Jean Asselborn, Discours à l'occasion de l'ouverture de la Bucerius Summer School, Hambourg

I vividly recall my first encounter with Theo Sommer in Berlin earlier this year. Shortly after the Irish vote on the Lisbon-Treaty, I had been invited to discuss the future of the European Union with a couple of journalists of the German Times. It was an exciting and interesting debate and I am very grateful that Theo Sommer invited me to this famous Summer school in Hamburg to share a few thoughts with you on the role of the European Union in respect to global governance.

A Nobel-Prize winning French novelist famously wrote some 60 years ago: "I believe in the virtue of small nations. I believe in the virtue of small numbers. The world will be saved by a few." As a politician of a small nation, I would have been more than pleased if this prediction had become true. But even though virtuous small nations have played an important part in many a great project - the European Union being an obvious example - I doubt that any small country today could save the world. Actually, I doubt that any single country, no matter how powerful or big it is, can save the world at all.

Problems without passports

The reason for this is that some of the most acute problems the world is currently facing are global in nature and hence cannot be solved by one single country. At this Summer School, three years ago, they were rightly defined as "problems without passports" either because all parts of the world are more or less equally affected by them or because, due to the ever greater interconnections of economies and technologies, one event in one part of the world can have many, and sometimes unpredictable, effects in other parts of the planet and on different levels. Let me name just a few of those global problems: climate change, the energy security, mass terrorism, nuclear proliferation, rising food and energy prices, or pandemics like AIDS.

As I mentioned before, those problems are not isolated and cannot be tackled separately, because they are not only global but also interrelated. Very often, they act as elements of a vicious circle. Take climate change for instance. Climate change can affect agricultural production, thus contributing to the rising of food prices, which in turn will increase poverty and create insecurity, which then fuels resentment and radicalization.

The threats arising from global warming are accurately summarized in a paper intituled "Climate Change and International security" presented in spring this year by the High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council. Those threats range from border disputes to environmentally induced migration, political instability and ethnic tensions. The report rightly concludes that the consequences of climate change also include political and security risks that directly affect European interests. Although the problems are different in nature depending on what side of the Mediterranean you are, they have a common root. The conviction that eventually we all benefit from solving those common issues is widely accepted today. It wasn’t always that way.

The aspiration for peace and prosperity and the need for a global governance system are a consequence of the two World Wars which have devastated so many populations and countries around the globe. It has resulted in the foundation of international organisations both political, like the United Nations, and economical like the Bretton Woods Institutions. Past centuries had shown what a world dominated by selfish national interests could be. The time was ripe for a fairer system which was to rest on the equality of all countries and peoples. It is truth to say that the multilateral system has preserved us from a new large-scale conflict. There simply is no alternative for international relations to the unique framework represented by the UN.

The same ideal of peace and prosperity underlies the creation of the European Union. Luxembourg, as a founding member of all major multilateral organisations, has always taken very seriously its responsibility in this matter. That is, by the way, why Luxembourg is applying for a non permanent seat in the Security Council for the years 2013-2014: it is willing to fully assume the responsibilities that stem from its integration in the system of multilateral co-operation, to show solidarity and commitment.

At the same time, for the last 60 years, the continuous progress of communication technologies and the development of transportation of goods and people amplified the convergence of cultures and economies known as globalization. As the assumption goes, the evolution of technologies has made boundaries redundant. Information flows can hardly be restricted; Internet, mobile phones, satellite television allow communication without borders. We are consuming goods - both material and immaterial - from all parts of the world.

New borders

But as we are trying to eliminate trade barriers and to break cultural boundaries, paradoxically, new borders appear. The number of independent states in the world is continuously rising. Since the end of World War II the number of states has more than doubled. On the European continent alone some 15 new countries have emerged since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991, sometimes after violent conflicts. Concealed by the ideological gap of the cold war, nationalism, whether secular or tinged with religious zeal, is striking back.

Thus, the greater picture is rather complex: on the one hand we have global problems in a globalised world; on the other hand we witness a fragmentation of former geopolitical entities, with inevitable power shifts and subsequent political instability. But the multilateral institutions created to address the global problems are a legacy of a world dominated by two competing ideologies and a couple of declining colonial empires.

Over the last decades, those international organisations, and foremost the UN and its Security Council have been criticised for their lack of effectiveness and their supposed irrelevance in a post-Cold-War era. The criticisms are not entirely unfounded. The emergence of the so-called developing countries on the international scene and the overall political evolution over the last two decades certainly raises the question of a fair and honest representation in the Security Council. Luxembourg, incidentally, has always pleaded for an enlarged Security Council with a greater number of seats, both permanent and non permanent. As to the effectiveness of the P5, a long-time complaint has been that opposite interests were likely to end in a deadlock or, on the contrary, that they could lead to unilateral decisions without a clear mandate, thus undermining the credibility of the UN. Whenever multilateralism is not working, unilateralism risks taking over. This is at times a frustrating situation. But operating by consensus - which is the essence of multilateralism - always bears a risk of reaching a minimal agreement or no agreement at all.

As the public opinion has evolved with regard to the atrocities of civil wars and the slowness of the international response, attempts have been made to get around the problem. From the "right of interference" to the endorsement at the 2005 UN Summit of the concept of "responsibility to protect", the international community is actively seeking to prevent gross humanitarian and human rights violations within states. By challenging the Westphalian principle of the primacy of sovereignty enshrined in the UN-Charter and its counterpart principle of the non-intervention in domestic affairs, those notions will nonetheless be subject to controversy whenever allies of great powers will be in the line of fire.

The European Way

In the light of recent evolutions it is hence worth considering anew the role of national states and regional organisations in relation with supranational imperatives. I would like to focus my intervention on the contribution of the European Union in the multilateral organisations. First, because I am a convinced European. Second, because I believe that the EU is a unique experiment in governance that could be an example to the rest of the world. By pursuing common policies in fields reaching from climate change to development assistance over immigration and energy security, the European Union is a political answer to globalisation.

Let me start again with the example of climate change, which is probably the single most important issue humanity is facing in the long term. It is largely agreed that a rise in temperature of more than 2°C above the pre-industrial level would have irreversible consequences. Whilst in the 1970, ecologists mainly focused on the environmental issue, we acknowledge today the real scope of the problem. Climate change is an ecological calamity likely to aggravate human tragedies. In a world of recurrent extreme weather events, conflicts over resources and mass migration, some basic rights will be threatened by the direct or indirect effects of climate change: rights to health, water or property will not be guaranteed. As it happens the most vulnerable individuals or groups are first affected by climate change. Hurricane Katrina has shown that even when a rich country is hit by a natural catastrophe, its poor population suffers most.

The difference a single country can make in combating climate change on a global scale is rather insignificant. With almost 500 millions inhabitants - more than the United States and Russia together - the 27 countries of the European Union represent a highly industrialized region in the world. Any measure taken at European level is therefore likely to have an impact on the environment. In March 2007, the EU has endorsed an ambitious policy that aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020. Alongside other measures, such as improving the energy efficiency or increasing the share of renewable energies in the overall consumption, this policy is coherent and comprehensive. To reach the ambitious cut in emissions, the EU has opted for the cost effective "cap and trade" system. This market-based emission trading scheme, launched in 2005, has contributed to the expansion in carbon trading around the world. In 2006 for instance California passed a bill to reduce carbon emissions 25% by 2020 and considers implementing a cap and trade system similar to the European one.

The European integrated energy and climate change policy offers a good example of how countries can collaborate on a regional scale in order to meet global goals. The EU’s front-runner approach in this area has already had positive effects on a multilateral level. At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali in December 2007, the EU played a major role in reaching a settlement on the roadmap leading to Copenhagen, where the new Protocol to prevent global warming and climate change should be signed in 2009.

Another field where the European Union is a global front-runner is Official Development Assistance (ODA). In his 2007 mid-term report on the Millennium Development Goals, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stressed the importance of raising the global development assistance in the years to come if the international community was to achieve the goals set out in 2000. Under Luxembourg Presidency of the European Council in 2005, the then 25 countries agreed to increase collectively their Official Development Aid level up to 0.56% of their Gross National Income (GNI). These commitments should see annual EU aid double in 2010. The Member States have also committed themselves to achieving an ODA of 0.7% of their GNI by the deadline for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in 2015. With a share of more than 54% of the total aid, the EU is already the largest single contributor of ODA. I am happy to say, that my country is spending as much as 0.92% of its Gross National Income on development assistance and we are committed to reach the 1% mark within the next years.

But quantity is not all that matters. If fragmented, aid is likely to be dispersed; if uncoordinated it will result in duplication and overlap. Hence it is important to ensure that aid is delivered properly. Since development cooperation is a shared competence between the European Community and the Member States, the community policy is complementary to the policies pursued by the Member States ensuring a good balance between bilateral and multilateral aid. The so-called European Consensus on development, endorsed in 2005, sets out the common principles of the European development policies. The Member States’ priorities, experience and expertise are taken into account and the role of the EU is to coordinate and harmonize the efforts. The EU is carrying out its agenda in close cooperation with multilateral players such as the United Nations and International Financial Institutions, to maximise the impact and effectiveness of global aid.

ODA is another good example of how a regional political organization like the EU can prove to be a very effective tool in order to increase the efficiency of multilateral bodies. But the same applies to other areas such as police and justice affairs, where the European cooperation helps fighting terrorism worldwide. As a coordinator of 27 countries, the European Union is therefore an important linkage between national countries and international organizations.

If development assistance is necessary to reduce poverty, self-sustainability must remain the long-term aim. The fact that the developing world is catching up with the industrialized countries is a positive evolution of globalisation. The EU should therefore support the rise of the emerging powers in the framework of the multilateral system. The recent failure of the Doha-Round talks will have a lot of losers: most of the developing countries, but also some of the emerging countries will possibly suffer from the breakdown in talks. The halt of the Doha Round negotiations at the end of July might well weaken the WTO and with it the agreements that provide the legal ground-rules for international commerce.

From our point of view, it would have been important to focus not only on tariffs, that is how much duty you have to pay at a border so that you can export products. We think the discussions should also have included norms and rules for global trade as for example rules on how to solve commercial disputes like the payment of subsidies to key industries. A prime example for the need of such rules was the dispute between the US and the EU on how much financial support they could grant to their respective aircraft industries Boeing and Airbus. As you are aware this dispute has been resolved under the auspices of the WTO.

However, it is still too early to draw final conclusions after the discussions in Geneva at the end of July. EU Ministers for Foreign Trade will analyse and discuss the situation at a meeting in Brussels in September. However, one has to point out that the breakdown of talks in Geneva does not imply the collapse of the Doha round itself.

The European Union has to show its willingness to continue the negotiations, but it is difficult to see exactly how that can be done in the coming months. One probably has to wait until after the US elections in November this year and until the new administration’s position is known. I am convinced that the Doha round negotiations are not over and that the EU should meanwhile reflect on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Over the past couple of months signs of an economic recession in at least part of the world economy have made the round. I think it is important that we do not add a depression of global trade to this. All members of the WTO need to make an effort in order for the Doha round negotiations to come to an acceptable conclusion. One has to keep in mind what the Doha round is about. The aim is to integrate all developing countries into the international trade system and not only the emerging ones. I remain convinced that this is still possible. An agreement on the Doha round would also stimulate the effectiveness and impact of our development cooperation policies.

European Foreign Policy

It is often said that in terms of foreign policy the EU’s contribution is mainly - if not entirely - economic and humanitarian. The perception that Europe is a payer, not a player, grows deep roots. But this isn’t entirely fair or true. Understandably, foreign policy is a difficult matter within the Union. Just as in multilateral organizations, consensus is required and the larger the Union the greater the chance that one Member State can bloc a decision. It is therefore my belief that foreign policy will remain the trickiest area of the EU in the years to come. The lost momentum of the European Defence Community in the early 1950 has long postponed the project of a tight political union.

That is not to say that between the signing of the Rome Treaties and the creation of the Common and Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) in 1993 there was no European Foreign Policy. Europe’s position on the Middle-East for instance has been consistent ever since the Declaration of Venice in 1980, which established the right to existence and to security of all States in the region, including Israel, and justice for all the peoples, which implies the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. We have always considered the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as our strategic priority. The 2002 Seville declaration explicitly mentions the two-States solution which is widely accepted today. The importance of the European contribution in the Middle-East Peace Process is reflected through the Union’s participation in the Quartet, its role in the border assistance mission in Rafah and its police mission "EU COPPS" in the Gaza Strip. In this context, it is also appropriate to underline that the Quartet is a European creation, which was established in Madrid in 2002, as a result of the escalating conflict in the Middle East.

In 1999 the Amsterdam Treaty has introduced important changes by spelling out the fundamental objectives of CFSP and setting out how those objectives can be achieved. The Lisbon Treaty goes further and makes new provisions to make EU Foreign Policy more effective and more visible. If implemented, the Treaty will increase the powers of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who will give the EU a more streamlined international presence. The effectiveness of CFSP will however always remain a matter of political will and vision. Even the most perfect Treaty cannot guarantee any progress, if political will and vision are absent.

The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) is a fast growing aspect of the EU Policy. In less than ten years it has become an important tool in the context of multilateral military and civilian cooperation. Today, there are ten active ESPD missions (both civilian and military) in the Western Balkans, in the Middle-East, in Asia and in Africa. One of the most important missions is currently being deployed in Kosovo. The EULEX mission will support the Kosovo authorities in their efforts to build a sustainable and functional Rule of Law system under the executive authority of the UNMIK, the United Nations mission in Kosovo.

The new type of threats that we face today differ from those anticipated during the Cold War. They call for a solution that is definitely not purely military. The ongoing ESPD missions show that the instruments needed to tackle these conflicts are manifold. Depending on the situation, they can be political, judicial or humanitarian. Some situations require civilian crisis management, other effective policing, still other necessitate economic help for reconstruction and practical expertise.

This leads me to open a short bracket on the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia. Because the Europeans stood finally united behind the French Presidency - not without difficulties as you know -, the EU was able to play an important role at the very right moment to help silencing the weapons. This was possible because the EU did not play the "blame game", but gave the absolute priority to peace in Georgia. EU Foreign Ministers clearly stated that military action is not a solution, neither for Georgia, nor for Russia, and that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia must be respected. When it is united, the EU is a credible actor wielding serious clout. The EU is ready and willing to make an important contribution to the stability of the Caucasus, including on the ground, in close cooperation with the UN and the OSCE. Ultimately, a definitive solution to the conflict should be settled by the UN Security Council and the EU is actively engaged to that end.

The events of 8 August have led to a dangerous evolution which is not only limited to the Caucasus. Since the creation of the Russian Federation in 1991, this is the first time ever that the United States and Russia are unable to speak to each other at a high level. This is an extremely negative evolution and it is exactly here that the EU has to play its role and to bring both powers on speaking terms again. The times where we spoke of the "good" US and the "bad" Russia, or vice versae, are over and have no place any longer in the 21th century.

In my introduction I pointed out that most of the global governance bodies dated back to the early post-War days and that their relevance was regularly being questioned. The reform of the Security Council might well be overdue, but even a better working institution is no guarantee that all the problems we are facing today will be solved. An enlarged Security Council might make the UN decisional body more representative, not necessarily more efficient. Since we cannot start from scratch, we have to build upon what exists and try to improve what can be improved. Progress can be achieved through a better coordination between the UN and its partners. This is the case today in the field of crisis management and peacekeeping, where the UN and the European Union cooperate ever closer.

New Opportunities

In a world where border disputes and civil wars along ethnic lines are the most common source of conflict, regional organizations will have an increasing role to play between nations and global governance bodies. When the civil war broke out in the former Republic of Yugoslavia in the early 1990, Europe couldn’t prevent the tragedy. Today, it is a whole different picture which presents itself to us. The various republics have become nations of their own and, notwithstanding certain tensions, live side by side. After Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, Serbia refrained from violent action. Why is that? Well, I am convinced that the European perspective offered to Serbia was, and continues to be, of crucial importance in this respect. Just like it is the case for its neighbours: Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, FYROM and Kosovo. That’s why it is so important that we stand by our promises: commitments have been made at the Summit in Thessaloniki in 2003. They have to be kept.

For the Balkans, and, to a lesser extend for the former communist countries of Eastern Europe, the European Union is still standing for something which younger people in Western Europe take for granted; namely peace. It was not too difficult to explain in the post-War years to the citizens of France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands or indeed Luxembourg why building a strong and united Europe was so important. One look at the crosses in the cemeteries was enough for them to understand the necessity of building a common future for the next generations. In a sense, they have achieved their goal beyond expectation. For most citizens in the European Union, war has fallen into oblivion. Today, citizens have other priorities and expectations; new symbols are needed.

What is it that makes the EU so unique? I believe it is its diversity, its tolerance, its freedom, its openness, symbolized by the absence of internal borders.

Europe is a space without physical borders but also a space without intellectual, cultural, economic or social borders.

To quote the European security strategy: (…) "This is a world of new dangers but also of new opportunities. The European Union has the potential to make a major contribution, both in dealing with the threats and in helping realize the opportunities. (…) In doing so, it contributes to an effective multilateral system leading to a fairer, safer and more united world."

Thank you very much for your attention.