in the normalisation of the situation with regardto human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as politicalliberty and the rule of law,

CM (69) PV 4 - 8 -

5« Stresses the hope that this normalisation will be broughtabout soon and thereby allow the speedy return of Greekrepresentatives to the Committee of Ministers and theConsultative Assembly as well as other bodies of theCouncil of Europe concerned,

^* - Pfe dares that it will decide in .due time whether theconditions set forth in paragraph 2 of this resolutionhave been fulfilled."

The Chairman pointed out that since the motion had been .tabled under Article 8 of the Statute, any decision on itssubstance was governed by Arcicle 20 (d). This means thatit required a two-thirds majority of the representativescasting a vo'co and a majority of the representatives entitledto sit on the Committee.

Any representative could, however, propose in accordancewith Article 20 (a) (vi) of the Statute., that the unanimityrule bo applied. In that case, the Committee would have to -decide by a preliminary vote. To be carried, the motion' requireda two-thirds majority of the representatives casting a vote anda majority of the representatives entitled to sit on theCommittee.

Mr. S. Kyprianou (Cyprus), reverting to what he had saidearlier, said that though there were procedural and legalaspects to their discussion, it was basically a political"problem-. He had his own views about procedure, but thought thatthey should first hear more of the political arguments.

The Chairman had thought it advisable to give a fewexplanations regarding procedure. But he was ready to openthe political debate at once.

Mr. do Lipkowskl (France) said that he was about to makethe same observations as Mr. Kyprianou had just made.

Mr. Pipinelis (Greece) apologised in advance for the lengthof the statement he was going to have to make.. He wouldendeavour, however, to respect the Aristotelian principle thata speech should be long enough to enable listeners to guess theend right from the beginning, but short enough for them stillto remember the beginning when it was nearing an end.

./.

- 9 - ' ' CM (69)

It would be necessary to go back first of all andexplain the.political facts of the Creek problem. Alreadyby the end of the first world war, -the Greek parliamentarysystem had shown unmistakable signs of exhaustion: acutepolitical tension, a succession of coups d'etat - in 1923,1924, 1926, 1927, 1953 - civil war in 1935- Only theconstant intervention of military power could saveuncrowned democracy. It needed the iron hand of General Metaxasand the prestige of bh-3 restored monarchy for the country torecover its calm, reconstitute its finances and its army andbear up with honour against Italian and German aggression.

After its liberation, Greece enjoyed, for a few months,the benefits of free institutions, for under the threat of acommunist invasion,, the political parties rallied together.Immediately the danger receded, however, thoy resumed theirformer strife, provoking a further series of crises. Itseemed as if nothing had be&n learned, nothing forgotten.

But this was hardly surprising for, since the firstworld war., the country had been split into two largepolitical clans whose fierce hostility rendered national .coexistence virtually impossible The administration, the.judiciary, the army and even the Church, instead ofdefending social and political order, became the parties'tools in overthrowing it.

Moreover, Creeks from Asia Minor, destitute anddespairing, sought refuge in Greece, frequently withoutbeing able to find work. There were one-and-a-half millionof them in a population totalling five million. Thisexplained why a part of the population let themselves beinfluenced by demagogues. The Communist party, takingadvantage of the conflict between the two bourgeois groups,occupied a key situation enabling it to decide the countrytsfuture. Anyone who was unaware of this could understand nothingof the Greek problem and had no right to voice an opinion.

He (Mr. Pipinelis) was not alone in holding these views.:they were shared by many prominent Greeks.Mr. Constantin Caramaniis, a statesman who had served Greecewell, realising that all his endeavours would lead nowhere,had resolved, .in 1963., 'to propose a revision of the Constitution,Explaining his proposal, he had said that public life inGreece was suffering from a serious organic rnalaise, althoughthere was a hypocritical reluctance to speak of it," and thatif the political leaders did not tnUe steps to protect the true

./.

CM,(69) FV 4 - 10 -

freedom of all Greeks; there was a risk of the country beingforced, against its will; to give up its free•institutions.In a statement, published in Le Monde in November 1967, that •'.is to say after the military revolution, Mr. Caramanlis agreed ' •that Greece was threatened by political and moral -anarchy andthat democracy could be said to have been assassinated undera .free regime. ' • •• """'"'"

President Papanastasiou, a left-wing bourgeois and thepromoter .of the .most far-reaching social and political reformscarried out around .the .years 1930 and 1935 > .speaking .in the •Greek Chamber in 19 6 of the political life of the country, hadreferred to the legend of Sisyphus and said that a11 Greece'smilitary triumphs had been reduced to naught by internal •' •dissension in .the same way as all efforts to gjve Greece an' ' •Impartial, and efficient administration;, and that the state was 'In danger of becoming paralysed.' • "

Only recently, Mr. Theodorakis, a member of the extremeright wing; who was constantly attacking the present government;in a statement to the press had admitted, in a moment oflucidity and candour, that it'was not Colonel Papadopoulos whowas to blame for the present situation.out that it was all theGreeks and, more particularly, the politicians, the men of lettersand the members of the ruling class who must be held responsible.

Thus, opinions were unanimous in diagnosing the. trouble.He (Mr. Pipineli.'i;.) who, never having- belonged to any party, •oxcept.that of tho King whom he had-defended when forced int'6:"""' •""exJle;. could claim, a certain objectivity, acknowledged, likeeveryone else, that what was happening in Greece was the result,not of any mere accident, but of a need for radical reform.

The reform advocated by Mr, Caramanlis had never materialisedowing to opposition from the Chamber,-whrich was little inclinedto reform itself. and likewise rejected all the.other proposals'submitted to it. The truth was that.there never had been any••'constitutional reform, .In Greece, that was not brought about by aninsurrection: as in l8lK, 1.864 and 1911; such was the lesson :'•caught bj history.

In the absence of reform, the situation steadily worsened:after.the fall of the Caramanlis government and the Piplnelis • '"government which succeeded it. political tension reached an • - ' :

unimaginable pitch, so . that when, in 1966. Mr Stephanopoulosresigned in his turn, the formation of a minority government had

J

^ 11 - . CM (69) PV 4

provoked a veritable bar-rage of protest. In the ranks of theopposition, whose alliance with the extreme ""eft had createdthe threat of civil war., The popular front had then becomethe great 'dread of the orthodox elements It was difficultto say whether this fear was real 1,7 justified whether thecommunists would have seised, power immediately after theelections - thank Ood, it was never put to ':;he test - outsuch was the general apprehension that th-:- army's inter-vention was greeted by all r-'-reeks with immense relief, •'

In these conditions, the revolutionary government hadmanaged very quickly to restore order re^-; ve theconfidence of business circles, strengthen a shaky economypr-epnre * the reforms the country needed and finally, inSeptember 1968, have a new constitution appro-ed. It maybe that the instigators-of the" revolution had had noclear idea themselves • as to the principles they were going •to apply when they assumed power; the fact remained that,after the explosion, new.ideas had emerged and these were nowcontributing to reform the country. New men, new leaders^with whom he had had the pleasure of working were nowflocking in from all quarters; he saw with pride andconfidence a new Greece being born.

He thought it might' be well to linger .for a moment'on the Constitution, A'glance at i::-s content would leaveone in no doubt -as to its democratic character For itrecognised the' pre-eminence of elected authority over-executive authority by instituting minister;.al responsibilityIt prescribed - and this was new - a democratjc organisationof the parties. It clearly defined the King's pov/ors inorder to avoid the ambiguities which had provoked severalconstitutional crises in the past. It embodied new .guarantees, based mainly on the Scandinavian model5for the protection of individual rights . It provided forthe setting up of an institutional High Court on i;heGerman model. It sought to facilitate parliamentarybusiness by precluding obstructionism in ;.he Chambers, Itincorporated and strengthened all the precaut.ons stipulatedin the previous Constitution for the protection ofindividual rights. It could not, therefore., be maintainedthat its content'was-inconsistent with the Rome Convention.

Moreover., the framers of the Constitution had providedfor a whole series of institutional laws of fundamental•importance for the normalisation of the country, such asthat relating to. the pr^ss or \;o fcho Nation**1 CounoiU.,

./.

CM -(69) PV 4 . - 12 -

responsible for assisting the royal government. This legislativework was, progressing very satisfactorily and he 'hoped thatcertain of the laws planned would be promulgated before thedate fixed, that was to say before the end of 1970.

The.government was also engaged in"organising the"political forces, old or new, capable of governing thecountry. It was to this end that, availing "itself of ' .;. •Article 138 of'the Constitution, it had temporarily postponedthe application of certain constitutional" provisions.. Forthis reason, it had been suspected, quite unjustly, of wishingto delay their entry into force- indefinitely. He could .;affirm categorically that this -suspicion was unfounded.Immediate^ after it was 'formed, the Greek Government had said',and had never ceased to repeat, that it considered itselfas a provisional-government whose sole task was to reform . .the political life of the' country, after which it would-leave the -field free to the political forces to dispute thepower. -

A series of practical measures had been taken which ' .. .proved that these were'-no mere intentions. An act passedas early as 28 November 1968 put an end to deportation bysimple administrative decision, a rule dating from the, time ofVenizelos in 1928, which all the parliamentary governments ..hadapplied.- The PAPADOPOULOS government had decided, on'thecontrary, that-a court composed of five'judges would review. _„,,„all the decisions taken' by the previous administrative courts; . -as a result, certain persons had already been freed and further,releases would follow. • ; . " _ ' - . . .

In May 19&9 the government had reformed the committeesof first instance which decided on deportation. Each of thesenow comprised a member of the judiciary. . . •

On the same date, the government had is-sued a decreereinstating all officials under grade 6 who had been deprived -of their posts by-administrative decision. Higher gradeofficials would be reinstated after an examination, of theircase by. committees comprising a judge. ". •

In June 19 9, the right to strike had been granted totrade union organisations.

In July and August 1969, the 'Greek Government, which had - . 'been working out a normalisation plan since May, had specified •the measures to be taken to comply vrith ,the proposals made bythe Commission of Human Rights. This plan provided for the

«/•

- 13 - CM (69) PV 4

integral application, without restriction, of the 1968Constitution by the end of 1970. In addition to this general .time limit, a series of .dates were fixed, which so far had allbeen adhered to, A new act on the press was promulgated,, as. ••announced, on 15 September. The entry into force of Article 10of the .Constitution was promised for 15 April 1970 at the :latest: this date.would be respected. Articles 110 and 111 .would enter im;o force on the- prescribed date. All theinstitutional laws .announced.', whether it be the PoliticalParties Act, .the Electoral. Act or the National Council Act,would be enforced, by.the end of December at the latest.

The Press Act, already published, would enter intoforce on 1 January. It contained nothing which was no.t in

: strict conformity with the Greek Criminal Code as it hadexisted for at least twenty-five years. No -new penalty wasprescribed. Sanctions had perhaps been reinforced, butthat was indispensable in view of the licence taken by theGreek press, which was one of the mailri causes of the failureof parliamentarianism against which all. the parties had revolted,One essential feature of this act was that it would prevent con-centration of the press and put an end to the arbitrary fixingof a maximum selling price for newspapers. All these weremeasures making for freedom of the press and freedom ofopinion.

,. Article 10 of the Constitution was of capital importance,since it.stipulated that, except in the case of flagrantedelictb, no' one could be arrested or imprisoned without acourt warrant. This';was a literal reproduction of theprovisions-of' the.previous Constitution. The rule was already. •being observed, but .only by virtue of an administrativedecision, which did not afford' the same guarantees as a- .•constitutional law. Article 10 would become operative as' '. . ,from next April. It was in conformity with the rules existingin-all'democratic countries.

Articles 110 and 111 made it 'illegal to constituteextraordinary courts and to submit civilians t'o judgment .•by military-courts. Again, these provisions were alreadybeing respected, but only in pursuance of an administrativedecision. . .

Generally speaking,' it was striking to note .that theessence of the -'suggestion made by the Commission of Human .-Rights was perfectly consistent with the plan drawn up bythe Greek Government on its own Initiative. That was why

./.

CM (69) pv 4 - '14 -

the Greek Government could, without hesitation, take theCommission' r> proposals into consideration. The .Commission'asko'd for impartial courts, strict control over ,the secretpolice; that .was also what.the Greek Government wanted. Ithad, in fact, concluded an agreement oh 3 November withthe International Red Cross which would,.. be_ejnti tied. ...to,, visit ^whom it pleased, where it • pleased, when'it pleased. "'"""" It --•«-«••*-could interview any accused-without'witnesses, .takeevidence use it and publish cornrnuniqUos after notifying the ,Greek Government. The,Reel Cross could, for example, enquireinto the detainees' physical condition and the circumstancesof their arrest. It had already begun its visits andpublished a first communique stating that in all the detention'carnps visited - and it listed a large number - its•representatives were allowed to move freely, question personswithout witnesses 'and without an3r time 'restriction. It had .despatched material aid to several' detention camps,. TheGreek Government had nothing to hide. If -there had been anyill-treatment - which could happen in any country - severesanctions would be imposed. But specific cases must first beinvestigated by independent judges.

The Commission of Human Rights also called for recognitionof the right to criticise the government freely. Theinformation he had given regarding the Press Act should allayany disquiet on that score. .

The most important clause was that in..which the.,.Commissionadvocated the holding of free- elections as soon as conditionspermitted. The Greek Government's position in this regardhad never varied. If there had been any misunderstanding,this was the fault 'of emigres who had represented their country'sgovernment as a fascist clique determined never to holdelections and to stay in power, In point of fact, the GreekGovernment considered itself as a transitional government whose 'function way to reform the state and establish it on new'foundations. It had stated repeatedly that the day would comewhen the nation would be consulted. True, it declined to fixa date at the moment. But for this it had sound reasons ofwhich the Commission, was well aware.

He asked the true friends of his country, those who knewithe situation, to help its leaders to carry through adifficult undertaking. He begged them, instead of taking"the easy v.Tay out, of yielding to doctrinal prejudices or

./.

15 - CM (69) PV 4

simply to the expediencies of internal policy, to think ofthe real interests of the Greek people and to help theirgovernment to return as speedily o.s possible to fulldemocratic legality.

A"revolutionary regime, he frankly admitted, had itsdifficulties li!:e any other. It was not a monolith, butrather a torrent in which various currents mingled itwould take time, much wisdom and an enormous amount ofpolitical adroitness before it could flow peacefully. Asa European from the very first, he warned his colleaguesthat the course they were being urged to take was adangerous one. Besides, it would lead nowhere, for if theysevered relations with the Greek Government, what influencecould they subsequently exert on it? Extremist elementsin Greece would thereby be strengthened to the detriment ofGreece and Europe. Everything militated in favour ofchoosing the other course, that of prudence, friendship andconfidence. It would still be possible to take 'sanctionsthe day it was proved that the programme outlined by theGreek Government was not being loyally implemented. Butby what right, by virtue of what logic could they do so inadvance?

\:Finally, was it in Europe's interests, at a time when

the situation was so uncertain and so dangerous, to stir upquarrels?

Greece would accept any condemnation with serenity.It had been through graver trials. If Greece were, to becondemned, however, he would feel a certain sadness. Notfor Greece, but for Europe.

Mr. Waldhcim (Austria) said that the Committee had nowlistened to important statements by the Foreign Ministersof Sweden and Greece and a draft resolution had r.lso beencirculated in the meantime. He thought they should have -time to study the.statements and, in particular, theresolution and he accordingly suggested that the meeting beadjourned for about 2.0 or JO minutes.

:jf

The Chairman noted that there was no. objection toMr. Waldheim's proposal.

The sitting was suspended at 11.55 a.m. '

./.

CM (69) PV >4 ' ' '. - 16

It was resumed at 12.50 p.m. . ' . , • • . , •

Mr. W. Scheel '(Fedora! Republic of Germany), who had '• ' '•listened with rapt attention to Mr. Pipinelis's statement, said •that the Federal Republic had followed developments in Greecesince April 1967 with the greatest concern, • • It was far from : -.his intention,, in explaining the- reasons for .this concern, tointerfere in the internal affairs of a member state. But the'Statute of tha 'Council of Europe and the common ideal unitingall the nations represented therein placed an olibgation on theCommittee of Ministers 'to take a decision that day, however • .grave it might be, for it was the credibility of theOrganisation which was at stake.. Could Greece continue to bea member .of an institution founded on respect for democraticprinciples and the rule of lav;?

The traditional friendship binding the German arid Greekpeoples had .led the Federal Republic to urge the GreekGovernment on a number of occasions to restore democracy inGreece as quickly as possible. Once more, as its Minister forForeign Affairs, he was addressing a solemn appeal to the GreekMinister for Foreign Affairs. The complete restoration ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms in Greece would not onlybe in the interests of the West and consistent with its ideals,but would also serve the interests of the Greek people and theGreek Government itself. For only as a democratic sta'te couldGr^tce fulfil the mission conferred on it by its own historyand the part it had played in civilisation. The Greek .Government, it was true, had never ceased'to affirm its desire . •for a speedy normalisation of the situation, but for two and ahalf years now it had kept public opinion waiting.. Althoughit had taken a few decisions of tho kind expected of it, their ' 'effect had unfortunately been neutralised by measures in thecontrary direction.

The Statute-of the Council of Europe was undoubtedly being \seriously violated. The Federal Republic would therefore vote ''for the suspension of Greece,'while expressing the hope that itv/ould soon return to respect for democratic priniples and thusbo a bit: once again to collaborate fully in the activities ofthe Council of Europe, in accordance with its own interests andthose of Europe.

Mr. P./'.' Hillery (Ire-land) said that it was with regret that hefound on pretending hio first meeting of the Committee ofMinisters that tixe main subject of discussion wa$ wh^thor ornot a fellow member stat-c, should oe suspended.

./.

- 17 - CM (69) PV 4

His government had already, both in the Committee ofMinisters and the Irish Parliament, expressed their concernand anxiety about the situation that had existed in Greece formore than two. years. This concern had grown in recentmonths when it was seen that.no substantial steps appeared tohave been taken to restore constitutional democracy and therule of law to a county which once had been the source andfountainhead of such democracy.

They were aware that certain member governments hadtaken proceedings against Greece under the European Conventionon Human Rights. They were also aware of how far theseproceedings hr.d £cne and knew that there- were 'arguments forpostponing a decision on the question of Greece until theCommittee came'to consider the.report of the European Commissionon Human Rights.

His government had taken every cognisance of thesearguments. Their concern for the situation in that countrywas such, however, and their regret that no adequate stepshad been taken to rectify it was so great, that they felt thetime had come when the}' must talro c. positive stand inrelation to a country in which the provisions of Article 5 ofthe Statute, which was the paramount document, were beingmanifestly violated. .His government, therefore, had to takea position in favour of'the principle of the suspension of amember state. In taking this position they neverthelesshoped that all necessary steps would soon be tn.ken so as toenable Greece to resume her place in the Council of Europe.

Mr. Lyng (Norway), recalled that during his speechMr. Pipinelis had expressed admiration for the former GreekPrime Minister, Mr. Kararnanlis. But he had not mentionedthat two months ago, Mr. Kararnanlis had made an appeal to thena'ti»ns of the world to assist in the restoration of democracyin Greece. In the Council of Europe, a bond of solidarityhad been built up between the 18 member nations. Their verypurpose was to assist in protecting the human rights of themember populations. If a country broke its obligationsunder the Statute in this respoct, the population of thatcountry had a right to look to the.Council for support.

The Council of Europe had a responsibility-to act infavour of human rights. Through its resolutions theAssembly had shown its understanding of this responsibility;now it'was up to the Committee of Ministers to display thesame .sense of purpose. •

./.

CM (69) PV 4' ' - 18 -

He wished to emphasise that paragraph 2 of the resolutionmentioned only suspension and that paragraphs 3 an^ openedthe way for a resumption of relations, between Greece and'theCouncil of Europe. His'government advocated the suspension ofGreece in the hope that it would load to the establishment ofdemocratic government.

Mr. Kyprianou (Cyprus) said that although he realised whatthe trend of the debate had been, it was his duty to theCommittee which he had attended for ton years to express hisviews quite i'ranlcly. He saw tv/o commitments: the first., toserve the purposes and principles of the Council of Europe; ther.econd to help . Men&ors of the Council in difficult times.Under this second commitment the Government of Cyprus was in aspecial, position because of the well known relationship betweenCyprus and Greece., but he would be constructive and objectivewith a view to the general interests of Greece as well as theCouncil of Europe. When the Ministers came to the meeting thisMorning they /'cnew more or less what was in each others minds,but governments.always left room for manoeuvre on importantissues, particularly when they were discussed in secret session.Had the Committee met to decide on the past, to decide whetherGreece should be suspended or not? ' This was not, in his viewits main objective, which he saw- as how best to help therestoration of a democratic constitution in Greece. If Greecev/ore outside the Council of Europe, what could the Council do?There were enough examples to show that it could do nothing.The implementation of principles was quite as important as the.decisions ta!:en on them and the consequences of any action :taken should be carefully considered. The Greek ForeignMinister had spoken of plans and dutes for their implementation.Was it impossible, within.that framework, for Greece to remainin the; Counc:,i of Europe and to undertake certain obligations? ;Certainly, if Greece were outside the Council of Europe, she * •would have no responsibility towards it. Even at this latehour he locked for a solution; for the.consequences ofexpulsion or suspension would go far beyond taking a simpledecision. The Ministers should ask themselves how they couldhelp Greece -. not hov; to wash their hands of the problem.-which was what suspension really meant. It was obvious, fromtrie presence of the Foreign Minister, that the Greek Government •wanted to remain in the Council of Europe; if it hadresolutely decided not to comply with the Council's Statutesthe Foreign Minister would'not have come. Decisions should--bebased riot on tho past but on what should be done -in the future.Today's meeting was a sad occasion could they not try toalleviate this sadness by finding a way out? He sincerelybelieved it could be done.

./•

- 19 - CM (C9) PV 4-

Mr. Thomson (United Kingdom) . said that, although one.was bound to "bo personally impressed by tho way in whichMr. Pipinclis had addressed thw- Committee, all thegovernments represented at today's meeting had signed theStatute of the Council of Europe "in which the democracies of•Europe had expressed their devotion to spiritual and moralvalues, a true sense of liberty and the rule of lav; TheCouncil of Europe was an organisation devoted to common,ideals; if it were not true to these it would bo nothing.If a member oi" a club did not conform to the rul^s this 'couldbe tolerated for a period, but there ce.rne a time vrhonviolation of the rules could no longer be accepted. Thistime had come today. It was by no means a policy of theBritish Government to dictate to the Greek Government whatits internal policies should be, but Recommendation '5 7 of30 January clearly stated thr.t the Greek regime was in seriousviolation of the rules of the Council of Europe and it hadbeen decided in May to take a final decision at today'smeeting, The Greek Government had had time to complete, orat least go a long way towards, the restoration of democracy,The Committee should not allot-/ the possibility of action underthe Convention on Human Rights to prevent their talcing adecision under the Statute of the Council of Europe. Theissue should not be shirked. With sadness, he was bound tosay that the Council of Europe could not be true to itselfif the Representative of the Greek Government continued to takepart in its deliberations. As tho British Prime Ministerhad said on Monday, the word "democracy" derived from Greeceand he looked forward to a democratic constitution inGreece chosen by the people- themselves. The United Kingdomhad many ties with Greece, both cultural and military, andit was the hope of the British Government that anv suspensionwhich might take place today would be temporary r-kowever thiscould only be brought about by a return to the rule of lawand to institutions of parliamentary democracy. He hadlistened to the speech of Mr. Pipinelis^ and was glad thatthe Greek Government had relaxed certain restrictions; healso welcomed the agreement with the Rud Cross whichMr. Pipinelis had announced.

However, having considered the matter with great care,the British Government had come to the conclusion that theGreek Government had fr.llen short of the standards requiredfrom members of the Council of Europe, particularly asexpressed at the meeting of the Committee in May. Heconcluded by saying that with regret the British Governmenthad lent their support to the resolution calling for thesuspension of Gro^e-a from nu&oiTM>F»h2.p,

./.

CM (69) PV If •- 20

The Chairman thanked Mr, Thomson and announced that thesitting would" be~suspeiided and resumed again at 3. 0 p.m.

Mr. Pipinolis (Greece) said that he had a communicationto make. Having noted, in the course' of the debate, that therepresentatives of several governments had criticised measuresannounced for the gradual restoration of the constitutionalorder in Greece, within fixed time limits, he was obliged, onhis government's instructions, to announce Greece's decisionto denounce the Statute and, in pursuance of Article 7 thereofto withdraw from the Council of Europe.

Notification of this decision vrould be made to the.Secretary General.

The sitting was suspended at 1.25 P.-m•

./.

21 - CM (69) PV Ij-

A P P E N D I X I

45th Sessipn' • . • '

AGENDA

(Paris, 12th and l^th December 19&9 at 10 a.m.)OECD, 19, rue de Franoueville

Telephone: 5.2'4.82.00

1. Adoption of the agenda

2. Solemn statutory declaration by the Secretary General

3. Situation in Greece - Recommendations. 5 7 and 5&9- Proposal for suspension of Greece

lf. Relations with other states

5. Political aspects of European economic integration

6. Other business

(i) Relations between the Council of Europe and theUnited Nations - oral report by the Secretary Generalon the execution of his mandate

(ii) Development of technological resources in Europe- Report by the Secretary General on the executionof his mandate

(ili) Council of Europe buildinge

7. Date and place of next meeting

8. Press communique ..

COUNCIL OF EUROPE-CONSEIL DE L' EUROPE

COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

45th Session

Strasbourg, 20 January 1970 ConfidentialCM (69) PV 5

MINUTES

of the sitting held on•12 December 1969 at 6 p.m., at

OECt) headquarters, 19 rue de Franqueville, Paris

Present;

MM. K* WaldheimP..Harmel'S'* Kyprianou.P* 'Hartling'J. de Lipkowski (1)W. ScheelH.S. B 'drnsson (2)

AUSTRIABELGIUTJICYPRUS .DENMARKPR;JTCEPEDEIL'JD REPUBLIC OP GERMANYGREECEICELAND

./.

(1) Secretary of'/State' for foreign Affairs, replacing!v£r. Schumann, Minister for Foreign Affairs.

., ,< • . • '"''''•(2) Ambassador Extraordinary--and Plenipotentiary,

Permanent Representative of Iceland to the Council of Europe,replacing-Mr. E.-Jonsson, Minister for For ei'gn-Affairs

16.25602.2/11

CMPV014

CM (69) PV 5 - 2 -

P.J. HilleryD. Coppo (1)G. Thorn -G, Borg OlivierP.J. Gelderraan(2)G, Lyhs- ; .'.';.:.:T. Nilsison

, W. SpuhlerI.S. CaglayangilG. Thomson (3)

IRELANDITALY

"LUXEMBOURGMALTANETHERLANDS

'NORWAY 'SWEDENSWITZERLANDTURKEYUNITED KINGDOM

L» Toncic-SorinjS. SforzaH. Leleu ..H-. Beesley'

Secretary GeneralDeputy,Secretary GeneralDirector, "of Political AffairsSecretary of the Committeeof Ministers

The J3ittin& was resumed at 6.25^..^*

The CJELIIRMN said that following the declaration made ,.that 'mofni'rig* liy"l!rt Pipinelis, talks had taken place tretwe*e'n ;

delegations. They had resulted in a draft resolution'which, wouldnow be submitted to the Committee. He asked the Secretary Generalto read it out.

'./.

(1) Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replacing•Mr. A. Moro, Minister for Foreign Affairs (Chairman).

(2) Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Permanent Representative.of the Netherlands to theCouncil of Europe, replacing Mr. J.M.A.H. Luns,Minister for Foreign Affairs..

'(3). Chancellor, of the Duchy of Lancaster," replacing-Mr. M. Stewart, Secretary of State for' Foreign and'Commonwealth Affairs.

- 3 - ' CM (69) PV 5

The SjDCRETARY GENERAL read the .following text to theCommittee inHSngTish": .

The Committee of Ministers

Considering that Greece has seriously violated Article 3 ofthe Statute;

Noting the situation in Greece as described in Recommendation 547of the Consultative Assembly, adopted on 30 January 19695

Noting further that the Greek Government as required inparagraph 7 of this Recommendation, have declared their withdrawalfrom the Council of Europe under Article 7 of the Statute.

I* Under^stajids that the Greek Government will abstain fromany~Yurther participation in the activities of theCouncil of Europe as from today;

2. Concludes that on this understanding there is no need topur~sue~":EEe procedure for suspension, under Article 8 of.the Statute;

3. Ghjargeft the Ministers' Deputies to settle the administrativeancTfinancial consequences of this situation;

5» 525HLe_sAe-s- "k*16 h°Pe °£ an early return in Greece ofcondl/Fibns which will enable' her to resume full membershipof the Council of Europe.

i

Mr. de LIPKOY/SKI (France) had'intended speaking in themorning. After-the new~cTeveTopraent constituted by Mr. Hlpinelis'sdeclaration-, he would not make a long speech. But he did notmean, for all that, to withdraw into prudent silence for, as aphilosopher had once said, there were tiroes when to say-nothingwas to lie. The French delegation did not intend to lie eitherto itself or to Europe. By remaining silent it would be lyingto itself, for everyone was aware of the strong attachment ofFrance's Government and of all i'cs citizens to human rights anddemocratic principles. It would be lying to Europe, for theessential mission of the Organisation that Europe had createdwas to present to the world the image 'of a group of countriesin which individual freedom and its corollary, a certainhumanism, prevailed. , •

./.

CM (69) PV 5 - 4,-

The French Government could not "but be concerned by. asituation which was in contradiction with this image. It •considered the normalisation process of the situation in Greeceto be much too slow and very inadequate. True, the agreementconcluded with the International Red Cross, for example,represented some.progress, but it was not enough to bring, abouta restoration of democratic freedoms.

Everyone had listened, deeply moved, to the statement madeby Mr, Fipinells, whose'personal, sincerity. could not be1 doubted.But a de facto situation remained which was clearly incompatiblewith the principles and rules of the Council of Europe? it.was becoming urgent to^ put an end to it. .

The'position was now clear. Greece had withdrawn from theCouncil of Europe. It only remained to take cognisance of thefact, and the text submitted to the Committee merely-photographedthe present situation, so to speak.

His natural optimism and the friendship he bore the Greekpeople led him to believe that this withdrawal would be onlytemporary and that a return to democracy soon would enableGreece to return to the Council of Europe, and to make acontribution worthy of its past, its traditions and itsrightful place in the free world. ' • •

In conclusion, Mr. de LIPKOWSKI expressed his unreservedsupport for.the draft resolution. . .

Mr. P. HURTLING (Denmark) said'that'the Danish Governmentwould have preferred the draft resolution tabled by the SwedishGovernment and others earlier in the day. But his Government,agreed to vote on the text before the .Committee which had just • 'been read out by the Secretary General. He was authorised tospeak on this matter for the governments of Sweden and Norway also,

Mr. K. WALDHEIM (Austria) said that a new 'situation had .been created by the wrEKdlFawal of Greece. If the resolutiontabled earlier in the day had been put to the vote, he wouldhave voted for it.

He would, however, have preferred the inclusion of .anamendment, which had been discussed by a number of delegationsand which would have' provided a deadline for the introduction ofbasic reforms in Greece.

./.

- 5 - CM (69) PV 5

To meet the new situation, a new text had "been draftedas a result of intensive efforts to reach a consensus. Austriawould vote for this text.

He had noted with appreciation the viev/s expressed bythe Foreign Minister of Denmark, who had spoken on behalf ofthe Scandinavian countries.

He concluded by expressing the hope that the day whenGreece v/ould be welcomed back to the Council was not far removed.

Mr. HARMBL (Belgium) said that for two-and-a-half yearsnow the Belgian Government and people had been concerned by theviolations of the law being committed in Greece. When theGreek Government announced the timetable which, it claimed,was to lead to the restoration of individual freedoms, theynoted with regret that ita proposals were usually accompaniedby conditions - relating mainly to state security - of whichit remained the sole judge.

He had hoped that that morning the Greek Governmentwould declare its readiness to apply the recommendations of theCommission of Human Rights immediately. Unfortunately, movingand sincere though it had been, Mr. Pipinelis's speech hadprovided no such assurance. The Belgian Government had thereforeno choice but to support the motion for suspension tabled bythe Scandinavian countries. . It had done so that morning.

Row that the Greek Government had announced its voluntarywithdrawal, there was no longer any point in maintainj^ng themotion. The Belgian delegation would therefore vote for thedraft resolution which the Secretary General had read out.

Mr. KYPR.IANOU (Cyprus^ said that he v/ould confine hisremarks to the new drarV resolution. He would only repeatthat it was with regret that his country saw Greece leavingthe Council, not because they did not regard the situation in

.Greece with concern but because they believed that progresstowards the restoration of democracy in Greece would be morelikely if Greece were to remain a member.

He had two points to make on the new draft resolution.The first clause of the preamble, stating that Greece hadviolated the conditions of Article 3 of the Statute, was inhis opinion an unhappy statement.. The Committee was not sittingas a Court of Law and had not adjudicated on this matter. Thesecond clause of the preamble implied that Greece had withdrawnas a result of a rocommendation from tho Consultative A»o©mblyjbut, as the-Belgian Representative had already stated, thewithdrawal was a voluntary one.

./..

CM (69) PV 5 • - 6 -

For this reason the Cypriot delegation would not participatein the vote on the resolution, as they thought that the presentcircumstances now made it unnecessary.

Mr. I.S. CAGLAY;.NGIL (Turjeey_) said that no Council of Europemember state could defend arf "anti-democratic regime, but heregretted, for his part, that the draft resolution submittedto the Committee should pass judgment on a member state whichhad just withdrawn from the Organisation.' He would thereforehave preferred the first preambular paragraphs to be left out;'however, noting that the last paragraph of the resolutionexpressed the hope that Greece would soon be able to resumefull membership of the Council of Europe, he would vote forthe proposed text. • ,

~*~s

Mr. COPPO (I.taly_) said that the position his country hadtaken that morning"-on the resolution which was then before theCommittee had stemmed from the statement made by Mr. Pipinelis.Judging the merits of the case, it was clear that there was noreal will to restore democracy in Greece except in limited,formal terms.

These considerations.now led them to vote in favour ofthe new resolution, but they would do so with sadness.Everyone listening to Mr. Pipinelisrs .speech had felt withsome emotion what the Greek people had undergone and had • ' .appreciated the tensions of their political life. The presentresolution was an act of confidence in the Council of Europebut also an act of confidence in Greece herself, inspired bythe hope that Greece would soon resume her place among freenations of Europe.

Mr. SpiJHIER (Swi _erlaiidJ stated that, despite the . ^)withdrawal of Greece", S'witz'er'land hoped that the Government _ .of that country would ensure a rapid return to democracy and'give the Greek people back their freedoms. As the Swissdelegation would have liked to explain, had there been timethat morning, he felt it would have been desirable for theCommittee of Ministers to be given the possibility, whilesuspending Greece from its right of representation, ofpersuading her to comply with the proposals of the EuropeanCommission of Human Rights and adopt a programme of concrete,.effective measures. In conclusion, Mr. Spuhler hoped that in •spite of everything Greece would find its v/ay back to theCouncil of Europe by fulfilling its obligations under the Statute.It was in this spirit that the Swiss delegation would vote forthe draft resolution.

./.

- 7 - CM (69) PV 5

Mr. BORG OLIVIER (Malta) said that it had "been Malta'sintention to vote for the" resolution proposed that morning.He wished to make this clear because of the unwarrantedspeculation in the press about his country's attitude.The withdrawal of Greece created a new situation v/hich madeit unnecessary to pursue the procedure- under Article 8 of theStatute. The nexv resolution before them set out theirunderstanding of the results of that withdrawal and theirhopes for the future and he would vote for it on behalf ofhis country.• . '

.Mr. V/. SO HEEL (^^Q^^^S^^io^f^^^m^^) explainedthat, in supporting the~"re~soTutTon t'o" ~suspencT Greece, theFederal Republic had had no intention of excluding Greeceonce and for all from the activities of the Council of Europe.It merely wished to- gain time in the hope that Greece, afterrestoring parliamentary democracy and resp,ect for human rightswould be able to resume its place in the Organisation. TheGreek .Government's decision had completely altered thesituation and the Federal Republic .would vote for the new ,draft resolution which took account of these changed circumstances,

Mr. G. THORN (Luxembourg) recalled that his country, too,had supported the resolxrtion on the suspension of Greece. Hewould have voted for it, since this vote would not ha^e impliedany hostility towards Greece, but would have been dictated, by . •faithfulness to democratic principles and to the Statute of •the Council of Europe. The Greek delegation had preferred,to withdraw, thereby satisfying the wish of the ConsultativeAssembly. Luxembourg would vote in favour of the new resolutionin the hope that the Athens Government would be anxious toprove, in the forthcoming months, the sincerity of theattachment it professed to democratic principles. This havingbeen proved, Luxembourg would be happy to see Greece returnto 'the Council.

Mr. F.J. GELDERMAN (Netherlands), after recalling that .his country had associated itself~th"at morning with those-'that .had advocated suspension, announced that the Netherlandswould vote for the new resolution, while expressing the hope • .that Greece would soon be in a position to resume its placein the Council of Europe.

./.

CM (69) PV 5

Mr. THOMSON (United Kingdom) said that ho had made theviews of tlivj United Kingdom Government clear in his speechthat morning. Liki ethers that had spoken they took the viewthat the withdrawal.of Greece created a new situation which .was adequately reflected in the new draft resolution. Theyshould have two purposes. One was to recognise the standardof behaviour to tvhich the Council was pledged. The other wasto do what they could to encourage Greece to return to thosestandards as soon as possible. He hoped they would soon seea representative from Greece in the seat which noxv stood sosadly empty.

Mr. EGILSSON (l) (Iceland) said that in view of thechanged circumstances his government also were prepared tovote for the draft, resolution; they also shared the hopes thatothers had expressed that the Oouncil would soon be able towelcome Greece back.

The CHAIRMAN, noting that no delegation had spoken againstthe draft resolution; but that the Cyprus delegation had .stated"that it would not take part in the voting, did notconsider it necessary to put the resolution to the vote; with'the Committee's agreement he would, declare it adopted. ( (Agreed)

The CHAIRMAN declared the draft resolution adopted.

The SECRETARY GENERAL said that he had just received twocommunications from the Greek Representative, the first ofwhich ended with the words that the Greek Government denouncedthe Statute of the Council of Europe and withdrew from theOrganisation, according to the terms of Article 7 of theStatute.. The second announced that the- Greek Governmentdenounced the Convention on Human Rights, in accordance withArticle 65 of this Convention.

The CHAIRMAN thanked the Secretary General and took noteof his communications. The Committee had now concluded item IIIof the agenda.

./...

(l) Deputy Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe,replacing Mr. Bjbrnsson, Ambassador and PermanentRepresentative.

- 9 - CM (69) PV 5

4. Relations with other states

The SECRETARY GENERAL said that it was his responsibilityto report to the Committee on relations with other Europeancountries. There had been a hiatus with Eastern Europeancountries after the Czechoslovakian affair, but from Aprilto October of this year these countries had shown a morefavourable attitude towards representatives from the Councilof Europe. Since October, there had been a demand, particularlyfrom Poland, for East German participation in the affairs ofthe Council of Europe: this had caused some difficulties.Relations with Finland and Yugoslavia had improved, both ofthem sending representatives to Strasbourg. He had nothingnew to report about Spain and Portugal, although he had hopesof improved relations.

The CHAIRMAN thanked the Secretary General and inviteddelegation representatives to speak. No one having requestedleave to speak, he declared the discussion closed.

5. Political aspects of European economic integration

The CHAIRMAN suggested postponing discussion of thisitem till, the next meeting of the Committee of Ministers.

Agreed.

C. Other business

The CHAIRMAN suggested postponing discussion of item (i)till a later meeting.

Agreed. ' . ' • •

The CHAIRMAN then invited the Representative of France* tomake his statement on the Council of Europe buildings,

Mr. DE LIPKOWBKI (France) was happy to inform the.Committee .of Ministers that, as regards the financing of thenew buildings which the Council of Europe planned to construct,the French Government was willing to arrange for the Caiss.edes Depots et Consignations to make a long-term loan at apreferential rate for a minimum period of ten years. In viewof present conditions on the French money market, the interestrate for this loan would be 6 1/4$. • The amount of the loanwould be proportionate to the scale of the work to be undertakenin accordance with the prepared estimates, on the understandingthat the sum in question should not exceed a ceiling of70 million francs.

• /•

CM (69) pv 5 - 10 -

The SECRETARY GENERAL thanked the French Government for- •their generous.offer, which meant that, after many years'ofendeavour, there would be a new building for the Council ofEurope, which would stand as a symbol of its development. Heasked all governments to accept the French offer and said that •he would himself try to speed up construction of the newbuilding, which he hoped would start at the beginning of 1970and might b.e completed in two to three years.

The CHAIRMAN, in his turn, thanked the Representative ofFrance for. his announcement and called the Secretary Generalto speak on item (ii).

The SECRETARY GENERAL said that he would not- go into detail,but he had to put forward a short report to comply with theCommittee's previous decision. In May, Mr. Srnithers, hispredecessor, had made proposals for co-operation in science,and technology, suggesting an inventory of all the multilateralactivities of the members of the Council of Europe. He himself,when he took over,•had recognised the difficulties of the taskand after much consultation with those involved, had beenforced to conclude that such an ambitious enterprise would notsucceed, for the interest shown by some was not enough tocounterbalance the lack of interest shown by others. . He wastherefore today submitting proposals much more modest thanthose submitted by Mr. Srnitliers, proposals which took the form'of a rather limited academic exercise which would show resultsonly in the future. He asked for agreement in principle tothese proposals and that the Ministers should instruct theirDeputies to discuss how to implement them.

Mr. WALDHEIM (Austria) thanked the Secretary General, ,whose proposal no doubt represented the maximum of what waspossible at the present juncture. Multilateral scientificco-operation was still -not very far advanced in Europe and itcreated complex problems. It would be wise to adopt theSecretary General's proposal as a basis for discussion.

Mr. SPtJHLER (Switzerland) thought the problem raised by theSecretary General was rightly a matter of concern to all memberstates. However, the research programme and targets proposedby the.University of Sussex seemed highly complex. Theirimplementation required the co-operation not only of governmentsbut also, arid perhaps still more, of other internationalorganisations. That being so, preliminary consultations wereessential and it would be premature to take any .decision ofprinciple immediately.- Mr. SpUhler proposed that, withoutprejudging the future, the Deputies should be instructed tostudy the new proposals in full knowledge of Uhe t'aq^M,

./.

- 11 - CM (69) PV 5

Mr. DE LIPKOWSKI (France) shared this view. TheSecretary General's proposals were interesting. They werecertainly more realistic than what had been proposed hitherto,It would be advisable for the Secretary General to put thisplan into due form and send it to the Deputies, who wouldtake a decision on behalf of the Committee.

Mr. GAGLAYANGIL (Turkey) supported the views expressedby MM. SpUhler and de Lipkowski.

The CHAIRMAN concluded that the Committee agreed thatthe Deputies be instructed to study the problem incollaboration with the Secretary General.

Agreed.

7. Time and place of the next session

The CHAIRMAN suggested leaving it to the Deputies tofix the date and place of the next session of the Committeeof Ministers.

Agreed.

8. Press jornmunique . •

The CHAIRMAN proposed that it be left to the Secretariatto draft the press communique in agreement with the Chairman.

Mr. KYPRIANOU (Cyprus) agreed with the proposal of theChairman that he and the Secretariat should draft the presscommunique, and said he had full confidence in them. Heasked, however, that his decision not to take part in thevote, which he had made clear earlier to the Committee,should be mentioned when drafting the communique.

The CHAIRMAN gave him an assurance that it would bespecified in the communique that Cyprus did not take partin the vote.

Closing of the sessionThe CHAIRMAN declared closed the 45th session of the

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

The 45th session was closed at 7.25 P.m../.

'- 12 - CM (69) PV 5

" ' • .• PRESS' COMMUNIQUE' • - •

45th SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

The 45th session of tile Committee of Ministers of theCouncil of Europe was held i:i Paris on Friday 12 December 1969.

The Ministers for Foreign Affairs, or their representatives,of the eighteen member states-of the Council of Europe met atthe Chateau de la Muette under the chairmanship ofMr. Aldo MORO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Italy.

The discussions related mainly to the situation inGreece and to relations with Eastern European countries.

At the opening of the meeting, Mr. Lujo TONCIC-30RINJ,the new Secretary General of the Council of Europe, electedon 14 May last by the Assembly, took the oath before theCommittee of Ministers.

GREECE

The Committee of Ministers, which had before itRecommendations 5^-7 and 569 of the Consultative Assemblyand a proposal for the suspension of Greece sponsored byeleven delegations, discussed the situation in that countryand heard a statement by Mr. P1PINELIS, the Greek Ministerfor Foreign Affairs'. Following the discussiozi, theRepresentative of Greece having delcared that his countrywas withdrawing from the Organisation under the terms ofArticle 7 of the Statute, the Committee of Ministers adoptedthe following resolution by a unanimous-vote of the-delegations casting a vote:

"The Committee of Ministers considering that Greece' hasseriously violated Article J of the Statute of the Councilof Europe;

Noting; the situation in Greece as described inRecommendation 5 7 of the Consultative Assembly, adoptedon j>0 January 19 9s

./.

CM (69) PV 5 - 15 -

Noting further that the Greek Government, as required inparagraph 7 of this recommendation, have declared theirwithdrawal from the Council of Europe under Article 7 of theStatute;

Understands, that the Gre-ek-Government will abstain fromany further participation in the activities of the Councilof Europe as from, today;

Concludes, that on this understanding there is no need to'pursue the procedure for suspension under Article 8 of theStatute;

Charges the Ministers' Deputies to settle the administrativeand financial consequences of this situation;

Expresses the hope of an early return in Greece of conditionswhich will enable her to resume full membership of the Councilof Europe."

•i

Cyprus did not take part in the vote. The Foreign Ministerof Cyprus explained that, after the withdrawal of Greece, it wasnot, in his view, appropriate to adopt any resolution. •

Greece, which had announced beforehand that she was withdrawingfrom the Council of Europe, was'not present at the vote.

The Secretary General read out two "Notes Verbales" which hadbeen handed to him by the Permanent Representative of Greece, onedenouncing the Statute of the Council of Europe, the other'theEuropean Convention on Human Rights.

RELATIONS WITH NON-MEMBER STATES ' .

The Committee was informed by the Secretary General ofdevelopments in relations between the Council of Europe andcertain countries of East Europe.

NEW BUILDINGS OF THE COUKOIL OF'EUROPE IN STRASBOURG

Mr. DE LIPKOWSKI announced to the Committee that the FrenchGovernment was prepared to grant the Council of Europe a loan tobe provided by the "Caisse des Depdts et Consignations" for new

./.

- 14 - CM (69) PV 5

buildings for the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. TheSecretary General, after having expressed his thanks to theFrench Government, announced-that everything would be doneto complete the -construction of these new buildings withintwo or three years.

DEVELOPMENT OF'EUROPEAN TECMOLOG 1CAL; RESOURCES

The Committee took note of the statements made on thissubject, by the Secretary General of the Council andinstructed the Ministers' Deputies to consider the actionto be taken on his proposals.

FORTY-FIFTH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Sitting held on 12 December 1969 at 10 a.m.,

at OECD Headquaters, 19 rue de Franqueville, Paris

Present :

AUSTRIA Mr. K. WALDHEIMBELGIUM Mr. P. HARM ELCYPRUS Mr. S. K Y P R I A N O UDENMARK Mr. P. HARTLINGFRANCE Mr. J. de LIPKOWSKIFEDERAL

REPUBLICOF GERMANY Mr. W. SCHEEL

GREECE Mr. P. PIPINELISICELAND Mr. H.S. BJÖRNSSON 2

IRELAND Mr. P. HILLERYITALY Mr. D. COPPO3

LUXEMBOURG Mr. G. THORNMALTA Mr. G. BORG OLIVIER

NETHERLANDS Mr. F.J. G E L D E R M A N 4

NORWAY Mr. G. LYNGSWEDEN Mr. T. N I S S O NSWITZERLAND Mr. W. SPÜHLERTURKEY Mr. I.S. Ç A G L A Y A N G I LUNITED KINGDOM Mr. G, THOMSON 5

Mr. L. TONCIC-SORINJ, Secretary GeneralMr. S. SFORZA, Deputy Secretary GeneralMr .H , LELEU, Director of Political AffairsM E . H . BEESLEY, Secretary of the Committee

of Ministers.

1.Secretary of State for Foreign Affa i r s , replacingMr. M. Schumann, Minister for Foreign Affairs .

2.Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Permanent Representative of Iceland to the Councilof Europe, replacing Mr. E. Jonsson, Minister forForeign Affairs .

3.Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, re-placing Mr. A. Moro, Minister for Foreign A f f a i r s(Chairman).

4 .Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to theCouncil of Europe, replacing Mr. J .M.A.H. Luns,Minister for Foreign Affairs.

5 .Chancel lor of the Duchy of Lancaster, replacingMr. M. Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign andCommonwealth Affairs .

- 364 -

Forty-Fifth Session of the Committee of Ministers

A G E N D A

1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. Solemn statutory declaration by the SecretaryGeneral.

3. Situation in Greece - Recommendations 547and 569 - Proposal for suspension of Greece.

4. Relations with other states.

5. Pol i t ical aspects of European economic inte-gration.

6. Other business :

(i) Relations between the Council of Europeand the United Nations - Oral report by theSecretary General on the execution of hismandate ;

(ii) Development of technological resourcesin Europe - Report by the Secretary Generalon the execution of his mandate ;

( i i i ) Council of Europe buildings.

7. Date and place of next meeting.

8. Press communiqué .

- 365 -

Forty-Fifth Session of the Committee of Ministers

PRESS COMMUNIQUE

The 45th Session of the Committee of Minis-ters of the Council of Europe was held in Parison Friday 12 December 1969.

The Ministers for Foreign Affa i rs , or theirRepresentatives, of the eighteen member statesof the Council of Europe met at the Château dela Muette under the chairmanship of Mr. AldoMoro, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Italy.

The discussions related mainly to the situ-ation in Greece and to relations with EasternEuropean countries.

At the opening of the meeting, Mr. LujoToncic-Sorinj, the new Secretary General of theC o u n c i l of Europe, elected on 14 May last by theAssembly, took the oath before the Committee ofMinisters.

Greece

The Committee of Ministers, which had be-fore it Recommendations 547 and 569 of theConsultative Assembly and a proposal for thesuspension of Greece sponsored by eleven dele-gations, discussed the situation in that countryand heard a statement by Mr. Pipinelis, the GreekMinister for Foreign Affairs. Following the dis-cussion, the Representative of Greece havingdeclared that his country was withdrawing fromthe organisation under the terms of Article 7 ofthe Stature, the Committee of Ministers adoptedthe following resolution by a unanimous vote ofthe delegations casting a vote :

"The Committee of Ministers,

Considering that Greece has seriously viol-ated Article 3 of the Statute of the Council ofEurope ;

Noting the situation in Greece as describedin Recommendation 547 of the ConsultativeAssembly, adopted on 30 January 1969;

Noting further that the Greek Government, asrequired in paragraph 7 of this recommendation,have declared their withdrawal from the Councilof Europe under Article 7 of the Statute,

Understands that the Greek Government wil labstain from any further participation in theactivities of the Council of Europe as from today;

Concludes that on this understanding there

is no need to pursue the procedure for sus-pension under Article 8 of the Statute;

Charges the Ministers' Deputies to settlethe administrative and financial consequencesof this situation ;

Expresses the hope of an early return inGreece of conditions which wil l enable her toresume full membership of the C o u n c i l o fEurope."

Cyprus did not take part in the vote. TheForeign Minister of Cyprus explained that, afterthe withdrawal of Greece, it was not , in hisview, appropriate to adopt any resolution.

Greece, which had announced beforehandthat she was withdrawing from the Council ofEurope, was not present at the vote.

The Secretary General read out two "NotesVerbales" which had been handed to him by thePermanent Representative of Greece, one de-nouncing the Statute of the Council of Europe,the other the European Convention on HumanRights.

Relations with non-member states

The committee was informed by the SecretaryGeneral of developments in relations betweenthe Council of Europe and certain countries ofEast Europe.

New buildings of the Council of Europein Strasbourg

Mr. de Lipkowski announced to the commit-tee that the French Government was prepared togrant the Council of Europe a loan to be pro-vided by the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignationsfor new buildings for the Council of Europe inStrasbourg.

The Secretary General, after having express-ed his thanks to the French Government, an-nounced that everything would be done to com-plete the construction of these new buildingswithin two or three years.

Development of European technologicalresources

The committee took note of the statementsmade on this subject by the Secretary Generalof the Council and instructed the Ministers'Deputies to consider the action to be taken onhis proposals.

- 366 -

Owing to a change in the composition ofthis volume in the course of printing, the page-numbering is inaccurate and there are no pages367-381.

Une modification dans la composition de cevolume en cours de tirage a amené la page 382à la suite de la page 366. II n'y a pas de pages367 à 381.