Provost Maher,
Professor Sbragia,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is with a deep sense of honor that I receive this Honorary Doctor of Public and International Affairs Degree from this most distinguished University. Be assured of my heartfelt appreciation.
Visiting today the University of Pittsburgh is first and foremost visiting old friends. It is now nearly ten years ago that I first came to this prestigious institution. Back then, the European Union Centre stood only at its beginning but was already full of promise. I am more than pleased with the impressive development that has taken place since, the center becoming one in only ten European Union Centers of Excellence in the US designated and supported by the European Commission.
I have since 1999 met on a regular basis with Chancellor Nordenberg and other distinguished representatives of "Pitt". It was my privilege to both observe and support the development of an intense and fruitful collaboration between the University of Pittsburgh and the Luxembourg-based Centre for Population, Poverty and Public Policy Studies and the International Network for Studies in Technology, Environment, Alternatives, Development - CEPS/Instead for insiders -, a collaboration that has since been extended to the University of Luxembourg and a collaboration that fills us with pride.
Allow me to take a moment to pay respect to one of Luxembourg’s most distinguished academics, Professor Gaston Schaber, the founding president of CEPS/Instead. Professor Schaber is unfortunately unable to be with us today. Without him, without his relentless commitment to his work, his brainchild CEPS/Instead and his country as well as his excellent relations with this proud University, I would not be standing here today. It is therefore, especially in his absence, important for me to express my gratefulness to Professor Schaber.
My sympathy for this University is however not only linked to its academic excellence. It has also to do with the city that has given it its name.
I have grown up in Luxembourg in the shadows of the blast-furnaces at a time when the steel industry was at its pinnacle. The steel mills did not only dominate the landscape, they also set the rhythm of life for the people in the South of Luxembourg. To this day, the honest and hard physical work of proud people like my father serves as a role model to me.
As a young adult, it was no longer the might of the blast-furnaces but to the contrary their improbable fragility that marked the lives of many people in Luxembourg. In quite a few places in the world, be it in Europe or the United States, I would probably have to go into more detail to make the audience fully appreciate the devastating effects of the steel crisis of the 1970s and 1980s on a country like Luxembourg of which it was once said "that it was a gift of steel like Egypt was a gift of the Nile". In Pittsburgh, in "Steel City", I know that I am being understood even without elaborating further.
Both Pittsburgh and Luxembourg have gone through the same pains. Both have also succeeded in emerging from the crisis stronger than they have ever been. They have embraced new ideas, new industries and new areas of development - but without turning their back on their past. And just like the tower of U.S. Steel continues to dominate the skyline of Pittsburgh, Luxembourg is today the host of the world’s largest steel company, ArcelorMittal.
For me, being the honored guest of the University of Pittsburgh does therefore not only mean being with friends but also feeling a bit like home.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
My topic for today is the European Union and more precisely its current state, its future as well as its role on the world stage.
In my last speech in Pittsburgh, in September 1999, I concluded my address by announcing that upon my return to Europe, negotiations on a new treaty to prepare the EU institutions for the forthcoming enlargement to the former communist central European nations would start and I made the hazardous prediction that we would be able to wrap up this work rapidly. Then, after having accomplished this good deed, the EU could finally start focusing again on policies rather than treaties. I believe I used the words "leftovers from the Treaty of Amsterdam" to describe the supposedly easy task in front of us.
But European history, geography, culture and politics imply that we like doing things the hard way. So nine years on, we have have traveled a fair distance, but we have still not gone full circle.
Yes, there was a new treaty in the year 2000, the Treaty of Nice, but the negotiations leading to it have been among the most divisive in the history of the EU. And all that for a result that was far from convincing.
This explains why as early as 2001, the EU launched the process that was supposed to finally give the EU the institutions and rules to allow it to firmly establish itself as an efficient and effective actor on the world stage.
We tried to innovate by gathering the so-called "Convention" bringing together members of parliament and other elected politicians rather than diplomats and ministers as it is the case in the traditional intergovernmental conferences. But even though some in the Convention felt like being in Pennsylvania in 1787, the result did not quite produce the same enthusiasm than the work of the Founding Fathers of the United States had more than two centuries earlier.
The Constitutional Treaty that finally emerged in 2004 from the workings of the Convention and the ensuing intergovernmental conference was rejected in 2005 by referendum in both France and the Netherlands. As acting president of the European Council during the first semester of 2005, it was my rather doubtful privilege to present the official reaction of the EU to the French "non" and the Dutch "nee".
The negative outcome of the two referenda implied that Europe withdrew onto itself, trying to sort out the institutional mess that it had created, rather than tackling head on manifold threats and challenges that the world was confronted with, including the emergence of new security threats and the acceleration of globalization.. At last, in December 2007, we signed a new and leaner treaty, the Lisbon Treaty. And so, hopefully, the year 2008 will finally bring to a successful end a rather painful process that started as early as the year 2000.
Now, when it comes to European matters, it would call myself a realist. The ratification process remains a real hurdle. For it is my inner conviction, that the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by two founding nations of the European Union cannot be cast aside as a simple historical accident but that it translates a deeper 'malaise' or even disenchantment with the Euopean projet as we conceived it.
In fact, I firmly believe that the French "non" and the Dutch "nee" were the expression of a deep European crisis. A crisis whose basic characteristics can be found in every European country, a crisis that harks back further than the debate surrounding the constitution and therefore a crisis that European leaders would be well advised not to forget just because the Lisbon Treaty will hopefully have come into force soon.
The EU has always been confronted with the fact that some Europeans are demanding "more Europe" while others considered from quite early on in the process that there is already too much Europe. What is new is that it appears today that both camps are of about equal strength. And, as the referenda in France and the Netherlands have proven, the particular prevailing national context of the moment can easily bring the "too much Europe already"-camp into the majority. Even in Luxembourg, a nation that poll after poll has been identified as one of the most EU-friendly in Europe, it proved to be a hard piece of work to finally convince a majority to support the treaty in our own July 2005 referendum.
Now, outside of the European Union, one might be surprised by this diagnosis. All around the world, Europe is admired for having succeeded to overcome centuries of wars between its major nations in order to become a haven of peace and stability. After World War II, the European project as developed by our own founding fathers - the likes of Schuman, Monnet, Adenauer, Spinelli, Spaak and Bech - has rallied the archenemies France and Germany behind a common goal. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the European project has been a common objective of all the Central and Eastern European nations, thereby finally achieving the reconciliation of European history with European geography.
Europe is admired for its economic successes. The Single European Market is today the single most important economic area of the world with more than 450 million consumers. The undeniable success of the single currency, the Euro, is recognized all over the world, while in the EU itself, it is mostly self-doubt that prevails. And even the deep respect earned by the EU and its Member States as the most important donors of development aid in the world seems to pass unnoticed.
A major reason for this lack of self-confidence and pride in our own achievements is to be found with people like myself, the leaders of the European nations. The EU is supposed to be a tool to advance the common good in Europe. But in political debates, it is mostly "us and them": if the decision is popular, ministers will claim it for themselves; if it proves unpopular, it will all be the fault of "Brussels". You may find this hard to believe, but mentioning "Brussels" in Europe is even more unpopular than mentioning "Washington" in the US. When a compromise is found on a contentious topic, one could hope that it would be greeted with at least some enthusiasm. But no: rather than congratulating ourselves on reaching agreement, we have developed an acquired taste for self-destruction by trying to pick the winners and the losers of every agreement, thus planting the seeds of future disagreements.
So, during six days of the week, leaders of European nations are quite happy to declare that the European bride is neither smart nor good-looking; bears only cost and brings no advantage. And on Sunday, they try to convince their voters to propose to this very same bride. Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised if they prefer to abstain.
We should therefore be prepared to draw the lesson from the fiasco of the Constitutional Treaty. The lesson is that the European project flourishes if we accentuate our semblances and deride our differences and that it flounders if we accentuate our differences and deride our semblances.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
For all its complex inner workings over the past decade, it is obviously not the case that the European Union has been completely absent from the international debate. But it is time for Europe to return to centre stage and to focus no longer on how to do, but on what to do.
With the Lisbon Treaty, the EU gives itself better tools to push its agenda and realize its ambitions on the international scene. The European Council of Heads of State or Government will be chaired by a permanent president rather than the traditional rotation every six months. Thus, if you want to call Europe at 3 AM, you will know which number to dial and you will know who will pick up the phone.
The EU will also finally have its Foreign Minister - who in true EU-fashion is not allowed to bear that title but has to go under the one of "High Representative for Foreign Affairs". The new High Representative will combine the job of both Javier Solana, the current High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the one of Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the Commissioner for External Relations. He or she will thereby not only gain access to the budgetary means of the European Commission but also be able to develop a fully-fledged diplomatic service at the EU-level.
The EU will continue to take a leading role in the debate on climate change. Europe has been at the forefront of this topic for over a decade. There was a lot of doubt in the beginning, but as you’ve witnessed with the development of the debate in the US, the world-wide consensus that climate change is one of the major challenges to our generation is near complete. The EU is engaging very actively in the so-called "post-Kyoto" debate. Our goal is to conclude the current round of talks in December 2009 in Copenhagen with a comprehensive, ambitious and effective international agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The EU and its Member States will not be content with vague declarations but will be pushing for clear and mandatory targets, while being fully aware that the most advanced industrial nations will have to shoulder a bigger responsibility than developing nations. I do sincerely hope that the United States will join the European Union in this effort in response to a challenge that knows neither national nor continental borders.
I would like to use the occasion to make a very clear statement: The single most important and most trusted partner of the European Union has been, is and will be the United States of America. We are more than just partners; we are friends if not family. And yes, like in all families, we have our disagreements and more difficult times to overcome. But friends we remain all the same.
The transatlantic relations cannot be analyzed solely on a day to day basis. They have first and foremost to be set into their broader unequivocal context.
The link between the United States and Europe is one of friendship but also of blood. Europe will never forget that it owes America its liberty and freedom. Coming from a country of which large parts were the theater of the battle of the Bulge, you can trust me that these are no empty words. Beyond these very emotional links, our diplomatic and political relations remain the bedrock of the international community, while our trade relations dominate the world economy. In short: be it in political, security or economic terms, the transatlantic relationship is irreplaceable.
Now this being said, we also have to recognize that Europe and the United States do not constantly have the same priorities, the same interests or the same ambitions. Real friendship allows for real disagreements. We should not make the mistake to reduce conflicts between us to conflicts between individuals. It obviously makes a difference whether the tenant of the White House and the German Chancellor, French President or British Prime Minister do get along on a personal level or not. But in the long run, personal relations are not by themselves sufficient to avoid sometimes very serious disagreements. I am therefore among those who warn Europeans not to fall into the "rising expectations unfulfilled"-trap when it comes to the next American administration.
I believe that it is only possible to fully appreciate the day to day dealings between the US and the EU when these two fundamental elements are taken into account. And I am convinced that the view on the fundamental importance of the transatlantic relations is shared by both the current administration and the broader foreign policy community of the US.
The fact that President Bush chose Brussels as the destination for his first international visit after the inauguration of his second term is in this respect highly revealing. He was in February 2005 the very first American President to visit not individual countries, but the institutions of the European Union as such. For having chaired the meeting between President Bush and the heads of State or government of the then 25 Member States, I can assure you that it became, as so often in our history, very clear to all participants that if Americans and Europeans stand together, they are an irresistible force that even in an increasingly multipolar world still makes a difference.
So yes, we did go through a difficult moment in our relationship with the debate about the Iraq War, but the basic reasons for our friendship remain fully intact. I am therefore quite optimistic, that no matter who will be the next President - and as it seems, the State of Pennsylvania is prepared to offer us quite a showdown in this respect in a bit over a week’s time - the transatlantic relationship will remain a cornerstone of both the American and the European foreign policies.
Thank you for your kind attention.