Speech of His Excellency Bernard Accoyer

President of the National Assembly of France

On the occasion of the 9th Meeting of the Speakers of the

Lower Houses of the G8

September 10, 2010

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

 –2–

Evaluating the Activities of International Parliamentary Assemblies and

Interparliamentary Relations

Speech by Bernard Accoyer at the G8 meeting in Ottawa

Dear Speakers of the Lower Houses,

As I am the first to give a speech, on behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to begin
by thanking the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, the Honourable Peter
Milliken, for welcoming us here today.

I would also like to thank him for agreeing to add, at my suggestion, the topic of
evaluating the activities of international parliamentary assemblies and
interparliamentary relations to the agenda for the G8 parliamentary meeting. He also
proposed that I be the one to introduce the discussion on this topic.

“Nothing that affects the relations between peoples can be prepared in the commotion
of a deliberative assembly.” This statement was made in a judgment in 1902. It makes
clear the idea that Parliaments are inherently incompatible with international relations.
Strangely enough, what gave this judgment credence at the time was that it was
written by a proponent of parliamentary rights, Eugène Pierre, Secretary-General of
the French Chamber of Deputies and author of Traité de droit politique, électoral et
parlementaire, which was used as a reference for many years.

Today, who would dare to make such a statement? But the idea persists that, in
diplomatic matters, Parliament is a greater source of confusion and indiscretion than of
useful initiatives. In the face of these extreme criticisms, I would like to defend
Parliament’s role as an actor in international relations, alongside the executive. How
can it be otherwise when new actors such as NGOs, businesses and media networks,
with neither the legitimacy nor the representativeness of Parliaments, are appearing
and being recognized on the international scene?

The executive no longer has the monopoly on relations, contact and dialogue with
foreign countries. Yet all social, economic, security and environmental issues have an
international component. In this age of rapid globalization, there are fewer and fewer
strictly domestic affairs. Parliamentarians cannot fulfill their mandate if they are not
concerned with what is going on beyond their country’s borders.
 –3–

In the nebulous world of international relations today, our meeting here bears witness
to the fact that interparliamentary relations is one area that has developed a great deal
over the last few years. I would like to talk to you more in depth about this area and its
multilateral and bilateral functions.

The financial and economic crisis reinforced the need for international co-operation.
Multilateralism revealed itself to be invaluable as both a tool and a framework for
action. The international parliamentary assemblies, of which our parliaments are
members, are forums for assessment, discussions about ideas and experiences, and
dialogue. They give parliamentarians an opportunity to reflect on issues on an
international level.

There are many such assemblies. Perhaps too many.

Some of these international assemblies were created during the Cold War. To mention
only those of which France is a member, we have the Council of Europe Parliamentary
Assembly, established in 1949; the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European
Union (WEU), established in 1954; and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly,
established in 1955. The precursor of all these assemblies is the Inter-Parliamentary
Union, created in 1889. It has the distinction of being one of the few assemblies to be
independent of another intergovernmental organization, and it is the only one to be
universal in nature. Some assemblies that have been created more recently focus on
human rights issues and the rule of law. As we are in Canada today, I will mention the
APF, the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, which was created in 1967, as
well as the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, established in 1991. As for the European
and Mediterranean countries, we have not only the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary
Assembly, created in 2004 and including representatives from all EU countries and
those bordering the Mediterranean Sea, but also the new Parliamentary Assembly of
the Mediterranean, created in 2006.

This constant increase in the number of international assemblies, with the last addition
being the most striking example, raises the question of streamlining their jurisdiction
and coordination.

Above all, these assemblies are political bodies that react to international events and
vote on resolutions or make recommendations to the governments of the member
states. However, their number raises issues of coordination and efficiency.
 –4–

For example, I believe I can speak for my European colleagues when I say that the
plan to dissolve the WEU Parliamentary Assembly is reasonable, as the
intergovernmental organization it falls under, the WEU, no longer exists. Of course, a
flexible procedure needs to be put in place to allow national parliaments to monitor
Europe’s defence policy. This could be done by holding a semi-annual meeting of the
defence committee chairs of the EU member parliaments, with a rotating chair.

International parliamentary assemblies are forums in which things can be said more
freely than in an intergovernmental context. For example, when addressing human
rights issues, parliamentarians are often quicker to denounce a situation, while our
foreign affairs ministers, who are just as aware of the situation, are careful to use more
neutral and cautious language, as they must encourage dialogue without endangering
other State interests. The complementarity between parliament and the executive is
often useful and encourages synergy, effectiveness and influence.

I believe that the fundamental benefit of international parliamentary assemblies is

democratization. The most effective way to encourage democracy is not by using force
or imposing sanctions, but by leading by example, pooling knowledge, and
encouraging direct relationships, friendship and fraternity, which is the exclusive
domain of parliaments. I am the ex officio chair of the French delegation of the APF,
and I know the organization well. The APF has developed effective instruments to
help encourage parliamentary democracy in countries whose recent history, lack of
experience or lack of points of reference indicates need. I refer to APF missions to
advise countries on how to hold elections. I think of the parliamentary cooperation
seminars hosted by parliamentarians on topics such as the standing orders of an
Assembly, budgetary control and the rights of the opposition. I think of reports on
sensitive issues, such as violence against women or the impact of the Bamako
Declaration on the rule of law. The sense of community between parliaments reduces
the risk of misunderstandings and resentment, as it is not one country giving lessons to
the others, but rather all countries contributing to common criteria and points of
reference.

This requirement for democracy does not apply solely on a national level. Democracy
is the only legitimate way to find solutions to the serious problems our world is facing
today: the depletion of our natural resources, climate change, terrorism, the list goes
on. We can no longer get by relying on past solutions. We need to make new rules. In
the words of Boutros Boutros Ghali, former UN General Secretary, “The question is if
these rules will be determined by two or three technocrats, or if they will be developed
in a democratic manner with a view to preventing neo-colonialism on a global scale.”
Democracy in a global context is one of the major political challenges of our time. It
 –5–

involves both the national and international levels, which gives international
parliamentary assemblies, made up of national parliamentarians, the opportunity to
assure citizens that global problems are being addressed by pooling knowledge and
contributions that are in their interest.
Camillo Cavour was right to say that “The worst of chambers is better than the best of
lobbies!”

At a time when all countries must control public spending, parliaments must set an
example, and international parliamentary assemblies must follow suit. For this reason,
I have instructed the chairs of the various French delegations to pay close attention to
budgetary developments. I hope this concern is one that is shared by all our countries.
Similarly, in July, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly agreed to not increase its 2011
budget. Failure to control spending will encourage anti-parliamentarism, either now or
in the future. Acting together to encourage fiscal restraint could be effective in other
international parliamentary assemblies.

However, the cost for each country to belong to an international parliamentary

assembly does not lie solely in its contributions to the budget. Each country must also
fund delegation travel. It is imperative that international parliamentary assemblies do
not increase the number of their committee meetings, working groups or conferences.

That said, the issue extends beyond financial considerations.

The increase in international activities puts the issue of the availability of

parliamentarians in sharp focus. Everyone agrees that work is more useful when there
is continuity. That is why the French delegations to international parliamentary
assemblies are appointed for a five-year term, the life of a parliament in France’s
National Assembly. Members often stay on from one parliament to another. Their
specialization and experience is an asset. But these parliamentarians are finding it
difficult to keep up with the meetings, a task made even more difficult by the far-flung
meeting locations.

I would also like to address interparliamentary meetings held by various

interparliamentary NGOs, associations and networks. These meetings, both one-time
and recurring, are in addition to the participation of our parliaments in international
parliamentary assemblies.

While the themes of these meetings often correspond to legitimate concerns of the
international community, I question their usefulness, as it seems their number is ever-
increasing and out of control.
 –6–

Since the beginning of our parliament in 2007, I have received approximately

40 invitations to meetings of this kind. It is important to note that these activities fall
largely outside of budgetary estimates, unlike the meetings of international
parliamentary assemblies.

In this time of financial crisis, when parliaments have an important duty to set an
example, I believe we should be exacting in our handling of invitations from this
informal area of international parliamentary relations. Perhaps we should consider
implementing an unofficial consultation procedure beforehand that would allow the
G8 parliaments to assess the value of participating in such interparliamentary meetings
and coordinate their responses as much as possible.

I will now turn briefly to the matter of bilateral parliamentary relationships, which fall
under the jurisdiction of individual parliaments.

Regardless of jurisdiction, we could certainly all benefit from sharing good practices,
and I know I would appreciate hearing how each of your parliaments manage bilateral
relationships.

In France’s National Assembly, bilateral parliamentary relations are maintained

mainly through friendship groups, whose activities are strictly regulated. Friendship
groups may be formed only if they meet certain conditions and are authorized by the
Bureau. Permission must also be granted for travelling abroad and hosting foreign
delegations, and the annual agenda of activities must be approved to ensure that
expenses earmarked for these activities will not exceed the funds available. With the
exception of friendship groups with nearby countries, a group can travel abroad only
once and host only one gathering in France per parliament; the group must alternate
between travelling to and hosting events; the number of people in a host or travelling
delegation is capped; and the delegations must be politically representative.

In conclusion, I believe we must show both imagination and wisdom in order to

reconcile two objectives. On the one hand, we need to develop international
parliamentary action to strengthen democracy, while on the other we need to ensure
that this expansion is carried out in an orderly fashion, without wasting skills and
financial resources.

Thank you for your attention.