to an end with the Reykjavík Summit, which they had high hopes for. Would it address this issue, she asked? Ms Þórdís Kolbrún Reykfjörð GYLFADÓTTIR, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iceland, welcomed the participants to Reykjavík and greeted friendly, familiar faces from her previous dialogues and discussions. She hoped for a great Summit.She said that there was very good attendance of leaders at the Summit, that they were prioritising their time to come, and the very fact they were having a Summit was part of a very good declaration, and reflected how important they saw multilateralism as being. The Reykjavík declaration and the annexes all revolved around the values of multilateralism. In Iceland, it had been an extremely good exercise and an investment in her own society to have dialogue about and interest in the Council of Europe itself: why the meeting was being held, what was going to be discussed, and what would come out of it. Was it for discussion or decisions? What did it mean for Ukraine and the citizens of Europe? It was an important opportunity to have a discussion, and lift the importance of multilateralism. Leaders and politicians importantly needed to engage with the public on why this mattered – regular human beings to believe and understand why the foundation was so important, and which came before everything else. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR agreed on the member States’ engagement and wondered about the current role of the Council of Europe and its swift and firm responses over the last year. Could it strengthen its role as the core institution for multilateralism? Ms GYLFADÓTTIR believed so, and said it went beyond the Summit. It was a huge opportunity to strengthen it with its outcomes and execution of what would come out of the meeting in future presidencies and institutions. Not having a Summit in 18 years meant they were getting quite sleepy, she opined, on how important the values were, and the constant work they were. Her generation was told these values that were won and the post Second World War victories and decisions creating institutions to prevent future wars meant they just came back. It was important also to ask about the values, the importance of democracy, human rights and rule of law, rather than ask about the Council of Europe. The institution should be used as a tool to reach certain points and safeguard what can be taken away very quickly. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR asked Mr KOX about militarism and the lack of proposals on peace, aside from Ukrainian President Mr Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The Council of Europe did not deal with defence issues. The foundation and values and principles were, in fact, peace principles. Could such a project still be valid without going into defence issues? Mr KOX hoped and thought so. Over the following days, he said the Heads of State and Government would work on this. The Council of Europe was in essence a peace project. This was written in those words in the preamble to the Statute of the Council of Europe. Although they have not been the most quoted words in the past decade, they were there. The essence of the devastating Second World War, which Mr KOX described as absurd, aggressive unilateralism, showed one only needed power, an army, and to give it a try. Aggressive unilateralism always leads to war, he said, with no way out. They were involved in this unilateralism and were courageous enough to go in a different way. He agreed with Ms GYLFADÓTTIR: it was not the Council of Europe which counted, but the values. Obliging all states in Europe to respect the rule of law, fundamental rights and freedoms, and to develop and cherish democratic institutions meant you would probably not be as bad to your own citizens. A rules-based democracy meant you would also not be a threat to your neighbours, who also wouldn’t threaten their own neighbours and people. A pan-European system could be developed, of nation states living together in a peaceful way along the same foundation. In 1949, Europe was waiting for the third and last world war. Some 75 years of peace in Europe was still a success story. The year 2022 showed what would happen if a state again said it did not have arguments, but it did have armies, and thus would give it a try. Mr KOX argued that the peace project was still there. The Council of Europe and its principles had the answer: “Stop the war. Leave Ukraine, leave the occupied territories, accept that you have done wrong, repair the damage done, take responsibility, and show that you are again willing to abide by international law instead of aggression towards it”. For Mr KOX, that was the multilateralism system of Europe, and he believed it could function if it was made clear to Russia that a peace could be agreed on based on these issues. After the Second World War, there was no answer to aggressive unilateralism, and nor was there one now

II SÉRIE-D — NÚMERO 63 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

16