archived page

Key Points of Lecture "The Future of the EU: Three Basic Requirements"

Rome, 18.1.2011  |  speech


Alert  To view this content, JavaScript must be enabled, and you need the latest version of the Adobe Flash Player.

Download the free Flash Player now!

Adobe Flash Player


Key Points of Lecture by Dr Danilo Türk, President of the Republic of Slovenia, at the University La Sapienza entitled "The Future of the EU: Three Basic Requirements"
Rome, 18 January 2011


The Slovenian President, Dr Danilo Türk, gives a lecture at "La Sapienza" university in Rome on the future of the European Union (Stanko Gruden/STA)Honourable professor Luigi Frati, Rector of the University La Sapienza,
Distinguished professors and guests,
Dear students,

It is a special privilege and honour to have the opportunity to speak at the illustrious University La Sapienza in Rome and to address a subject of utmost importance – the future of the European Union.

University La Sapienza is one of the oldest and most prestigious European universities. For centuries it has served as the centre of thought and wisdom – so aptly expressed in its name. It has been closely associated with the development of scientific thought and European culture, and - since the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 – with the evolution of the European communities and, later, the European Union. Therefore I find it most adequate to share with you today some of my thoughts on the key questions of the future of the European Union.

It is no secret that today the European Union is facing serious challenges – both from within as well as in its relation to the global environment. The place of the EU in an increasingly competitive and multipolar global environment is not guaranteed. Serious effort is required in order to ensure that the EU achieves a leading role.

The question is what needs to be done. But before answering this question a few remarks on the recent experience in the EU development is in order. Three features have left a particular mark on the evolution of the EU in the last decade.

First, the eastward expansion of the EU has been a great success. It has enlarged the size of the market, brought additional industrial capacity and manpower and has increased economic and political stability in Europe. The EU has not yet given sufficient thought to this momentous achievement. Just consider this: The financial markets today consider Eastern and Central Europe a lower risk than Western Europe. The future lies in the East. Europe clearly needs a coherent "Ostpolitik".

Second, the EU has strengthened its "institutional optimism". Institutional optimism has, of course, always been a feature of the European integration, but that optimism was particularly high at the time of the preparation of the Lisbon Treaty. The belief that things happen as a result of norms and institutions has become very strong. It suggests that the strengthened institutions and norms of the European Union would in some way automatically establish a meaningful global role for the organization.

And third and somewhat paradoxically, The Lisbon Strategy, a document that was adopted several years earlier concerning economic and social development of the EU countries, had not been successful. What happened as a result was a kind of a dichotomy or perhaps even a contradiction – an institutionally optimistic approach simultaneous with an experience, which did not support the expectation that the European Union could improve its competitiveness, ensure its social cohesion and make itself a leading power of world development. This is how the basic problem of the EU became apparent, albeit not yet dramatic.

This had been the situation until recently, when the situation deteriorated and has now become a matter of concern as a result of the current financial crisis, which has revealed the weaknesses of the EU as a project. The Euro crisis has given rise to a certain amount of pessimism at home, in the European Union, and to critical views outside the European Union.

Today we are faced with a psychological situation, which calls for a very careful assessment. It is important not to submit to the fashionable sentiment of Euro-pessimism. In an effort to achieve a realistic assessment, it is important to remind ourselves that the European Union is constructed on the very solid foundation of shared values, such as peace, liberty, solidarity and the market economy; great values, which have brought stability, an unprecedented level of stability to the European continent. The solid basis of the EU continues to be a source of hope and promise for the future. Moreover, the European Union continues to represent a formidable economic force in any international comparison and a significant market for its major partners – as recognized by China in its recent statements and action.

The basis for recovery and improvement exists. However, in talking about the need to develop the European Union into a major global player, the question arises: what would make the European Union into such a player?

The Slovenian President, Dr Danilo Türk, gives a lecture at "La Sapienza" university in Rome on the future of the European Union (Stanko Gruden/STA)There are three essential requirements that must be met.

The first is the need to deal successfully with the current euro crisis. The European Union must demonstrate its effectiveness in crisis management in order to preserve and further develop the European economic and social model and the credibility it needs at the international level to become effective as an international player.

Second, and very important, the European Union must develop a clearer sense of hierarchy among its geopolitical priorities, and a more coherent foreign and security policy. Contours of such a common foreign and security policy exist. However, they do not yet represent a fully-fledged policy. A EU-wide Ostpolitik should be at the center of this policy.

Third, the European Union needs to develop a realistic and honest policy on human rights, both at home and internationally. It must strengthen its own social basis and exert its moral influence internationally. In other words, it has to demonstrate its seriousness about human rights.


1. The current financial crisis and the efforts to define the way out

The financial crisis of 2010 has revealed the weaknesses of the Union and shows that the monetary and fiscal framework of the European monetary union is incomplete. The rules based framework of fiscal policy created by the Excessive Deficit Procedure and, above all, by the Stability and Growth Pact, was insufficient to prevent the current debt crisis, despite its stringent rules – demanding low budget deficits and budgetary planning. It should also be borne in mind that those very rules had been violated in the past by some of the key members of the European Union and that, of course, has diminished the authority of those rules and of the whole system.

Following the financial crisis in Greece, the EU established the European Financial Stability Facility, which amounts in total, including the part provided by the International Monetary Fund, to 750 billion euro. This facility has been put to the test in dealing with the financial crisis in Ireland. It provided the necessary liquidity and offered a temporary relief. However, the question of external debt of that country and the matter of the insolvency of the banks will require a wider package, which will take some time to work out, and policy measures need to be put in place.

The question of debt restructuring continues to loom large on the horizon. The first set of measures hitherto adopted have, as usual, left the issue of debt restructuring for the future. The nations in question and their public finance systems alone are unlikely to be able to resolve the problem.

In the meantime the European Council agreed on the establishment of a permanent crisis resolution mechanism, which would provide funds to address, after 2013, when the current EFSF expires, any future situation similar to that of Greece or Ireland. That agreement created a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment across the EU. However, important questions were delayed: How would the new system work? Who would initiate the process: only the EU member state in question or the European Commission, or somebody else, a new organ of the EU perhaps? Which organ should conduct negotiations between the debtor country and creditors? Should the permanent crisis mechanism be primarily addressing the issues of liquidity or should it also be there to deal with questions of the insolvency of debtor states?

Another major legal policy and strategic question is the role of the International Monetary Fund in this system. Given its resources and experience, the International Monetary Fund is useful in such situations. It will probably also have to be kept in the picture for the permanent crisis resolution mechanism. How that would work and what role it would have is something to be discussed further.

The introduction of the European Crisis Resolution Mechanism has established a modicum of financial stability in the euro area and, through it, the necessary credibility of the European Union. However, further changes are likely to be necessary, including strengthened policy coordination and, possibly establishment of a fiscal union. This might be necessary because unless the system integrates further, it may in fact come to a split of the European Union, or even the euro zone area, into two parts: those who need credit for overcoming their financial difficulties and those who are constantly being asked to supply the funds.

You can well imagine that this is an extremely sensitive political matter for a country like Slovenia. Our country is making serious efforts to ensure its continued financial stability and is keeping its public expenditure firmly under control. However, in the recent crises it has started to play a donor role twice in a short period of time. This hasn’t been easy politically. Slovenia joined the euro zone and the Schengen area in 2007. Since then our people have accepted the euro as their currency; nobody is thinking about alternatives. Nevertheless, when we are told to demonstrate solidarity with regard to situations resulting from problematic financial practices and irresponsible economic behaviour, then you can clearly imagine the political difficulties that arise. We would feel much more comfortable if real and not only temporary or partial answers were given to the problems of the euro zone today.

Let us therefore turn again to the question of debt restructuring. Nobody denies that the issue needs to be addressed. The question is when and how. While the technical expertise and experience for such an operation exist, not least in the IMF, the political will is lacking. But the problem is there and will have to be addressed.

Ideally, the solutions were designed in a systemic manner that would demonstrate commitment of the EU and its members to their common institutions and the irreversibility of the euro and, at the same time provide the necessary long-term clarity to global financial markets. In this context, it is worth stressing that a meaningful proposal was made already in early December last year – by the Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg and Giulio Tremonti, the minister of economy and finance of Italy. The proposal suggested launching E-bonds, to be issued by a new institution the EU would establish for that purpose. While the proposal was not accepted immediately, it is nevertheless worth further consideration in the effort to find a real and systemic solution to the current crisis.

Is the EU capable of developing a comprehensive response? Nobody can be sure of that. But let us look at the more optimistic side. The European Community was able earlier on to turn crises into opportunities. The "euro sclerosis of 1980s" is an example. That situation led to the Single European Act, adopted in 1986. A few years later the EU moved decisively from its Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) towards the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). That progress proved to be decisive for the overcoming of the currency crises of 1992 and 1993.

The institutional optimism, which ensued and helped in the subsequent establishing of the euro, was well founded. Today we should also recall and pay tribute to the leadership of that era. A few weeks ago Europe and the international financial community was saddened by the news of passing of Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, an eminent central banker and economist whose analysis and leadership helped the European Community to take the right decisions in 1980s and 1990s. His kind of penetrating analysis and creative proposals are strongly needed today. Indeed, progress always requires leadership.

Financial issues of today are of the most immediate importance for the future of the EU. But there is more to do. Greater cohesion and competitiveness will require action in other fields as well. One of them– we should not forget – is the completion of the single market. Mario Monti, another prominent Italian economist and an EU Leader, produced an important report in May last year, which enabled the European Commission to launch, in September last year a project programme titled " Single Market Act" (SMA). The single market has been established, but there are tasks that remain. The EU member states need to remove the existing legal, tax, technological and other barriers which today prevent businesses, consumers and employees to operate throughout the EU. The EU has to create conditions for stronger growth, and the finalization of the single market is among the most important ones. Removing barriers and making the most of the digital economy is essential for stronger competitiveness and improved social cohesion within the EU.

All this constitutes the agenda for strengthening the European Union as an economic and social system, an economic and financial system. The strength of the system is a fundamental requirement for its global role. You can see that this requirement is far from being met. The European Union must put its house in order if it wishes to play an active and meaningful global role.


2. Foreign policy priorities

It is axiomatic that a coherent foreign policy is a sine qua non for a meaningful international role of a state or, for that matter of the EU. However, coherence is not easy to establish. The European Union is not a nation state. The German Constitutional Court reminded us of that in its pronouncement in June 2009, very clearly and in a very detailed fashion. Creating a common EU policy is something that takes time and effort.

The creation of the External Service, which has consumed a great deal of energy last year, was necessary, but the question is whether it is decisive. I’m not sure about it. The European Union must do two things. It must improve its institutional system but, above all, it must define the hierarchy among its foreign policy priorities. These two tasks might look a little like the chicken and egg dilemma. What comes first? Can institutions like an external service be expected to be put to good use if the priorities have not yet been determined? Alternatively, could one say that it is possible for the foreign service to help in articulating priorities with greater clarity? Be that as it may, I believe that although it’s wise to have an improved external service, it’s even more important to have clear priorities.

What should those priorities be? Le me make three suggestions: The first foreign policy priority should be the cooperation with the countries of the Eastern Partnership and the Russian Federation. The second priority should be the expansion or enlargement of EU membership with the Balkan countries and Turkey. The third should be visa liberalization.

This definition may look surprising, given the whole range of issues that the European Union is addressing and the variety of priorities that are normally proposed in the literature. However, there is very good reason, an existential reason, for the European Union to look eastwards, towards the Ukraine, towards Russia, towards countries of the Eastern Partnership.

A. J. P. Taylor, a famous British historian once explained that the solution to the problem of Europe and its security and prosperity is to spread the industrial power from the West to the Centre and the East. Developments after World War II and, in particular in the period following the Cold War have proven him right. The eastward expansion of the European Union six years ago was a major success - it has brought additional power, prosperity, freedom and security to Europe, and thus it should continue.

There are also other reasons for the eastward expansion. Russia is fairly open today. Russia is interested in modernization. This presents a serious opportunity for the European Union. Modernization in Russia, or in any other country, does not just mean technological improvement. It also means improvement in the legal system, which is vital for the functioning of a sophisticated economy and necessary for further strengthening the economic and social prosperity of the country. All that is understood today.

There are also other, more immediate reasons for an eastward priority of the EU. They include, prominently, energy and energy security.

The general security has also improved, including in the strengthening of the NATO-Russia partnership, expressed most visibly at the NATO summit last November in Lisbon. Confidence has been growing. It is too early to judge whether it will last. There might be setbacks, but it is very positive that NATO and Russia have reached the point at which they are today.

It is also clear that all the positive developments that can happen in the field of security, in the narrow definition, must be underpinned by a stronger basis of cooperation through a fabric of economic cooperation that only the European Union can provide. There are also very good security reasons to complement what is being achieved in NATO-Russia relations, with corresponding progress in EU–Russia relations.

That merely sketches out priority number one, the importance of Russia and countries of the Eastern partnership. That priority has to include Ukraine, which deserves the European perspective. That must be there and other countries of the Eastern Partnership must also be addressed in a manner that serves their legitimate interests, as well as those of the European Union.

The second priority relates to the Western Balkans. In that regard, the programme of enlargement is fairly well defined. It is clear what these countries must do. The European Union must make sure that the European perspective for them remains real. The countries in question must be absolutely clear in their understanding that fulfillment of membership criteria is essential. There are no shortcuts. There is no way of circumventing the membership criteria, and that includes cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia in every detail. I say this because this element is sometimes rather blurred in the wider discussion that is inspired by good will and noble intentions. It must be quite clear that full cooperation with the ICTY, including the apprehension of General Mladiæ and handing him over to ICTY for trial is part of the membership criteria.

In its policy towards the Balkans the EU has to pay special attention to Bosnia and Herzegovina, a fragile but also central state in the Balkans. Bosnia is a place of delicate ethnic balance and home to an important, historically established and, importantly, European Muslim population. As such it is a test case for coexistence in Europe and an asset for the European Union. The EU should be able to develop a welcoming approach to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which will demonstrate both the needed care on the side of the EU and the growing maturity of the complex polity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Many international actors will have to be involved with the process, including, in addition to the EU, the US, Russia and Turkey. The neighbouring Serbia and Croatia can also help and their role is likely to become more sophisticated if more indirect as the one envisaged in the Dayton Peace Agreement of 1995.

Turkey has been waiting for serious negotiations for too long. There are obstacles to fulfillment of the membership criteria. Some of them are real, but they must not be allowed to serve as an excuse for immobility or even as a cover for prejudice. This distinction is important, although the European Union does not always make it with sufficient clarity. But the EU must be clear: Turkey is a major strategic and economic asset for the European Union and there is no valid, logical reason against its further progress towards membership. Turkey’s membership in the EU will not happen overnight. Fulfilling the criteria is a requirement there, too, but there should be no excuse for immobility, let alone for cultural or other prejudice.

Finally, visa liberalization. I believe that we must think about visa liberalization in new ways. In all the countries to the east of the EU there is a need to normalize the movement of their people to the countries of the EU. This is necessary also in order to establish a sufficiently broad and solid human base for future arrangements and, where possible and necessary, the membership in the EU.

Freedom of movement is a human right. That freedom includes the right to leave one’s own country and to return to one’s own country, but it does not include the right to enter a foreign country. However, liberalization of movement is in the interest of human rights and has to be seen in that light. There are problems related to security and crime, but these problems must be addressed in a targeted manner, not with a generalized regime that prevents people from communicating. There are thousands of students, journalists, normal people, who want to travel more freely. Europe must do more to make that happen. This is needed for practical reasons and as part of European commitment to human rights.


3. Human rights

Human rights represent a fundamental value for the European Union and a fundamental element of its foreign policy. Much has been achieved and the European Union is currently preparing to become a party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The agenda of human rights at home has to be approached with great sensitivity. Complacency is an enemy of human rights. Public figures in the EU countries are tempted to take the view that human rights are already guaranteed, that there is not much to do, and that what remains are essentially policy issues, which allow for a high lever of discretion.

However, there are important questions, which require a great amount of human rights sensitivity. The question of immigration and treatment of immigrants and immigrant communities is a good example. It requires both: respect for human rights standards and a sophisticated policy approach. Nothing that is done or enacted should be in contradiction with the basic tenets of human rights. Respect for human rights, respect for the rights of the individual is a basic requirement. This applies also to the question of entry of immigrants. In this regard the laws of the country of immigration apply. However, they have to be applied in a manner consistent with the standards of human rights and the principle of non-discrimination. Once legally residing in a country immigrants have to be granted human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the applicable international instruments.

Respect for cultural diversity, on the other hand, has its limits. Cultural identities, cultural traditions of immigrants, must adjust to the requirements of human rights. Culture cannot be used as a justification for any violation of human rights, such as the rights of women. There has to be a hierarchy between the human rights of individuals and the norms of traditional culture and, in case of conflict, human rights must prevail.

The necessary sense of hierarchy among the basic norms governing the situation of immigrants represents the basis of effective policy making. An important requirement of such policy making is that, where applicable, linguistic integration of immigrants is promoted with the aim of successful social integration in general. European Union should pay more systematic attention to the question of linguistic integration as a necessary ingredient of the broader policy of integration of immigrants.

In addition, access to health care and, especially, to quality education are the other key ingredients. They are crucial for the upward social mobility; and upward social mobility is the answer to the question of how a society should manage diversity resulting from recent and current migration. All this is simple enough to say. It is much harder to develop basic propositions into a comprehensive and meaningful policy. Nevertheless, clarity of the basic principles which guide policy making is helpful and the EU has to pay proper attention to them.

Clarity about basic principles is fundamental in all policy making. In the European Union today great attention needs to be paid to this requirement. Human rights standards must not be lowered. This requirement applies to policies and norms designed to counter terrorism and organized crime. It would be a mistake of historic proportions if the EU allowed lowering its human rights standards as a result of the need to increase efficiency in combating crime. We need both: effective protection of human rights and efficient ways of combating and preventing crime.

Human rights standards also have to be upheld in the political systems and in the general functioning of democracy within the EU member states. It is a subject of legitimate concern when changes in media laws create an impression that the effect - or even the purpose - of the change is the curtailment of the human right to freedom of opinion and expression. Such tendencies have to be criticized and reversed.

In short, the EU has its own domestic human rights agenda, which requires seriousness about human rights principles and standards and sophistication in policy making, which should take these principles, and standards to needed levels of achievement.

Seriousness about human rights is necessary both for EU´s cohesion and for its international role. EU foreign and security policy will be more convincing if it finds adequate ways to promote universal standards of human rights globally. This is a demanding task given the changes in the World, which have occurred in the past decades. Those of us who were involved in human rights work in 1970s and 1980s can clearly see the difference. Let us just recall how the world looked then: dictatorships in Latin America, communist rule in Eastern Europe, dictatorships in Asia and Africa.

Things have changed. The world has improved. While situations that reveal consistent patterns of gross violations of human rights still exist, they are much fewer than in the past. The world has achieved a significant improvement. I believe that we must learn to build on these successes and be aware of the complexity of implementation of human rights in situations in which development, i.e. lifting people out of extreme poverty, is the overarching priority for many governments. The European Union must find a finely tuned policy approach that would make its proposals acceptable and meaningful at the international level.

We should be worried by the fact that, at the UN today, over 60% of the UN members regularly vote against European Union proposals on human rights. We have a problem there and I would suggest reflection, starting from the fact that much has been achieved but that as a result we have a more complex and more demanding agenda to deal with today. This agenda has much to do with development and has to include recognition of the progress made where the progress is real.

The EU needs a nuance, sophisticated approach in that regard. Otherwise, we shall be faced with unnecessary and unproductive differences of opinion and conflicts of views. The European Union must avoid being perceived as lecturing or moralizing, it should refrain from vituperative statements, attempting to impose solutions. A clear distinction needs to be made between the situations of consistent patterns of massive violations of human rights and those situations, where progress in human rights is possible only in the context of cooperation and assistance. While the former require clear condemnation, the latter have to be addressed with adequate understanding of the problems involved and with proposals allowing for dialogue and common search for solutions.

This task will have to constitute a significant part of work of the organs of the EU in the areas of external relations, development assistance and common security and foreign policy. International institutions, in particular the UN, have to be used wisely. The Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations Human Rights Council is a useful mechanism. It will have to be developed through practice. The UN Human Rights Council will have to be approached as a representative body capable of expressing the priority concerns in the field of human rights and as a body which guides the international discussion on human rights towards real answers to real questions. The EU has the potential to help the Council in developing such a role. Turning that potential into a real contribution will be one of the more interesting foreign policy tasks of the Union in the years to come.

Conclusion

Let me conclude by briefly summarizing my key points. First of all, the European Union must put its house in order. It must set its foreign policy priorities with a better sense of hierarchy and it must make key areas of its policy-making, such as human rights, more sophisticated.

That, in a nutshell, is the conclusion of my talk. The promise of a global role of the EU is certainly there. This promise is not illusionary. However, in order to make it a reality, the European Union has to demonstrate its ability to turn a crisis into an opportunity. Leadership will be required. Leadership will have to come from Brussels institutions and, more importantly, from member states. Let us work together to strengthen the leadership so that it will respond to the needs of our time.

Thank you very much for your attention.
© 2008 Office of the President of the Republic  |  Legal information and Authors  |  Site map  site map