This speech was delivered at an event hosted by the European Center of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to mark the Day of Europe.

Champaign Illinois, April 10, 2003

 Let me begin by expressing my sincere thanks to the Director of the European Union Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for his kind invitation to deliver today’s address on the State of the European Union. On this occasion I wish to extend my congratulations both to the University of Illinois and to the European Union Center for what they are doing in supporting and promoting European studies in the United States as well as for contributing to a better understanding between the US and the European Union.

 The opportunity I have been given today to talk about the state of affairs of the EU is really important on two counts: First because the EU is actually embarking on a major transformation and enlargement process and, second, because the international situation and in particular the ongoing Iraqi crisis is already taking its toll on the EU’s internal cohesion with respect to its Common Foreign and Security Policy and of course on the EU’s relations with the US i.e. the transatlantic relationship.

 In presenting the current state of play within the EU, one should begin with its Presidency. Greece assumed on the 1st of January 2003, and for the fourth time since its integration in the EU in 1981, the six-month rotating Presidency of the Union. The message we chose for our Presidency is the following:

          Our Europe – Sharing the Future in a Community of Values.

Our message reflects a purpose to promote a community of values, values which recognize the citizens’ right to security, democracy and a better quality of life; values which will create institutions guaranteeing their participation and equality; and values which will help the European citizen feel that his or her voice is heard as a member of a new single family.

Let me now turn for a few minutes to the major priorities that the Greek Presidency is trying to achieve during its six month term:

a) With regard to the greatest enlargement in the history of the EU, one that will erase divisions in Europe and unify societies and economies that have operated for decades under completely different systems, the Greek Presidency will implement the timetable for the accession of the ten new member-states, in accordance with the Copenhagen Summit decisions of last December, will facilitate the gradual integration of the new member-states into the Community process and will welcome them in Athens on April 16 for the signing of the Accession Treaty.

The Greek Presidency will also implement the new enhanced pre-accession strategy for Bulgaria and Romania. The preparation of a new accession partnership for Turkey is also expected during the Greek Presidency. It is important to monitor and support all the measures that Turkey must take to achieve a positive evaluation by the end of 2004 in accordance with the Copenhagen decision.
   
b) Further implementation of the Lisbon Strategy on competitiveness, employment and social cohesion  is another major priority which was discussed at the Spring Summit of the EU in Brussels. The goal is for the European economy to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy, capable of promoting sustainable growth with more and better jobs and stronger social cohesion. This will require, however, significant reforms to promote faster growth, employment, prosperity and an improved quality of life.

c) The Union’s policy on immigration, asylum and the management of external borders, is one of the most important priorities of the Greek Presidency. Community policies in this area have not matched, so far, the magnitude of the immigration phenomenon. Over and above questions relating to illegal immigration, joint border management and asylum, there should be a more global approach to the economic and social integration of immigrants.

d) At the European Council next June, the first in-depth debate on the new constitutional treaty will take place, based on the proposals of the Convention on the Future of Europe. In the meantime the President of the Convention, Mr. Valery Giscard D’ Estaing will submit an interim report to the European leaders who will gather in Athens on the 16th of April for the enlargement ceremony. With regard to the June discussion, the goal of the Greek Presidency will be to ensure:

1.   that the Union will be effective, capable of making
                         decisions, equipped with all the policies and
                         resources to resolve social problems, to promote
                         cohesion and convergence, to guarantee full
                         employment and sustainable development;
2.   that the Union will operate as a democratically
                         organized system, closer to the European citizen
                         and based on the principles of transparency and
                         the equality of member-states;
3.   that the Union will evolve as a strong factor for
                         stability and cooperation in the international
                         system based on the principles of transparency
                         and equality of member-states;

e) In the area of external relations, the Presidency concentrates its efforts on regions of close proximity, without ignoring the Union’s commitments towards other areas of the world. The Balkans, the Mediterranean area and the Middle East, Russia and the countries of the Black Sea demand constant attention in the interest of peace and democracy. The handling of the Iraq crisis constitutes a particular challenge in terms of maintaining the cohesion of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and enhancing the role of the Union in the international arena. Cooperation with the United States, in the context of the transatlantic dialogue, will benefit both sides by focusing on major issues that require a common approach.

The Greek Presidency attaches particular importance to the enhancement of the Transatlantic Dialogue. The value of the EU’s relationship with the United States and Canada is underlined by the present political and economic juncture. During our Presidency we will spare no effort to strengthen the bilateral cooperation with our transatlantic partners, while promoting a thorough understanding of the issues on both sides. In this context, our objective will be to clarify the specific interests of each partner with the purpose of dispelling misunderstandings and eventually preventing the creation of points of friction.

In more detail, our main priorities in the area of transatlantic relations could be summarized as follows:

UNITED STATES

• We will relentlessly pursue progress on all matters related to the fight against terrorism. We aim at working together with the United States to strengthen our means in this field and build an efficient system for exchanging information and bringing perpetrators to justice. In particular, we will strive to complete work on mutual legal assistance and extradition, where considerable progress has already been achieved, with a view to concluding the relevant EU-US agreement during our Presidency.
• In the field of Justice and Home Affairs we are convinced that the two sides face enormous challenges in dealing with smuggling of migrants, transnational organized crime, trafficking in human beings, drugs, money laundering, illegal production and transfer of arms. Therefore we will seek to enhance coordinated action in all areas of common interest.
• We will also explore the possibilities to enhance the dialogue with the US on transport security matters, including the initiative to set up a platform for dialogue, the EU-US Transport Security Cooperation Group (TSCG). On a related subject, the Container Security Initiative, we will carefully examine the proposed measures, given the need to avoid discrimination between ports and any risk of damage to trade. Moreover, on aviation security and in particular the implementation by the US of the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS), we will support a concerted effort to resolve the problem pertaining to the transmission of data.
 
With regard to the communication strategy we will work, in conjunction with the HOMs in Washington, to outline a plan of action, aiming at utilizing all available assets and setting up general guidelines for coherence and coordination.

Political Cooperation

On CFSP matters, we believe that there should always be room for discussion between the two sides of the key issues of the day and emerging concerns. However, there are some areas to which we certainly attach particular importance:

• The Balkans, where considerable progress has been achieved, but also where many serious problems still persist. EU-US joint efforts have already proved highly successful in the case of FYROM. Our view is that instability in S.E. Europe fuels problems of a trasnational nature, such as organized crime, which could have future negative repercussions on other fields (such as terrorism) thus hurting also long-term US interests.
• The Middle East, where the Quartet must play a leading role in breaking the vicious circle of violence and in bringing back to the fore a political perspective, on the basis of a roadmap leading to two States living peacefully side by side. We expect this roadmap to be published as soon as possible.
• Iraq, where we must pursue the goal of ridding the country from its weapons of mass destruction in accordance with UNSCR 1441. Cooperation between US-EU in the post-war Iraq is considered to be a must.
• The Caucasus, where we could look for ways and means to promote the cooperation with the US in the fields of energy and of strengthening the rule of law.

Economic Cooperation

• We will focus on further developing the items of the Positive Economic Agenda, paying particular attention to the regulatory cooperation, organic farming and customs procedures with a view to attaining some concrete results by the next Summit.
• On environment, we are willing to explore possible avenues for cooperation with a view to defining a suitable framework which will permit both sides to respect their mutual commitments.
• On WTO, we will stress that both sides have a common interest in moving Doha forward and keeping the developing countries engaged. While doing that, it is important not to isolate agriculture and to discuss all issues openly.
• On biotechnology and genetically modified organisms, we will look into ways to take on board both the US concerns and the sensitivities of the European public opinion, as expressed by the European Parliament.
• On energy security, we intend to promote constructive discussions with the US and eventually explore possibilities of common initiatives, including in the framework of the International Energy Agency, as we consider this area of cooperation of paramount importance for stability and development.
• On sustainable development, we recognize the need to move forward and we will aim at identifying areas where tangible results could be achieved in the short term.
• On the most conspicuous trade disputes, namely the steel issue and the Foreign Sales Corporations, we will take all the necessary steps, in close consultation with all member states, in trying to ensure that these multi-faceted problems do not become a burden on the transatlantic relationship.

In conclusion, the Greek Presidency will seek to continue the success of the Danish Presidency by bringing forward proposals for action in an enlarged Europe that is more competitive, socially fair and safer, with a strong international presence and much closer to the needs of its citizens. Close cooperation with the Italian Presidency that follows will ensure the necessary continuity and cohesion of action in a year of major decisions for the future of the Union.

 Among the five basic priorities of our Presidency, that of advancing the next EU enlargement is certainly the most important one. Enlargement is undoubtedly a well known process in the EU history since the entire history of European integration is based on two fundamental assumptions, namely: a) on the continuous forging of closer relations, policies and institutions among its members aiming not just at achieving unity of purpose but at a real union among themselves and b) on an open door policy of inclusion of new members in the Union, which share European ideals, principles and values and are committed to accept and implement criteria and modes of conduct that befit European democratic standards and traditions.

 What distinguishes, however, this coming enlargement from the previous ones of 1971, 1981, 1985 and 1995 is not just the impressive, I would say, unprecedented number of new members but their composition. Their composition includes in fact countries of central, eastern and Mediterranean Europe and, politically speaking, this enlargement can only be compared to the historic decision that first set Europe on the road to integration and will have a lasting impact on European generations.

 Coupled with the NATO enlargement, this new EU enlargement will heal divisions caused by W.W. II. and the setting up of the blocs. These countries of Central and Eastern Europe who lived for decades under the communist yoke, deprived of the fundamental democratic and human rights and the fruits of economic and social development comparable to those in Western Europe, are now provided with a unique opportunity, offering them the vision of European integration. In essence this means a harmonious and secure future as members of a community of values, prospects for their economic and social development and a fair share in political decision making in international affairs.

 In addition, enlargement will promote peace and stability in Europe and beyond. The collapse of the USSR, the W.P. and of Former Yugoslavia did not automatically bring about, contrary to some expectations, the necessary conditions for a more stable and predictable security environment in Europe. State fragmentations, ethnic strife, minority questions and interstate conflicts and wars emerged as the immediate and very negative outcome of the sudden transformation of the geopolitical landscape in Eastern and South Eastern Europe. The Balkan tragedies illustrate this very clearly. And of course they remind us all, that these phenomena have a spill over effect and they tend to destabilize broader areas from the region in which they actually occur.

 Under such circumstances the enlargement and European integration vision serves as an objective and achievement. It serves as a guiding tool for these peoples to determine their future in an inclusion rather than in an exclusion and isolation process, it constitutes the necessary yardstick for democratic rule, institution building and economic reform and finally provides a platform for respect of international law, promotion of good neighbourly relations and  peaceful resolution of disputes.

 The situation with respect to the EU Mediterranean enlargement is certainly different from that which I just presented. If fact the two island states, Cyprus and Malta, functioning democracies since they gained their independence in the 1960s, with free market economies and mature local societies that received and absorbed the west European values and lifestyles, are looking upon their impending integration in the EU, as the culmination of a prescribed evolutionary process which already made them active members of all existing paneuropean international organizations, like the Council of Europe and the OSCE.

 At the same time and from the EU point of view, their integration confirms a long prevailing European attitude, namely that the Mediterranean basin does not merely constitute  an area of geopolitical interest for Western Europe but has an age long presence and participation in Europe’s history, culture, civilization, economy and as such is not a peripheral area but part of the Continent’s past, present and future.

 I would now turn to another current issue of great importance for the EU, namely the building of the future European institutions. The decision to set up a body, called the Convention, composed of prominent personalities with vast experience in European affairs, entrusted to prepare the ground for the next European intergovernmental conference, was taken at the European Council at Nice in the year 2000. The objective of the Convention is to serve as the forum for a great debate about the future shape of the enlarged European Union and to provide the Union with a draft Constitutional Treaty.
 The Convention is a novelty, in both role and structure. It is comprised, not only of representatives of governments and the EU institutions, but also members of the national Parliaments from the member states and the candidate countries. A large number of civil society and youth organizations have also been invited to contribute to the debate.
 The composition of the Convention clearly embodies the principles of transparency and democratic participation – the underlying rationale being the need to obtain the consent not only of member governments but also of the peoples of the European Union.
 But the method chosen may also prove a fast and efficient way of making progress on fundamental issues before the opening of the next intergovernmental conference, which would give treaty status to any agreements on the European Union’s future structure. The overall aim is to render the enlarged European Union more effective and more democratic.
 The presidium, or steering group, of the Convention has presented a draft outline of a possible constitutional treaty. This important development suggests the need for all member states to set out more clearly and systematically their views on the key issues on the agenda of institutional reform.
 Our objective in the near future should be to work on a draft constitutional treaty that could make the enlarged European Union efficient and enable it to command the loyalty of its citizens and its member states. This requires a comprehensive approach that focuses not only on the necessary institutional arrangements, but also on the policies and financial instruments required to sustain enlargement.

 We maintain that in order to achieve all this we should build on the strengths of the European Union. We should draw from the experience of all the years of fruitful cooperation within the EU structures, based on the very principles that make the European Union a dynamic, continuously evolving, highly adaptable political union of equal member states.
 In this context it is vital to ensure that the “Community method” is strengthened and that its significance for European integration is fully recognized. The Community method is the decision-making process through which the European Union has achieved better policy coherence, more transparency and better chances to debate policy ideas while taking national interests into account.
 The relationship between the European Union and the member states should, of course, be clarified. The Convention has been given the mandate to examine the notion of “subsidiarity”, under which decisions are taken at the most appropriate institutional level, whether local, regional, national or EU-wide, with the EU institutions responsible only for policies and actions that are best decided at the EU level.
 There is a need to simplify the acts and procedures of the European Union and avoid upsetting the present institutional balance, which is based on the smooth operation of the “institutional triangle” composed of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament.
 Preserving this balance should always be at the forefront of our minds. We feel, therefore, that the idea that has been put forward of creating an elected president for the European Council would disturb the longstanding institutional equilibrium by giving too much power to the European Council and elevating it to the status of prime player.
 The shortcomings of such a development would be numerous. The European Council may have proven quite capable of drawing broad strategic guidelines, but it lacks sufficient checks and balances and the outcome of its deliberations is not sufficiently predictable.
 The future of the Presidency of the Council is another important issue related to the need for institutional balance. Under the present system, each member state assumes the presidency of the council for six months in turn. The advantages of this system are widely acknowledged, but enlargement will render it non-functional and diminish its value to the member states that occupy the presidential chair.
 The institutions will also have to be modified in order to strengthen the European Union’s capacity for external action. Until now the European Union’s trade relations and development cooperation with third countries have been conducted on the basis of the Community method, while in other policy areas, such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), member governments have played the predominant role.
 This means that in the areas of trade and aid, and in some specific international bodies, the 15 member states operate with a single representative, but in all other areas of international relations the European Union has lacked the benefits of a legal personality. We must remedy this shortcoming.
 The European Union’s acquisition of a unified legal personality will fulfill the first and most essential prerequisite for a strong international presence. Without it, the common pursuit of collective and national interests, as well as the projection of the European Union’s values of peace, democracy, solidarity, human rights and sustainable development, have little chance of success.
 The adoption of a legal personality implies, of course, the abolition of the so-called pillar structure, which gives the EU institutions greater involvement in some areas of policy making than in others. It would no longer be valid to distinguish between actions stemming from the Community method and those involving more intergovernmental decision-making.
 The creation of the post of the High Representative for the CFSP has proven very valuable in ensuring a more unified high profile representation of the European Union abroad. We can build on this success by merging this post with that of the Commissioner for External Relations. The holder of the two offices could be the vice-president of the Commission.
 Such a merger would have undeniable practical advantages: it would offer the European Union a single voice in the international system, it would ensure continuity, it would give the single representative access to the entire range of EU foreign policy instruments and resources, which for the moment remain divided according to the pillar system, and it would promote further synergies between the Council and the Commission.

 We should also examine the possibility of complementing this measure with a wider use of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), instead of consensus, in reaching jointly agreed viewpoints. The merits of this
move are obvious: it would give the CFSP the added speed, efficiency and coherence that it needs.
 As we strengthen the CFSP, we must also reinforce its defense element, the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), which should be progressively developed into a system of collective solidarity. This is not simply a matter of prestige and credibility for the European Union’s foreign policy. It would also create the conditions necessary for the development of a coherent, wide-ranging foreign policy, by reassuring member states preoccupied by special concerns related to defense. Dealing effectively with such concerns would open the way to a more coherent and vigorous foreign policy.
 The process of reform, like the functioning of the European Union, needs to engage its citizens and obtain their consent. Complex principles, planned institutional arrangements and proposals relating to foreign policy or defense at the EU level do not have an immediate impact on most people’s lives.
 Through the Convention, therefore, we must aim to address and promote issues that are of real significance to European citizens. The creation of a genuine European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice can help  draw citizens closer to the European Union and add value to their daily lives.
 We support use of the Community method to ensure coherent, effective and transparent cooperation among EU police and judicial authorities. Our long-term objective should be the creation of a European area of justice and home affairs. The establishment of an EU border police and customs authority would greatly improve the European Union’s ability to deal with cross-frontier crime and terrorism. It is important that these objectives are set out clearly in the new treaty.
 We should also further develop the concept of EU citizenship, with attached rights and duties, which would contribute to the creation of a collective identity compatible with the political nature of the European Union. We favor the incorporation of the recently adopted Charter of Fundamental Rights into the new treaty as a legally binding document, recognizing and confirming the rights of European citizens.

 
 Let me conclude by saying that both the enlargement and the Convention are expected to positively affect the transatlantic relationship. It is common knowledge that many of the 10 new EU members have very close ties to the USA. America showed them solidarity and support during the cold war and also encouraged them to become members of NATO. The USA also maintains that a European Union more cohesive and more effective in terms of its institutions and its policies and of course more harmonious in the way it expresses its common voice, will be considered by them as a stronger partner and a more valid interlocutor in world affairs. To do that the EU should become a player in its own right. There is an equal need for the US and the EU to remain mutually respected partners. And this of course will be an evolving process constantly put to test by time and circumstances.

 Today’s presentation of the state of the European Union would be remiss without acknowledging that this country is at present in a state of war in Iraq and the European Union as such and of course its member states have taken and certainly will continue to take positions on the ongoing crisis.

 Ever since the situation in Iraq started deteriorating by the latter’s reluctance to fully cooperate with the U.N. inspectors in ridding the country of the WMD, and the increasing prospects of use of force against Iraq in order to implement UNSC resolutions, the most recent one being 1441, the Greek Presidency undertook a systematic effort to forge the maximum possible unity of views of EU members and of course to maintain a close cooperation with the US side, in order to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis and avoid the recourse to the military option.

 To this end joint texts were agreed upon at the EU ministerial and summit levels, following initiatives by the Presidency, in January and February of this year. Central themes of these texts, which reflected the least common denominator among EU members, were the need to use all available diplomatic means to avoid the war and the imperative need for Iraq to disarm immediately and effectively.

 However the differences of views concerning the methodology to disarm Iraq which were repeatedly expressed in the UNSC were also brought within the EU and prevented her to use a common voice beyond the common denominator level. This is a reminder to all of us of how imperative it is for Europe to acquire a real CFSP.

The Presidency as well as the member states are now focusing their discussions on the post war era. They wish to avoid new disagreements and to set common aims, regarding international legitimacy and involvement in postwar Iraq and to avoid the spread of the crisis into the broader region of the Middle East. In the most recent European Council which was convened last month in Brussels the following basic objectives were agreed:

• The need to protect Iraq’s territorial integrity.
• The need to address the serious humanitarian problems that will arise from the crisis, and also the need for solidarity on our part with the countries affected by it.
• The central role of the United Nations both in dealing with the Iraqi crisis and more generally in the international system. The Security Council must give the United Nations a mandate for the post-war period.
• The need to reinvigorate the Middle-East peace process.
• Our determination to strengthen the Common Foreign and Defense Policy.
• The importance of transatlantic relations.

The decision which we took on Iraq is a decision based on the view that the European Union has a voice in international affairs. It is thus a contribution to the attempt to establish a balanced Euro Atlantic relationship in which the European Union maintains its independence and has its own initiatives and  role.

The aim is to re-establish as soon as possible a framework for international relations which meets with the broadest acceptance. This presupposes that the United Nations, through its various bodies, gives general guidelines for what is to apply after the war in Iraq. The return from disputed to undisputed international legality will be achieved if it is clear that the United Nations again plays the central role. The decision stresses the central role of the United Nations.

 The divergence of views on Iraq caused many people to conclude with regret that there was no common foreign policy. This in fact is not the case. There are common positions on foreign policy matters in many areas. On other questions and on aspects of certain general issues the Union’s foreign policy is still being developed as is also the case for policies in other areas where there are differences, from the CAP to immigration. Nobody however should conclude  that the European Union is superfluous because it does not agree from time to time on some issues.

 The European Union is in a state of constant evolution. Its development is thus a challenge. A challenge also to ideas, to the exploitation of knowledge and experience and to the quest for a future of prosperity and security. The war in Iraq is part of this challenge. For this reason it is not enough for us to simply approve it or condemn it. We must also see the future prospects for both Europe and the world. And this is exactly our duty as members of not just an emerging very significant grouping of European nations, but as members of a Union of nations, mindful of its rights, responsibilities, challenges and opportunities, a serious and responsible player in world affairs.
 
 

^
top

print this page   send this page