"Current challenges to the EU – the road ahead"
- seul le discours prononcé fait foi -
It is a pleasure for me to speak today in front of such a distinguished audience, on an issue which should be of interest to all the citizens of Europe: What are the current challenges to the EU, what is the road ahead, and how can we move forward?
Before going into the core of our topic of today, I want to take the opportunity to tell you that the Luxembourg population always had and still has a profound admiration for your country. In the past, numerous citizens from your country have come to Luxembourg and contributed to the development of our country. This presence has created specific ties and mutual understanding.
I am particularly proud that it was under the Luxembourg Presidency in 1980, that the European Council, on 1st and 2nd December, expressed its sympathy for Poland, recalled the right of all people to pursue their own political, economic, social and cultural development without external interference and stated its willingness to help Poland economically. That year remains an important historical moment.
Contrary to what you would expect from a Foreign Minister, I shall not use fine diplomatic language to tell you what I think of the current state-of-play in Europe, especially of the European Union and I would be very interested to receive your comments and questions after my speech.
Europe is experiencing a period of crisis. Right away, in order to avoid a first misunderstanding, I want to stress that the difficulties around the Constitutional Treaty, that is, the non-ratification by a certain number of member states or the refusal by two of them, are the effects or the consequences of the crisis rather than its roots. Of course, the blockage we are experiencing right now is not improving things. Second, I want to get another misunderstanding out of the way: the recent enlargement of the EU might raise a number of concerns, but it is not as such the cause of the present crisis.
The reasons for the crisis are more deep-rooted. The building of consensus has become more complicated in the European Union. In the past, reaching a consensus was considered as a value by itself. The fact that independent member states, each with its own national interests and historical background, were able to come to an agreement by developing a new method of sharing sovereignty and creating growing solidarity links between them, was no small achievement. It was, one could even say, close to a political miracle. Participating in such a consensus building process was a source for enthusiasm by itself.
Let us however not be naïve: the European integration process has never been smooth and linear. The rejection of the European Defence Community in 1954 or the difficult compromise of Luxembourg in 1966 on the question of transfer of sovereignty are examples that only demonstrate that the way towards integration has been paved with difficulties. There have always been ups and downs.
What seems different today is that the concept of the construction of the European interest as emerging from national interests is progressively overshadowed by a perception of the European process as a zero-sum game. This becomes all the more obvious in the behaviour of governments, in all European countries, whatever the length of their membership in the Union. They seem to consider the discussions in the Council as battles between national interests, which can only end up with losers or winners. This attitude does not leave much room for the search of a common European interest. The need for systematic compromise has become less obvious today. Every government needs to report success at home while forgetting that short term national victories are meaningless if we do not manage to move the European project forward. At the end, if Europe does not assert itself as a powerful actor on the world scene, we will all be losers.
I do not believe, as some might think, that the reasons would go back to a question of leadership in Europe, because the new generation of leaders have not had a personal experience of war times, or that the end of the cold war might have eased the outside pressure, which had been necessary for maintaining the internal dynamic. I think that we are facing a situation which only reflects a deeper reality about the evolution of public opinion in the European countries. In the past, European opinions used to be naturally enthusiastic for further European integration while governments seemed to lag behind the expectations of their populations. In fact, the European project was associated with freedom, economic wealth and social justice. This is no longer the case. European polls show this trend quite clearly: public opinion is now divided between those who want more integration and those who want no changes anymore. To give you an example, I will speak about the country I think I know best: Luxembourg.
As a smaller country on the world scene, Luxembourg has traditionally been a staunch supporter of all major international and Western organisations that were created in the aftermath of the World Wars such as the UN, NATO or BENELUX.
It was therefore only natural that Luxembourg would become one of the driving forces behind integration in Europe. All successive governments have been convinced that Luxembourg needs to be at the forefront of the integration movement, because they believed that basically "what is good for Europe is good for Luxembourg". After the dreadful experiences of two world wars, they saw the reconciliation of France and Germany as a prerequisite for peace and the European project as the best guarantee for stability and prosperity on our continent.
However, during our referendum on the constitutional treaty, a significant number of Luxembourg citizens, more than 44%, voted no. Without entering into the details of the reasons behind this vote, we can easily conclude that natural, spontaneous adherence of the population to the European integration process can no longer be taken for granted in Luxembourg, in a country whose population used to belong to the most fervent pro-Europeans. This has become true for a great number of European countries.
The reasons for this "désamour", or disfavour might be several, but I believe that Europe is suffering from its successes. After fifty years, public opinion, especially among the youngest generations, has forgotten the benefits of the European construction. The first big achievement, the pacification of the European continent, is no longer seen as a big deal, it is just taken for granted. It might be considered a positive fact that the question of peace and war is no longer a concern for the European citizens, but one shouldn’t forget that the primary goal of the European construction remains the preservation of peace and freedom on the European continent. In Poland, the memory of recent times is still much more present, that is why you might still have better in mind the positive "élan" of the European perspective for your country.
The recent enlargement of the European Union that allowed us to welcome back into our midst Poland and other nations of Eastern and Central Europe provides a good example of how a success story can be misunderstood. The enlargement reunited and stabilized our continent. In Central Europe, the multiplication of new nations could have easily brought back the problems of the the past, as this area bears a complex heritage of territorial and population issues. The European perspective has allowed dealing with these issues in a new way that is the European method of dialogue and consultation, creating constructive dependencies and links of solidarity, rather than resorting to unilateral aggressive means, as was too often the case in history.
This is a huge success. But we failed to explain it to our own public opinions. As you may know, Luxembourg belongs to one of those countries whose public opinion is most opposed to further enlargement and is critical of the last enlargements. This is just a result of a misconception of what enlargement really means: In 1990, public opinion was highly supportive of the enlargement, while in 2004, when enlargement actually happened, people just associated it with more unfair competition on labour markets, social dumping, delocalization of industrial activities. We failed to underline the political, economical and social benefits of the creation of a vast zone of peace and prosperity on our continent. It is our duty to better explain this success to our population, a difficult work which we have already started in Luxembourg.
How shall we deal further with the issue of enlargement? We must not forget the tragic events which took place during the nineties on the European continent: Enlargement as European peace politics must therefore go on. But, at the same time, enlargement can only be a success if the conditions for further deepening of the European integration process are given. Enlargement cannot be conceived as an autonomous process, disconnected from all other European policies. Furthermore we must take into account some enlargement fatigue among public opinion in certain European countries. If we do not take this point duly into account, we will see ourselves confronted to a very deep refusal of the European Union by these populations.
What lessons can be drawn from the crisis that we are experiencing in the European Union? How can we overcome the disillusions but also the fears of our populations? How can we motivate them again and convince them of the value of a common European project?
I believe that the European Union will be appealing to the citizens if we can convince them that the Union is stronger than the sum of its members. In the context of globalization, the European Union is the best possible answer to the challenges that it brings about. It will have to assert its role on the international scene, along side the US, Japan and the emerging powers of Russia, China, Brazil and India. It must speak with a strong voice on foreign policy matters thereby defending the common values that all Europeans share. It must be in a position to influence and present its specific approach on issues like the fight against poverty, climate change, and energy supply. It must also become a more competitive economy while preserving the original features of our social model, the social cohesion and solidarity.
For such a Europe, a mere free-trade area between loosely cooperating states is not enough. Without a political project to match its economic power, Europe will remain a dwarf on the world scene. Most of the tools that are needed to bring Europe to the next qualitative step can already be found in the Constitutional treaty. Better decision-making procedures, reformed institutions, a European Minister of Foreign Affairs, a reaffirmation of our basic values are some of the keys to bringing the enlarged Europe forward while allowing it to deepen its integration process. That is why the substance of the Constitution matters. I hope that the next European Council on June 21 and 22 will allow us to find good solutions, in our common European interest, and that the main innovations contained in the Constitutional Treaty will be preserved. We need these provisions in order to function efficiently in our enlarged Union and to be able to face challenges of the future.
The challenges that the European Union are numerous. We might all want the same thing; a strong and prosperous Europe, but we know that way ahead is not an easy one. We do need clarity about our objectives. I would suggest that there is not one single way forward but that we need to work a multi-pronged approach:
- Consolidate and further develop some of the great achievements of the past, such as the internal market, the euro, the sector of Justice and Home Affairs. This means strengthening our integration process.
- Tackle the new challenges like energy or climate change that are of big concern to our citizens
- Project a strong image towards the outside world by assuming our responsibilities on the world scene but also showing solidarity towards the poorest member of the international community.
Let me now turn to some of these specific issues;
A first big achievement of the EU, which is systematically underestimated, is the creation and implementation of the internal market. It has become the biggest market in the world with more than 450 million consumers. The integration of national European economies has been a factor of economic wealth. But today, the internal market may be considered by some public opinion in Europe as a kind of Trojan Horse of globalization in Europe, despite all the benefits the internal market has brought. The internal market is not a jungle of free capitalism coming from nowhere, but the result of a political negotiation process in which national governments and the European parliament decide in co-decision. The internal market is our best answer to globalization.
The further development of the internal market will be an important challenge, as it is at the core of the growth dynamic of our economies which are more and more interconnected. It is a tool for the competitiveness of our economies. Indeed, the internal market which is built upon a set of principles like mutual recognition, country of origin and harmonization will be a sort of base from which European companies can develop into the global markets. Under the Portuguese Presidency, we will have the opportunity to discuss the revision of the Internal Market Strategy. I hope that these discussions will have positive results. The service sectors, the integration of financial services, the implementation of an internal market of the energy sector- all these are challenges ahead. In line with the basic principles which have so far governed the internal market, its further development should strike the right balance between the interests of companies, consumers and respect of the environment.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Allow me to point out yet one special issue linked to the internal market, that has belonged to the spirit of the construction of the European Community from its very first beginning, but which we somehow lost on the way: I am referring to the social dimension of the internal market. The internal market can only function according to the rules of a social market economy; otherwise important parts of our public opinions, especially the workers, will turn against it. I am aware that the discussions on European social standards, common European labour laws for the protection of workers, will not be easy: because there are different historic traditions, different concepts of social policies or of the role of state-intervention. But the difficulty of the discussion should not prevent us from having it.
Another success, which is often underestimated or which has become so obvious that people are no longer aware of it, is the introduction of the euro. Only a few believed in the capacity of European leaders to succeed, when they decided to launch the common currency with the Maastricht Treaty. The currency risk has immensely been diminished for the participating economies. The euro is an efficient tool to protect our economies against big external shocks, of either political or economic nature. Furthermore, transaction costs for business have dramatically fallen. The euro will further promote the integration of the markets. I do not exaggerate by saying that its exchange rates against other international currencies like the US dollar or the yen shows how attractive the currency has become among international investors. Central banks all over the world start diversifying their reserves by buying euros. The euro is gaining market shares as a currency in international contracts, which is good news for European companies which are doing international business. It should be our common goal to enlarge the eurozone as soon as possible, according to the existing rules. Every member of the European Union has a vocation to become member of the eurozone. After Slovenia, early this year, new memberships are already under preparation. In June, the European Council will decide that Cyprus and Malta will join the eurozone as of 1 January 2008.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I consider the development of Justice and Home Affairs as a complementary development to the internal market or, to put it somewhat differently, as a natural corollary to its principles of four fundamental freedoms. We are speaking here about a relatively new political domain for the EU, which has been seriously launched only by the European Council of Tampere in October 1999. According to Euro barometer polls, Justice and Home Affairs are clearly a priority for European citizens. This is not a big surprise as it is about creating an area of freedom, security and justice for all European citizens. Everybody is concerned by the fight against organized crime, terrorism or cross-border crime or by civil matters like divorces of cross-border marriages. Thus, the EU must take decisions in criminal as well as penal law in those matters where it makes sense, without questioning the principle that these laws remain essentially in the domain of national sovereignties. The decision process is however difficult: unanimity, which is currently requested, is the best guarantee for no progress at all. The attempt of the Finnish Presidency during the second semester 2006 to use art 42 of the Treaty of the European Union which allows the EU to decide a change of decisions rules from unanimity to qualified majority ended up in a failure. That is why I am convinced that the provisions foreseen in the Constitutional Treaty in relation to Justice and Home Affairs, that is to say applying the community method to this domain, is the best solution to make progress in these fields, the best way to deliver concrete results to the citizens in Europe.
Other challenges lying ahead are notably energy, environment, climate change, and development.
Security of supply in energy will be an increasingly important topic for Europe in its relations with its third partners. Despite the commitments taken at the last European Council on renewable energies as well as on reduction targets for energy consumption, we know that our energy dependency from third countries will continue to increase. I need not say much here to convince you of the necessity to have more coordination in this domain. There is no alternative for Europe than to speak, as much as possible, with one voice with its partners on these issues: at 27, we have a much louder voice, and a much stronger position in negotiating energy deals. I know that it will not be easy. The Constitutional Treaty foresees the introduction of a legal basis for the development of a common European energy policy. This provision is a good starting point, but it will not replace the political will we will need in Europe to achieve real progress.
Europe wants to be leader in the field of environment and climate change. This does not only reflect the conviction of its public opinions, but it has become a bold necessity. The decisions at the last European Council go into the right direction: Europe must stick to its Kyoto commitments, must carefully prepare the post-2012 Kyoto discussions. It must also review its trading emission system for carbon dioxide. Europe shares a big responsibility in this domain as it can create a dynamic on the international scene.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As far as development cooperation is concerned, let me mention some key facts that speak, I presume, for themselves: the European Union and its Member States together account for 55 % of worldwide official development assistance (ODA). It was also the EU which in the run-up to the 2005 UN Summit and the 5 year review of the Millennium Development Goals, showed its concrete commitment by reaffirming its determination to attain the internationally agreed target of development aid of 0,7% of Gross National Income by 2015 and decided to collectively attain 0,56 % of development aid as compared to GNI already by the year 2010, a decision which will result in an additional 20 billion euros a year in ODA. The EU is furthermore the most important economic and trade partner for developing countries, offering specific trading benefits to those countries, mainly the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) among them. Luxembourg, by the way, is close to spending 0.9 of its GNI in ODA.
Solidarity with the developing countries stems however not only from the moral obligation, but resides also in the recognition that it will help to build a more stable, peaceful, prosperous and equitable world, reflecting the interdependency of its richer and poorer countries.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Another challenge, where the expectations of our citizens are high is the field of external relations. There is an ever louder call for "more Europe", be it on our own continent or around the world.
To respond to this call for an increasingly global role of the EU and to spread the peace and security that lie at the heart of the European project beyond our borders, the European Union has developed, over the last fifteen years, a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as well as a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), that allow us to deliver on our commitment to act as a force for stability and understanding in the wider world.
To continue and to further develop our role on the global stage, we need to pursue integration, to aim for an ever closer cooperation and solidarity.
The Iraq conflict had put our unity to a serious test. For the challenges ahead we need to draw the right lessons and strive for an increasingly common foreign, security and defense policy.
Solidarity in our relations with third countries is of utmost importance. I believe that we are strong only when this solidarity comes to full play, and that it can be invaluable for individual member states when they are confronted with difficult issues in their bilateral relations with third countries. Let me mention the cartoons issue in Denmark, or the tensions between Estonia and Russia over the transfer of a second world war memorial, or also the ban imposed by Russia on Polish meat : I am aware that some say that we should, as a Union, react faster, stand even closer together behind one of our members, but I believe the value of the European solidarity in such situations is undeniable.
It is in this context that I want to make some comments on the present situation with regard to the United States plans to build a missile-defense system in Central Europe. Right from the beginning of the discussions around the American plans, earlier this year, I have been arguing in the European Union not to ignore the impact that the installation of elements of this missile shield on the territory of some of our Member States may have on our relations with other partners, and most of all with Russia. The strategic implications of the missile defense issue have to be discussed at NATO in the first place, and in the NATO-Russia Council in the second, and I am most happy that such political consultations have now been initiated. However, I believe that it is only natural for a Union whose objective according to the Treaty is a common foreign and security policy and, more specifically a reinforcement of its security under all its forms, to also assess in common this kind of projects and its potential implications for the EU as a whole and its relations with third parties. This is also, in my view, an expression of the solidarity at the core of the European project, I have been talking about.
Let me finish by addressing the question of how a small country, for a long time the smallest in the Union, could reach an influence well above its own size.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The question of balance of power in the European Union has always been one of the most important ones. National States have always looked carefully at the issue of transfer or share of sovereignty. These transfers can only be made if all Member States are convinced by their usefulness and necessity and if they bring true benefits for our citizens. The capacity of a single member state to influence the European process is not following rules of an exact science. As a small country, we had no choice than to integrate in a larger union. Our commitment to the European ideal stems however not only from necessity but also conviction. This is why we have always tried to act as a credible and reliable partner in the European construction process and to be part of every new stage of integration. Which does not put into question the principles of big national interests: If conditions are not right, even Luxembourg has to block important issues in order to force negotiations to continue. We have done so twice : in 1989, and recently, in 2007, on the VAT package. But the right to veto has to be used with great care.
Finally, coming to the question of relative weight in Council, I want to reveal you a secret, which is no longer a big secret now otherwise I would probably not tell you the whole story. In the discussions on the distribution of voices inside Council, which is very important for Poland, one recurring parameter is the number of possible cases in which the voices of a single country are decisive for a qualified majority or a blocking minority. Though the Luxembourg delegation who negotiated the Rome Treaty in 1957 was composed of our best diplomats, there was no talented mathematician among them, because, later on, it became clear that the distribution of voices was such that the probability, in mathematical terms, that Luxembourg could ever have a decisive position in Council was just zero, already then, in 1957, when there were only six members! I am sure that this will not happen to Poland, but I just tell you that this statistical non-existence did not prevent us from having a certain influence on the European process during all these years. It proves that influence in Europe is not a simply mathematical issue, that probabilities are overruled by the reality on the ground, and that the mere fact that Luxembourg has prospered over the last 50 years in the Union, and has been able to confirm its position as well as its economic wealth and social stability is testimony to the success of the European Union. We feel at ease in the Union, we are committed to making it work in the future, and we are not afraid of losing our voice in Europe, whatever the arithmetical number of votes we might have.
Thank you.