助成

Institute forInternational Policy Studies
・Tokyo・

IIPS International Conference“Enlargement and Future of Europe 2002”
Tokyo, 12-14 November

Opening StatementbyAmbassador Bernhard Zepter
Head of the Delegation of the European Commission
in Japan

IIPS Conference"Enlargement and the Future of the EU"
Tokyo, 12-14 November
Opening StatementbyAmbassador Bernhard Zepter
Head of the Delegation of the European Commission
in Japan1

I.
Since the creation of the European Economic Communities in 1957 one crucial question wasoften raised but never definitively resolved : what should be the geographical scope of European
integration and who should belong to this process ? It is quite characteristic of the EU's
development that the matter has so far been handled pragmatically, avoiding lengthy academic
discussions
The Founding Fathers concentrated on those countries on European soil which were ready tointegrate in one single political and economic entity. Their objective was clearly political :"Never again war between us !" As political unity, at this juncture, was not attainable evenamong the first six member states, the Founding Fathers turned to the economy. After all, it was
the economy which constituted the material basis for aggression. Control of steel and coalproduction meant controlling the potential for hostilities and frictions.
But integration in the economic field had also an important political and cultural spill-over.
Unity proved to be mutually advantageous, through the creation of a big homogeneous market
with new business opportunities. At the same time it established political stability and opened
minds to new cultural horizons.
However, when other European countries queued to join the EEC it was mainly to profit from its
economic advantages. This was particularly true for former EFTA countries like the UK and
Denmark, which gladly embraced the idea of a common market but had misgivings as to its
political objectives.
Not that the old countries of the EEC were monolithic in their claim for political integration. De
Gaulle did not like the idea at all at the beginning of his presidential mandate, and Konrad
Adenauer had a hard time to convince him that his policy of an empty chair in Brussels were not
in France's long-term interest. German-French friendship policy finally overcame French
reluctance. The General's change of mind became obvious when he blocked the first enlargementin his attempt to save the political part of European integration against a presumed anglo-saxon
agenda to dilute the EEC into a mere free trade area.
It is important to keep this historical background in mind when analysing the present situation in
the EU with respect to enlargement and when looking to the future of the European Union.
Dividing interests are still very much present in today's discussion. They explain a certain
nervousness amongst some Member States, in particular the smaller ones.
However, the European Commission as chief negotiator and guardian of the Treaty has tried tobring forward both enlargement and institutional reform in the most professional way, responding
to specific political and economic needs and taking into account the need for the European
Institutions to function well.
Anyhow, the logic of European construction pushes governments towards more integration,
whether they like it or not : it does not make sense to establish a common currency and, at thesame time, block progress in terms of economic governance or CFSP. You cannot have a single
2

market and tell people that each nation has to take its own decisions when external security issues
are at stake.
If the European Union wants to exist as an international actor it has to foster togetherness.
Otherwise, the European continent will simply be unimportant, a nice-looking open air museum
for foreign visitors, cosy and enjoyable but not a driving force in shaping our interests and oursociety in a globalised world.
In order to respond to these challenges, the EU has no choice but to go ahead. None of theimportant discussions of the past offered simple solutions. Seen from a Japanese perspective itvery often appeared as a miracle that we realised our objectives. But since the EU has crossed a
critical stage, in particular the establishment of the single market and the introduction of theEURO, there is no other choice than to move further ahead toward integration. Not to go thisway would start a process of unravelling what has already been achieved. The EU therefore reallyis a pioneer country. In order to advance we need to take risks and look towards the future, notbackwards, to the days when wars and civil wars threatened our societies.
I see four major issues which we have to tackle in the coming years :II.
Firstly, Enlargement is at present the most important issue at stake. A major breakthroughhas been achieved recently, at the European Council Meeting in Brussels. Following the
proposals of the Commission, the European Union has agreed on its position for the last, mostdisputed chapters of the enlargement negotiations, namely on agriculture, structural policy
and budget related issues. The door is now wide open for the final round of negotiations with
the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia
and Slovenia. These negotiations should be concluded by the end of the year. The signatureof the accession treaties is scheduled to take place under the Greek Presidency at Athens in
April 2003. Rumania and Bulgaria now have a clearly defined perspective to finish
negotiations in 2007. Only Turkey still has some homework to do before meaningfulnegotiations will start.
If Member States keep their promises as far as the ratification of the accession treaties isconcerned, then the ten candidate countries I have mentioned may become full members of
the EU by January 2004.
Experience tells us, however, that ratification is a cumbersome procedure and thatpsychological factors might prolong this process, for instance because of the election of a new
European Parliament or the need to nominate a new Commission at the end of 2004.
The ratification process also coincides with the work of the Convention on the future of theEuropean Union. The Convention is timed to present its conclusions during the Greek
Presidency, at the latest at the European Council in June
The timely adoption of a new EU Treaty depends, however, on two assumptions:

3

The speedy establishment of an Intergovernmental Conference after the presentation of thereport from the Convention and the adoption of a special procedure for the deliberations
during the IGC. In particular, they must avoid reopening the discussion in substance. An
unambiguous signal is therefore needed - at the highest political level - that therecommendations of the Convention will constitute the basis for an agreement on the future
shape of the EU.
Enlargement will, formally, not be affected by the work of the Convention. It is true that the
Nice Treaty has not brought about all the substantial reforms which many, and in particular
the European Commission, had originally called for. The difficulties we witnessed inconjunction with what I would call "the battle of Ireland" on the ratification of the Nice
Treaty were good indicators in this regard. But this is not what really matters. What mattersis the explicit understanding of the European Council that Nice has paved the way towards
enlargement and that the Nice Treaty constitutes its institutional basis.
However, there were not only institutional shortcomings, like majority voting or the role of
the European Commission in an enlarged EU, but also more narrowly defined pending issues
which rendered enlargement this time so difficult. Two major breakthroughs in the 90's,
namely the completion of the single market and the introduction of the euro madeenlargement this time more complicated than in the past. Whereas in earlier times,
enlargement was easier to organise as the border controls still existed thus allowing lengthy"phasing-in" periods, the 5th enlargement now envisaged will not allow derogations which
would impede to the functioning of the internal market and its four established liberties (freemovement of goods, services, capital and labour).
Given the relatively low level of their GDP and the substantial number of the newcomers, thisaccession constitutes a sea-change for well established common policies as well.
One dividing issue is agriculture : The results achieved in Brussels at the end of October are
helpful in the sense that they have established a guideline for the conclusion of negotiations
with the candidate countries. The solution consists in a "freeze" of the present level of
expenditure (plus one percent "inflation compensation") until the expiry of the next financial
package. Implicitly, this also means agreement on the duration of the next package (7 years)
and of the general rule that EU expenditure must not exceed 1.27 % of its GDP.
From the point of view of the Commission, while applauding the agreement necessary forenlargement, there is a double question mark : how can one agree on the future shape of theEU, including maybe new responsibilities while at the same time establishing a ceiling withrespect to future expenditure ? And secondly, what about the need for a fundamental
overhaul of the common Agricultural Policy with a view to reducing subsidies by better
distinguishing between competitive and non-competitive farms ? What about the need torespond to legitimate requests of WTO to accept international rules for more open markets inthis sector ?
Another complex issue is the preservation of the principle of solidarity within the EU, in
particular through financial programmes like the structural or the cohesion funds. Onceagain, enlargement raises crucial questions concerning the repartition of EU assets. In
4accepting eight new countries with a GDP well below the average EU level, the mathematicalformulae used so far will render the presently poorer countries and regions of the EU
relatively speaking richer by lowering the average GDP of the EU in the future. And thiswithout so much as one more euro for the present beneficiaries of the funds.
In order to cope with this situation, the European Council had to agree on the capping ofassistance for the newcomers, and the establishment of long-lasting transitional periods. Thisdecision was certainly politically wise and the only means to maintain the timetable forenlargement. But it does not necessarily correspond to the principles of equality and equal
treatment.
But all in all the process of the next enlargement has so far gone ahead astonishingly
smoothly, despite its political, financial and economic dimension. One can witness what
Jacques Delors called a "rendez-vous avec l'histoire". Nobody wants to miss this party.
Second issue :The Convention.
If, from the point of view of institutional reforms, the results of the Nice Council were limited,the decision at Nice to convoke a Convention was of the utmost importance. The idea cameup as a consequence of :the successful experience in conjunction with the Charter on European Fundamental Rights.
Indeed the Convention turned out to be astonishingly efficient despite the greater number ofparticipants and the fact that deliberations took place in public. It was in particular theparticipation of members of the European Parliament and of national parliaments, aswell as the transparency of the process, which contributed to its success. Discussions
focussed mainly on political questions, and to a much lesser extent on technical and tacticalaspects as is normally the case in an Intergovernmental Conference.
Heads of State and Government were fairly impressed in Nice by the success of the formuladeveloped for the Convention. The broader participation and the involvement of the politicallevel from the outset added to the democratic legitimacy and the political impact of its
recommendations. The Convention appeared as the core of a constitutional assembly, taking
into account the fact that many elements of the European Treaties affect national constitutions.
There was broad agreement that the fundamental rights, in the simple and clear language inwhich they were drafted, should constitute an integral part of the Treaties, thereby
strengthening their constitutional character. But the time was not yet ripe for such a bolddecision. The European Council agreed instead to call in another Convention, this time inan even broader composition, with candidate countries and representatives of otherinstitutions and civil society as non-voting members or observers.
In Nice its mandate was still limited : its main task was to be the integration of
fundamental rights into the Treaties. But the Convention was also intended to bring abouta clearer definition of the objectives and responsibilities in the future EU, the simplificationof the Treaties, including their separation into a fundamental and a more technical part, and5

the clarification of the role of national parliaments in the European architecture. It was
obvious that all four elements of the mandate would lead to a much broader discussion on the
future character of the EU. The Belgian Presidency at Laeken took advantage of thisinterpretation and succeeded in convincing the European Council to agree on a very
comprehensive mandate for the broad discussion on the future shape and role of the EU.
Under the Chairmanship of Giscard d'Estaing the work of the Convention is on schedule.
There is a feeling among its members that, like the Founding Fathers, they will be witnesses
and instigators of a new era in the construction of European Unity. The notion of aconstitution seems already largely to be accepted. Giscard d'Estaing has recently presented
an outline of the possible outcome of the final recommendations. Intellectuallystimulating as it is, it nevertheless reflects to a large ex t ent a very traditional French
inclination towards inter-governmentalism. There has always in the past been also a
temptation to concentrate on procedures instead of substance. It is not in adding new
structures and functions that the EU will reach its crucial objectives, which should be
efficiency and democratic legitimacy.
The first question which the Convention had to tackle was therefore the definition of goals
and responsibilities. Then followed the examination of the appropriate institutional
structure in order to achieve these goals. It is not very revolutionary to ask for a strong andpowerful Europe, capable of playing a role as an actor on the world stage. This has been
done many times in the past. It is much more difficult to define this role, and the appropriate
structure, in the light of experience gained so far.
The most important results which we could possibly obtain from the Convention would
therefore in my view be
a solid and lasting legal structure in the form of a European Constitution;a clear response to the question of "who is doing what at which level", which
implies further clarification about what principles like subsidiarity and proportionality
really mean and how they can be applied.
the strengthening of integration through the application of the Community
method, as integration is the most suitable tool to act efficiently.
increasing democratic legitimacy and accountability by strengthening the links
between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; andan institutional structure as simple as possible, based on the fundamental
principles of European governance, namely the appropriate balance of power between
the European institutions.
Commission, Council and European Parliament have to look at their working methods as well,and to take into account the increasing number of Member States. They need to address decision
making procedures as well as language regime, the structure of working meetings, andfinancing.
The third big issue of EU policy for the coming years must be to restructure and to re-launch
the economy . Let us face it : the present economic slow-down is unprecedented andtroublesome. 8,000 billion US $ of destroyed equity wealth worldwide, deflation, excess
capacity, a general loss of consumer confidence, the threat of a war in Iraq, savage terrorism
6

which targets our open and free society, a global "malaise" concerning corporate governance :there are many reasons to be concerned. Bold decisions are required, not medicines which curethe symptoms and leave the decease untreated. Cooperation between the leading industrial
actors is therefore of the essence. But also political courage to proceed with a root and branch
restructuring of our economy.
The EU has shown its determination to face the new challenges : In Lisbon, in 2000 theEuropean Council agreed on the so-called Lisbon Strategy to transform the EU into "the mostcompetitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy, capable of sustainable economic growthwith more and better jobs and greater social cohesion in the world". This strategy was further
refined in Stockholm in 2001 by adding sustainable development as a benchmark. The Lisbon
strategy sets out a number of ambitious targets to be measured by appropriate economic
indicators : employment, development of new technologies and markets, e.g. by modernising theEuropean Social Market, protection of the environment, boosting R & D and innovation ,spending more on education, completing the internal market and defining the appropriate macroeconomic policy mix.
The means to achieve these objectives were, amongst other things, programmes for building
knowledge infrastructure, enhancing innovation and economic reform, and modernising thesocial welfare and education systems on the basis of a stability-oriented monetary policy, andsound fiscal policies.
The EU has therefore not only established a solid and ambitious policy framework for its future
development, but has also agreed on how to proceed in the framework of a process constantly
monitored and updated by the Commission. Every spring, the European Council is now called
upon to take stock and to advance this process.
Japan and the EU can learn from each other how to cope with the challenges of an open market
economy by means of modernisation and adaptation, and by preserving the specificities of oursocieties and the values and preferences they imply. I think that we have indeed a common
responsibility to re-establish confidence in our political and economic system which appears to beunder attack both from a blind fundamentalism and - let us be frank - from the mistakes anddeficiencies in our own economic and monetary systems.
Let me conclude on a last issue which constitutes, in my view, a key challenge for the future of
the EU and which is linked to the development of all our respective societies in a free anddemocratic world : I refer to the need to reflect on the role of the civil society in the process ofdecision making. In the case of the EU, this need is particularly acute : European integration
can only be achieved from the grassroots and not only through means of blueprints drawn up by
skilled architects of European unity. We need leadership, no doubt, to achieve our objectives.
But we also need to bring the people with us on the way to reshaping the political landscape inEurope. The quest for European identity and political ownership by the citizens of ourcontinent has for too long been neglected. The European Unification Process therefore looks
more like a grand design by elites, and only to a lesser extent like a political process shaped bydemocratic participation. Democratisation of these procedures and the development of aclearly identifiable European civil society must be essential elements in our endeavours.
7What is our final objective ? Do we want to become a nation state at a higher level according toMontesquieu's rules of past centuries ? Do we want to build something new, with no reference tohistorical examples, but which responds to our need for a modern society, open to the world,allowing freedom of action and individuality at the same time as the rule of law, togetherness,solidarity and peace?
Few intellectuals so far have focussed on the pioneering character of European unification
searching for practical answers to these questions.
Everybody agrees that the EU should be something different from a nation state but more than aninternational organisation . This is not very enlightening. The German philosopher Peter
Sloterdijk has suggested viewing the European Union as a kind of university where people learn
to live and work together and better to understand notions like solidarity and tolerance. I likethis idea, but it is certainly a rather idealistic approach which neglects the political and economic
dimensions. Let us be more down to earth : the EU is the answer to what the people wanted after
too many bloody wars and civil wars on European soil - a solid political process which brings
about peace and prosperity and which frees the European nations from the very egocentric andnarrow world view of the small to medium-size countries which deep down, they all know they
are, despite their sometimes glorious or not so glorious pasts.
In this sense European Unity is more a process than a goal. The institutional framework is
tailored to solve specific problems, when they come up, in a step-by-step process. This is abottom-up not a top-down concept and a future European constitution should reflect this.
Maybe one day a new Montesquieu will emerge to shape this new concept of statehood. It is in
this perspective that the construction of the European Union is so exiting - precisely because itshows the most promise of becoming our answer to dealing with the unsettling challenges ofglobalisation.

8