CIAO DATE: 11/04

2004: A Challenging Year for the European Union

H.E. Stéphane De Loecker
Consul General of Belgium in New York

Occasional Paper Series No. 52

October 16, 2003

European Union Studies Center

Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen:

The attention the American public pays to Europe tends naturally to focus on issues of particular interest to itself, such as the war in Iraq and the subsequent debate about "old" and "new" Europe, or the different trade disputes which regularly send shock waves through the transatlantic relationship.

Though I am, of course, perfectly ready to address these issues during the question & answer period, my purpose this afternoon is to explain, in about 20 minutes, the major challenges the European Union will face in 2004, challenges that are of top priority to the Union. I hope that you will then better understand that the EU has an agenda of its own, priorities of its own, an identity of its own, that need to be reckoned with by its international partners, and in particular by its most important partner, the United States of America.

Why is 2004 so important and so challenging for the EU? For many reasons:

• because on May 1, 2004 10 new member States will join the Union;

• because all 25 member States should, in the course of the year 2004, adopt a Constitutional Treaty for the Union as whole;

• because a new European Parliament of more than 700 members, the powers of which will be substantially increased, will be elected in June 2004 by 480 million Europeans.

I hope you will indulge me, in my capacity as representative of my country, to briefly mention the positions adopted by Belgium regarding these challenges of the "Year 2004".

As one of the founders of the European Community, as it was first called, Belgium has always supported the "federalist" approach to the Union, as compared to an "inter-governmental" approach, and therefore supports an increase of the powers of the European Commission and the European Parliament.

In the are of defense policy, Belgium is a founding member of NATO, and not only supports NATO "out-of-area" operations, but also plays an active role in current military activities in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, as both of these operations have been endorsed by the UN Security Council. Belgium has also successfully undertaken what I would call "NATO-compatible" initiatives intended to reinforce European capabilities in the field of defense policy.

I will begin my presentation by reminding you why the European Union is fundamentally a political project, and I will then give you some insights on the prospects and difficulties of both the enlargement process and the process of drafting a Constitution.

The European Union: a political project

In order to understand correctly the challenges lying ahead of the European Union, you should keep in mind that the Union is a political endeavor, now more than ever before, because the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 changed everything in Europe, as it became possible for Europe as a whole to regroup under the umbrellas of both the European Union and NATO.

Regarding this political endeavor of the Union, I wish to point out that the latest opinion polls in the current member States of the Union show that a vast majority of the citizens want even greater European action in areas like immigration and asylum policy, and also in areas of foreign or defense policy. Most Europeans wish to see Europe act as a superpower, a "soft" one, but nevertheless a superpower, in close cooperation with its traditional allies, among whom, of course, the United States of America.

The enlargement by 10 new members and the subsequent steps

The enlargement of the EU and subsequent steps will benefit the stability of the European continent, be it so-called "old" or be it so-called "new", and is therefore to the benefit of the United States, as well.

As you know, after years of negotiations, 10 countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area will finally join the Union as full members on May 1, 2004.

The Mediterranean countries are Cyprus (although at this stage, unfortunately, only the Greek part of the island) and Malta. The countries of Central Europe are Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. The Eastern European countries are the Baltic States Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

All these countries have satisfied the criteria for accession imposed by the current members of the Union, criteria that are of economic and of political nature (i.e. free market economy, democracy, respect for human rights,…)

In total 105 million people will be added to the current 375 million inhabitants of the European Union. Quite a challenge, and also quite an opportunity and a strong wind of hope is blowing through the acceding countries, as in 7 out of the 10 new members, between 77% and 92% of the voters said "yes" to the accession referenda which were held in the spring of this year.

As I mentioned, the challenges of these new accessions are of economic and political nature:

• economic for 2 main reasons:

  first, because the average income per person for the 10 new member States was 10.700 Euros per year in 2001, as compared to 23.210 Euros per year for the 15 member States

  It needs to be said that, about 20 years ago, a system called the "structural funds" was established by the European community to help the less economically advanced the member States.

  These funds currently amount to 35 billions Euros, i.e. more than 30% of the European budget. Now, the vast majority of these funds will be channeled to the newly accessing members, an issue which was particularly difficult to resolve during the accession negotiations, because of reluctance on the part of the member States currently benefiting from these funds, who will see their own benefits reduced.

  Secondly, because of the importance of the agricultural sector in the accessing countries, and the huge financial transfers to which these countries will be entitled. With regard to this aspect of the accession process, it needs to be said that the level of subsidies provided to the agricultural sector in these countries will be lower, until 2014, than for the current member States only because the current member States simply cannot afford to do better. This decision has been particularly difficult for the new member States to accept, because they considered this decision as discriminatory against their own, largely agrarian, population.

• The challenge is also of a political nature, as was abundantly clear over the last few months:

  first, having long suffered under the objectives and methods of the Soviet era Comecon, some new member States, in particular the bigger ones, have some difficulties with the constraints of the "community method".

  secondly, the relationship with Washington is often perceived as equidistant from the one with Brussels, regarding foreign and defense policy. Let us not forget that this is also the case for some current members States of the Union. In other words, there is basically nothing new about this situation, and the European Union has always been able to cope with it in a harmonious way because the principle of the European Union is not and will never be antagonistic to the United States or to NATO, but it nevertheless remains a political challenge for the Union.

In addition to these 10 countries, I should add that negotiations for the 2007 accession of Romania and Bulgaria are ongoing, and the European Council will discuss the future of negotiations with Turkey during its December 2003 meeting. Let me point out that the issue of Turkey remains for the moment unresolved, essentially because of lingering human rights problems, and not for religious reasons as is frequently mentioned on this side of the Atlantic.

A final observation in this regard: outsiders often talk about the "boundaries" of Europe, implying that the ultimate objective of the Union should be to recreate Carolus Magnus’s Catholic Empire of the Middle Ages versus the outside world.

I wish to deny this not only on the basis of the current discussion about the European Constitution which I will address in a minute, but also on the basis of the current thinking and debate which are talking place inside the Union regarding its relations with what are referred to as the "neighboring countries", like Russia, Ukraine, and other Central-Asian States, as well as the Maghreb-countries, and Israel.

I cannot tell you about the results of this thinking because it is still far from concluded, but I simply wanted to mention it in order to make clear that the European Union is definitely a political project with continent-wide ambitions of economic growth, democracy and respect for human rights, which are not different from the ambitions of the United States of America, as we all know.

The adoption of a Constitutional Treaty

The second major political endeavor the Union has embarked upon is the adoption of a Constitutional Treaty, and has now reached the last phase of this process for the soon-to-be 25 member States. This initiative was launched by Belgium during its Presidency of the Union in 2001, with the purpose of consolidating the legal base on which the Union is founded.

This treaty was drafted in a year’s time by a Convention of representatives of the 25 member States, and was presented officially to the governments of these States last July. The result of this Convention goes far beyond what was expected in the beginning, which by the way, happens quite frequently in the European Union. Indeed, in addition to collating existing documents, the work of the Convention developed in a sort of "soul-searching" exercise with the purpose of trying to better define what this European Union is and what it actually wants to achieve.

Honestly, the result is not exactly what you could call "appealing", as it is a 3- volume reader-unfriendly book, that probably none of the soon-to-be 480 million Europeans apart from the drafters will ever read. Let us please not compare it too much to the American Constitution, a true model of philosophical perspective and clarity of expression that we all admire.

With regard to the future European Constitution, I do not think we lacked Luminaries such as Jefferson or Adams, but the process did involve 25 sovereign countries with an equal say, represented by more than 1000 participants and pressure groups of all kinds, an exercise that is in essence quite different from the one that took place in Philadelphia in 1786.

So even if humility is in order regarding the appeal of the document it is the fact of having a common Constitution ratified by the population of the 25 member countries that is a completely unseen challenge in History, and I think that is what should be remembered.

The finalization of the Constitutional Treaty will happen as follows: first, a process called ICG (Inter-governmental Conference) started on 4 October at the level of Heads of Government and Ministers of Foreign Affairs with the purpose of finalizing the outcome of the Convention. If everything goes according to schedule, the Constitution in its final form should be adopted at the end of this negotiation by all member governments, and ratified at a later stage, sometimes after a referendum procedure, with all the risks involved.

As for the Constitutional Treaty itself, in its present from it creates new high-profile EU policies and very visible political positions that are now missing, and an increase in the powers of the European Parliament. It will also include a very important Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the Citizen. The Constitution has 3 parts, namely:

• the constitutional architecture

• the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

• the policies and functioning of the Union.

I made copies of the politically most important articles of parts I and II of the Constitution because I would like to address with you some issues that are now being debated. I have spared you most of part II, and the whole of part III, which is definitely unreadable.

Main issues in the on-going debate on the Constitution:

1. Fundamentals:

The "God" issue: regarding the concept of "values", the Preamble of the Constitution states the following: "Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, the values of which, still present in its heritage, have embedded within the life of society the central role of the human person and his or her inviolable and inalienable rights, and respect for law…". Some member States want an explicit reference to Christianity, but others consider that the present formulation is preferable;

Fundamental rights of the citizens (Part I, Title II): a Charter on these rights would be included in the Constitution, based on many international Conventions and treaties that not all 25 member States have yet ratified. I do not want to enter into the details, but you are aware that there are diverging views among EU member States regarding labor regulations, abortion, etc.

defense policy (Part I, Title V, art. 40): this article defends the importance of close cooperation and improved capabilities of the Union in the filed of defense policy, and clearly states that "this policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defense policy of certain member States and shall respect the obligations of certain member States, which see their common defense realized in NATO, and be compatible with the common security and defense policy established within that framework."

This article, which none of the 25 governments concerned has disputed, should, in my view, reassure anyone about the intentions of the Union towards NATO.

The draft Constitution also states that "those member States whose military capabilities fulfill higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish structured cooperation within the Union framework". This part of the Article constitutes an endorsement of the initiative taken by Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg in April of this year to accelerate the process of defense cooperation among European countries. The UK has recently given its support to this initiative, although with some constructive suggestions for improvement.

Establishment of the Union

The "F-word", meaning "Federation" is not mentioned in the draft Constitution, which prefers to speak of building European ties "in the community way". Article 1.1 of Part I states: "Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common. The Union shall coordinate the policies by which the Member States aim to achieve these objectives, and shall exercise in the Community way the competences they confer on it.

1. Institutions

I want to address briefly some of the legal technicalities of the Convention because, maybe to your surprise, they will definitely be the most difficult to resolve during the current negotiation, because they will create the balance of power inside this area of 25 sovereign countries, i.e., the balance of power between the European Commission and the member States, which reflects the permanent debate between the "federalists" and the "inter-governmentalists", and also among member States themselves, particularly the smaller ones who fear being marginalized by the bigger ones in the new decision-making structure.

President of the Council of Ministers: the proposal is to replace the current 6-month rotation system by the appointment of a President who would have a mandate for a period of 2 to 3 years, instead of the current system wherein the office of the President is held by the Head of government of the country holding the Presidency for 6 months.

This change is intended to provide a better continuity to the conduct of European affairs.

However, this proposal is being resisted by smaller countries, Belgium among them, which fear that this post will always be filled by one of the seven big EU member States;

Composition of the European Commission: instead of the current rule of 1 or 2 members of the European Commission with voting rights per member country, the proposal is to have still 1 member of the European Commission per member country, but only 15 of them would have voting rights, whereas 10 would not have such a right.

Here, too, smaller countries, among them Belgium, fear losing ground to the bigger countries of the Union.

Minister of Foreign Affairs: a new post of EU Foreign Minister, with the rank of Vice-President of the Commission, would be created, with the purpose of giving the Union more visibility on the world stage. The precise responsibilities of this new high-profile position is still a matter for debate among member States, but it is interesting to note that these responsibilities will also involve to some extent, defense matters.

It is now time to conclude this presentation. I am, of course, ready to answer or at least try to answer the questions that you would like to ask me or comments that you would like to make. My purpose in doing this presentation was to introduce you to the issues that are of primary importance for Europe, so that you understand why all priorities of our friend and ally, the United States, cannot always be considered with the same degree of priority on our side of the Atlantic.

The diplomatic work between the United States and the EU, therefore, consists in finding as many areas of cooperation as possible, with due respect by each to the other’s agendas and priorities.

Thank you for your attention.