and parliamentarians could hold them accountable. Politicians realised, from all tendencies, that if they were not able to restore a system based on the rule of national and international law, a lack of co-operation, then they would compete on the rule of economic or political power. They knew where that ended, namely a big mess, talks about a world war, nuclear war. These were challenging times and co-operation as better than competition in times of crisis. More democracy was also needed then, not less. Involving citizens from youth to the elderly, to survive as a human society, as mentioned in the Statute of the Council of Europe. Politicians would be held accountable by children and grandchildren. Ms Ingjerd SCHOU commented on China and had a visit from a politician there in Norway. She said she was worried and was not alone in this about the democratic backsliding in Europe despite the international architecture around it. It started and continued at home, she said, as it did not start in the Council of Europe or the EU or the Parliament but in small communities with civil society and then the parliaments. The gap between people and the international architecture needed to be closed. This should be addressed the following day, about how to follow up at home. Mr Andrej HUNKO thanked the panel about the reminder of the necessity of peace, and on the opening of views on the global level, including of the global South. He said that it was here, in the last year, that he had seen a growing division, not in condemning the war on Ukraine by Russia, for example, but in how to get out of it. He gave an example. The UN Human Rights Council made a decision on the consequences of unilateral sanctions and found that there was a total division: the Council of Europe states voted against it, and the rest of the world voted in favour of it. They had a fast-changing international architecture. How could communication be maintained for the process via the Parliamentary Assembly, as a European body, he asked of Mr KOX and Ms BERMANN. Could they, for example, invite Brazilian president Lula Inácio Lula da Silva, or a South African foreign minister, or a UN Human Rights Council, as representatives were not enough, and did not reflect the situation? Mr Damien COTTIER said he was reacting to Ms BERGHOLTZ’s words. He told Mr KOX one could not fail in multilateralism, but one could not fail in democracy, either. He said he was worried when speaking to young people that they felt democracy and the politicians were not quick enough on issues such as climate change and the environment, and that other ways were needed even if he understood the impatience. This was dangerous. He also pointed out that politicians and citizens were not divided, since democracy was the property of all citizens, and everyone needed to be engaged together, to improve the things in society within and not without democratic institutions. He asked how young people could come into the democratic institutions and love it, since it was important to have them in the system. Ms Zanda KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA thanked the hosts for their excellent organisation and hospitality. She said Iceland was the first country to recognise the restoration of their 1991 independence, so she saw a symbolism that they were all going to Riga the following week and to start work on the implementation the of Reykjavík declaration and decisions. She said it was an obligation to save and strengthen the rules-based international order, and to their societies to require that they join the forces to find the means to defend values and democracies. Safeguarding a rules-based international order meant holding those who breached the law accountable, such as Russia and its leaders. Reaching an agreement to establish a Register of Damages was an achievement. She offered congratulations, but she was waiting for much more to be done, the next steps including an agreement on the ad hoc tribunal and a mechanism for reparations. Her question was about how politicians restricted themselves. She asked that if they had magic powers and could convince democratic countries to reach one concrete decision or agreement, what the most important step would be to keep the aggressor accountable and safeguard a rules-based order. Ms BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR said it was an excellent question and was for the end. She referred to Ms SCHOU’s democratic backsliding challenge comment and about strengthening democracy at home. Ms BERGHOLTZ said there were very few European citizens who understood what the Council of Europe was, and she herself did not know even what it really was, even after over 15 years of youth participation. She said the terminologies needed translation in order to be brought back home: what was a convention, what was a treaty? She pointed out that the world communicated online today, and many young people were raised in a digitalised society, so they would not go to a website and sort through links. How would citizens defend it if it didn’t exist, knew what it does, knew what rights were covered by it, she asked. She thought a huge step after the Summit could be the modernisation needed to be done, to work with outreach and to follow up on what was being implemented in the discussions. She concluded, what was a Summit worth otherwise really?

II SÉRIE-D — NÚMERO 63 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

22