The Future of the European Union – A Global Player? - Lecture by the President of the Republic delivered at the Salzburg Global Seminar

Salzburg, 28.6.2008  |  speech

The Future of the European Union – A Global Player?
Jacques Delors Lecture by H.E. Professor Danilo Türk, President of the Republic of Slovenia, delivered at the 2008 June Board Meeting of the Salzburg Global Seminar
Salzburg, 28 June 2008
Check against delivery!


Mr. Steven Salyer, President o f the Salzburg Global Seminar,
Mr. Edward Mortimer, Vice-President and Programme Director of the SGS,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great privilege to address the Salzburg Global Seminar, one of the most prestigious institutions of transatlantic dialogue and intellectual research. It is also a great pleasure to be here at Schloss Leopoldskron. I twice missed an opportunity to participate in the work of the Seminar. But luck and destiny sometimes help and so I can now finally enjoy the special atmosphere of the Schlosss Leopoldskron for a few hours.

This lecture is devoted to Jacques Delors, a great European, a great political leader and the most successful President of the European Commission in Commission's history. His name is associated with great successes of the development of the European Community and European Union.

I guess that each of us has a personal recollection of at least one event associated with the work of Jacques Delors. My recollection is quite strong and clear and comes from the time when I was teaching international law at the Law Faculty in Ljubljana. In 1986/87 my students suddenly started to show serious interest in the European Community's law and politics. Many wished to write essays, some went to Brussels and tried to get internships and some went to study at the College of Europe at Bruges. This was a special generation of students. They were motivated by the vision articulated by Jacques Delors, by the Single European Act which was signed in 1986 and by the success of the European Community, which was working hard to overcome the period of »Eurosclerosis« and Euroscepticism. The debate between Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister at the time, and Jacques Delors were famous and quite robust but they also showed the vitality of the European idea and all that impressed the young people in – I believe – all the corners of Europe.

For my students all this was very meaningful – they saw the promise of the European Community as the promise of their own future. No wonder therefore that quite a few among them have been in the centre of Slovenia's bid for membership in the EU, achieved in 2004. Later on they were at the core of the team of Slovenia's presidency of the EU in the first half of this year. Obviously, they are no longer youngsters now, they now have more than two decades of practical experience. But their committment to the European idea is undiminished and and constitutes an integral part of Slovenia's enthusiasm for the European Union.

Obviously, the nature of enthusiasm has changed over time. It has become more seasoned, more sophisticated and less romantic. But it is still there. The public support for the EU in Slovenia is around 70% and has remained steady during our presidency. In addition, the understanding of the EU has evolved. In Slovenia, we have become well aware of the EU's global role and EU's limitations in that regard. We are aware of the difficulties of the EU's internal political dynamics and the complexity of its decision making process. And, above all, we are aware of the magnitude of the challenges the EU is facing.

These challenges could be described as falling, broadly speaking into two categories: First those affecting EU's internal coherence and democratic legitimacy and, second, those affecting its global role. My remarks today will be mainly devoted to the latter. But before that I need to make two preliminary comments.

First, let me make a comment on the nature of the Slovene presidency of the EU, which will end next Monday. Slovenia has been preparing thoroughly for the variety of tasks which constitute the presidency. The process included training of a large number of government officials, and as a result we now have a civil service well versed in EU matters. The preparations included close coordination of work with Germany and Portugal, the two Slovenia's predecessors. Slovenia's presidency could be described as one devoted to continuity and implementation rather than experimentation and innovation. This was probably appropriate for a new EU member assuming the role of the President for the first time.

In addition there were specific reasons for continuity and implementation. The conclusion of the Lisbon Treaty required a process of acceptance and ratification. Large objectives, such as those in the areas of energy and environment, have already been outlined before, some of them during the German presidency in the first half of 2007. What was needed now was an elaboration of a detailed programme and a series of decisions on specific issues. The isssues of the Western Balkans were tackled in accordance with their respective levels of ripeness –some are closer to solution than others. The questions of the global role of the EU were perceived, during the time of the Slovene presidency, as requiring decisions or taking of positions on specific issues – some of them generic, like the rising oil and food prices, and some situation specific, like the Middle East or Iranian nuclear programme.

This is how the presidency was conceived. However, real life almost always brings new challenges. Hence the need for my second comment. The fundamental questions relating to the internal coherence and democratic legitimacy of the EU are never far from the surface. This became clear once again on 12 June when the Irish voters said »no« to the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish »no« can be understood at several levels. It is perceived by some as a political, diplomatic and legal inconvenience. To others it casts doubt on the viability of the process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It is clear that the new situation will require additional diplomacy to devise a way out of the impasse and legal ingenuity to satisfy both the coherence of the treaty and the needs of the Irish voters. It has been suggested that, for example, an additional explanatory protocol could provide the necessary clarifications and ease the way forward.

On 20 June, the European Council agreed that »more time is needed to analyse the situation« and accepted Ireland's suggestion »to come back to this issue on 15 October in order to consider the way forward. It underlined the importance in the meantime to deliver concrete results in the various policy areas of concern to the citizens«.

This short conclusion is interesting. The European Council is aware that the problem is not technical, in other words it cannot be solved by learned European lawyers and clever European diplomats. It stressed the importance of »concrete results in the various policy areas of concern to the citizens«. In other words, the Council recognized that the EU has to demonstrate its closeness to the needs of the citizens and implicitly, its legitimacy defined in terms of concrete results for the citizens.

The Council recognised the problem of legitimacy only indirectly. This is understandable because a complete discussion on the subject could easily become unmanageable, given the depth of the issues in question. Like the previous Dutch and French referenda, the Irish referendum did not only express doubt about the European institutions and dissatisfaction with the specific policies – national and European. As Jürgen Habermas explained after the French and Dutch referenda and, even more forcefully, ten days ago, the referendum results represent a sign of the feeling of powerlessness, insufficient confidence in political institutions in general, and the fear that each step on the way of strengthening of the European Union institutions weakens of the democratic opportunities of the citizens in Europe. These feelings may not be prevalent everywhere, but they are sufficiently strong to generate serious political doubts and require a political response. They have to be addressed.

The question is, how?

Obviously, the democratic world needs to constantly monitor the question of empowerment and adequacy of democratic institutions as we know them. Innovation might be needed in the democratic society to strengthen the participation of citizens, to reduce the concentration of power and to make political authority more accountable to the citizens. The feeling of powerlessness among the citizens and of diminished relevance of the existing democratic institutions must not be underestimated. Issues like these seem appropriate for an in-depth discussion at Schloss Leopoldskron and elsewhere.

In addition to these fundamental questions there is a need to make the emerging institutions of the EU more accountable and legitimate in the eyes of the citizens of Europe. I submit that particular attention needs to be given to the method of selection of the new president of the European Council. The current techiques of behind the scenes bargaining among some of the most powerful actors in the European Union are clearly inadequate. Citizens of the European Union member states can take very little encouragement from the media reports of the same names being constantly recycled in the mill of Europe's ruling elite. A president emerging from such a process would have little support among citizens and could well be perceived as symbol of the »Brussels bureaucracy« remote from the people and accountable only to a small elite. There should be a democratic process which would allow candidates to present themselves to all the EU citizens and to communicate with them before and after the election. The European Parliament could help, but it too needs to devise new links with the citizens.

This kind of questions will need to be dealt with in the context of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. I hope that the process of ratification will continue and will succeed. Once it does, the question of how to ensure that the new institutions have the appropriate legitimacy will become central.

Questions of internal coherence and legitimacy of the EU institutions are also highly relevant to its role at the global level. Therefore, the first conclusion I would like to suggest today is that the EU will have to strengthen its coherence, to reduce its democratic deficit and to develop those political processes which will strengthen the legitimacy of its institutions.

In addition to this, the EU needs an adequate Common Foreign and Security Policy. The big question here is how will the EU position itself in the changing global geopolitics. One of the key aspects is in the need for the EU to have a clear set of priority areas in which it is expected to lead globally. Two of such areas are clearly identifiable. One is the environment and the other is human rights. I wish to focus on these two areas.

At its session on 19-20 June, the European Council has reaffirmed its committment for the EU to maintain international leadership on climate change and on energy. Let me recall that for more than a year now the EU organs have been engaged in an intense activity to give this committment a practical and serious meaning. The European Commission has defined specific objectives, including the objective to achieve, by 2020, a 20% green house gas reduction compared to 1990. This should be achieved as an independent committment. An even more ambitious objective is suggested as a part of an international agreement involving the other key players. In that case, the EU would be prepared to achieve as much as 30% reduction in the same time frame. These objectives remain important because they offer a truly transformative vision of action in the face of global warming and a much needed example of global leadership.

Is this set of objectives achievable, or will it prove to be another bridge too far? The answer is not yet entirely clear. In March this year the European Council welcomed the Commission's objectives and agreed on a time-table for the EU's own climate and energy package. As the Council's conclusions of 20 June suggest, the progress so far has been good. The Council and the European Parliament will cooperate towards an agreement in line with the targets and dates already set, while the Commission is requested to prepare a mechanism of incentives to the private sector investment in demonstration plants of commercial power generation with carbon capture and storage. The Council also reaffirmed the need for coherent policies and instruments exploiting the sysnergies relating to energy and climate change, in all economic sectors, including transport (sector).

Progress has been reported also from the discussions between France and Germany related to the future development of automobile industry with a view to ensuring that carbon emissions from cars will conform with the general targets already set. It is encouraging to see that there are expressions of genuine will to move forward. However, there are also sceptical voices suggesting that the agreed targets may not be sustainable at a time when international competition is beecoming tougher, when profits are more difficult to attain, and when, as a result, the environmental issues are becoming less central.

Moments like these represent a real test of leadership. It is clear that the global warming has progressed to a point at which the international community is facing a stark choice. Either to continue with incremental methods and face a disaster or to try to muster a transformative approach which can adequately mitigate the consequences of global warming and, perhaps, even prevent the worst among them. Incrementalism will not do. Transformation - even though hard to achieve - is the order of the day. Obviosusly, transformation comes with a price. The question now is not how to avoid the necessary price, but to ascertain the exact measure of the price, and to define the ways of paying it. The rising oil prices which now seem irreversible only underline the need to face the challenge squarely.

It is obvious that in the effort of this magnitude and global character, the EU cannot succeed alone. It can lead, but it cannot succeed without partners. There is a clear need to widen and strengthen the front of supporters and partners. The existing mobilization of civil society organizations, the media and business sector is encouraging. In particular the role of the business sector has to be underlined. Innovation, new technologies based on clean energy, and the much needed changes in the patterns of consumption can emerge only as a result of changes in economy. The regulatory framework defined by the states and the EU should stimulate this development.

In addition, the EU will need effective partnership with the US, which is – in matters of global warming as well as in other matters – Europe's indispensable partner. Obviously, indespensable means also interdependent. The results achieved so far in the transatlantic dialogue between the EU and the US are not yet satisfactory. The most recent discussions, including those held on the occasion of the visit of the US President in Europe, leave much to be desired. There is a need for further discussion on specific targets to be agreed among the EU and US and on the approach to be followed at the negotiations which are to take place in the UN.

The other strategic area of EU's global leadership is human rights, where EU action clearly needs to be strengthened. The EU commitment to human rights is strong. European democracies and European institutions are based on the principles of the rule of law and human rights. Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would also mean that for the first time in the EU's history, the whole spectrum of civil, political, economic and social rights of the EU citizens and residents - set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union -will become legally binding.

But the global picture is not encouraging. Massive and systematic violations of human rights persist in many parts of the World. Some are a result of ruthless pursuit of economic gain, irrespective of the needs of local populations and the environment. The poor and the indigenous peoples are especially placed at risk of dispossession, starvation and, in some cases, even extinction. Armed conflicts in parts of Africa and Asia continue to produce atrocities amounting to crimes against humanity.

The EU must be active, by proposing economic models of sustainable growth, by diplomatic and humanitarian efforts – and also with sanctions which can give teeth to the decisions of the International Criminal Court.

EU leadership is particularly necessary at this stage when global action in the field of human rights is lagging behind. The UN Human Rights Council is still struggling to get its working methods right. Its effort to establish a system of global periodic review of human rights is promising, but not yet effective. Its action in the face of massive and systematic violations of human rights is not sufficiently comprehensive. This may be remedied over time, but it will not happen without effective leadership of those UN member states that are committed to human rights.

In reality this cannot happen without the leading role of the EU, which represents the major group of influential states in the UN. It is regrettable that the US has recently become less active in the UN work for human rights. It is necessary to develop a thorough analysis and define the objectives of human rights action as a part of transatlantic cooperation. Here again, the role of the Salzburg Seminar could be very helpful.

The EU should also look to new ways of engaging with the UN Security Council. The Security Council's action on Darfur has helped in establishing an important role of the International Criminal Court in the effort to prosecute the perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes of our time. The effort to bring them to justice has to continue and the role of the UN Security Council will remain critical. It is important that the Foreign Ministers of the EU, at their meeting of the General Affairs aned External Relations Council on 16 June made it clear that the EU »stands ready to consider measures against individuals responsible for non – cooperation with the ICC«, should Sudan continue to disregard its obligations under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. This conclusion was endorsed by the European Council on 20 June.

Darfur might become the key test of the readiness of the international community and, in particular, its leading voices such as the EU, to give real mening to the concept of the responsibility to protect. This obviously is a very tall order. It requires nothing less than there thinking of the principle of sovereignty of states, which ought to be understood not as an absolute right but as both - right and responsibility. Sovereignty is to be respected when carried out responsibly with regard to the most fundamental right of individuals to survive and the right of ethnic groups to preserve their existence.

In my presentation today, I chose two thematic areas in which the EU should play a leading global role. This is obviously far from an exhaustive list. The EU has a leading role to play as the world's largest donor with a considerable role in the global development assistance and in the attainment of the millenium development goals.

The EU's external relations consist of a number of priorities applicable to partnerships with various regional organizations and major states in all parts of the world, including African Union, various organizations of Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the US, Russia, China, Japan, India and Brazil. The totality of these relations constitutes the global role of the EU today.

The EU also has an important role to play with regard to the regional issues such as the Western Balkans or the Middle East. Suffice it to say, in passing, that in both these and in other regional situations the role of the EU is growing. In the Western Balkans the EU is no longer involved only in the activities of crisis management but is becoming the end destination for the countries of the region which have all reached various levels of stabilization of association process with the EU. In Kosovo, the role of the EU will be enhanced with the gradual introduction of the new mission, EULEX, under the umbrella of the UN.

In the Middle East the EU has been steadily gaining an ever more important role in the effort to solve the issue of Palestine through a two state solution. The EU is traditionally the largest humanitarian donor and is developing a stronger role in monitoring. This dimension is likely to grow and expand in the area of security as well. A consolidation of the Palestinian security system is clearly one of the most important priorities and the recent Conference in Berlin should be a major push towards an appropriate international support to the Palestinian security sector. Later this year it will be important to strengthen the political role of the Quartet, another political task which will represent a challenge and an opportunity for the EU.

The issues of crisis situations pose two types of questions before the EU. The first is practical and short term: How does the EU operate in crisis management and in dealing with other immediate tasks. The other is more fundamental: How does the EU relate to crisis stricken areas close to its member states in the long run? How does it project long term stability? In the Western Balkans the answer is already clear. The countries of the region need to have a firm European perspective. A black hole in the middle of Europe would generate instability and is not acceptable. However, the countries of the region will have to fulfill the membership criteria before becoming full members of the EU, and this may take time.

But how does the EU relate to the Middle East and the Caucasus in the long run? Is the European perspective of Turkey and Ukraine necessary for the geopolitical definition of the European Union of the future? My answer is clearly – yes. The European Union has much to gain geopolitically from the membership of Turkey, which - let it be remembered – has come a long way in the process of fulfilment of the EU membership criteria and has also demonstrated a helpful attitude in the effort to resolve the situation of Cyprus.

Ukraine is probably closer to the EU in a cultural sense, but it has much more work to do for the fulfilment of the membership criteria. While the process is likely to be long, it has to have a clear direction. That in itself will help Ukraine to develop a market economy and a political system based on the rule of law and human rights.

Let me conclude.

The European Union has travelled a long way towards its objective to become a genuine political union. But it is stil a union of sovereign states and national decisions are of critical importance, as demonstrated by the recent Irish referendum. It remains to be seen whether the necessary solution will emerge as a result of diplomacy and legal interpretation only or it will include additional political mechanisms such as a broad public consultation on the selection of the President of the European Council. But be that as it may, the Union will have to deal with the issues of its internal coherence and legitimacy for the years to come, and larger issues of relevance of contemporary democracy will have to be addressed in this contex as well.

In the meantime the demand for global leadership of the EU will continue to grow. Environment and human rights are the two areas in which this demand is likely to be the most pronounced. Even in its current shape the EU is expected to lead and will have to face the challenges that such leadership entails. In the area of development assistance the situation is more diverse. The EU will have to apply a variety of its policy instruments and develop new ones.

In crisis situations the EU will have to combine its diplomatic and economic instruments as well as military monitoring in the short run while at the same time it should devise a long term role for itself. That long term role might include various arrangements of countries in the crisis areas with the EU, including, exceptionally, the perpsctive of the EU membership.

Finally, the question of further enlargement of the EU also has to be seen as a matter of its global role. While the issue of fulfilment of the membership criteria is central to any decision of enlargement, no candidate should be excluded on the basis of cultural prejudice or political inconvenience. In some cases the enlargement process can take a long time. But clarity of vision is more important than the speed of enlargement. A fully established global role of the EU is a long term project and will require a great deal of effort and persistence.