Approaches to the future of Europe can be very different: the majority of Europeans
draw pride from the progress that has characterized European integration; others
feel that the results achieved so far have been disappointing and that Europe
should be content with its present achievements, which are mainly economic. Some
never wanted much more than economic cooperation in the first place.
Italy believes that Europe must evolve into a political entity (but not a “super-state”)
for the benefit of its citizens and for the stability of the world. In spite of
different but, as time goes by, less conßicting national priorities, every European
country knows that Europe has become our common destiny. There is no future for
European countries, no matter how diversified our traditions and our perceptions,
unless European integration is successful.
A positive outcome of Europe’s efforts to define its identity on the basis
of an open debate, which is the essence of democracy, would be in the long-term
interests of the United States. It is important for our American friends to understand
that a strong European presence in the world can only bring advantages to the
United States.
Let me be clear on this point: democracy, freedom, human rights and the market
economy can only prevail in the world on the basis of a steady and long-term effort
by North America and Europe. International crime, money laundering, and drug trafficking
can be fought effectively only on the basis of such a joint commitment. The alleviation
of world poverty also requires a joint U.S.–European effort, not to mention
the environment and other transnational issues which can be dealt with effectively
only by countries that share beliefs and values.
Americans know a great deal about Europe, although they may be less familiar with
its institutions. In areas such as trade and competition, Americans may have had
direct contact with the European Commission, which has full responsibility for
these sectors. In general, however, Americans are often frustrated by the variety
of EU interlocutors and procedures, as well as by the Union’s habit of rotating
its Presidency every six months. Americans also have trouble coping with the complexities
of the whole process of integration. These difficulties are understandable, at
least to a certain extent.
In practical terms, however, every American traveling to Europe may observe two
major developments that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago: first,
the abolition (and shortly the removal of the physical manifestations) of borders
between most countries belonging to the European Union; and second, the adoption
of the euro as a single currency by 12 of the 15 member states. The euro is the
first currency to have severed links with the nation state.
There is no going back on these developments, and it would be a mistake to play
down the achievements they represent. We do not expect blind endorsement from
Americans, but a fair understanding of what has been accomplished.
Both the abolition of borders and the relinquishment of national sovereignty over
the currency are remarkable events that have too often been taken for granted.
They would never have happened without the continuing strength of the European
ideal and the continuity of policies carried out by European Governments with
a great deal of commitment over many years.
Much more is on the way: the negotiations on the accession of ten new member states
to the European Union have been completed; the historic reunification of Europe
is accomplished; almost 500 million citizens of 25 European countries will take
part in elections to the European Parliament in the spring of 2004; the Convention
on the Future of Europe is making significant progress on the adoption of a common
constitutional treaty. It is likely that by the end of this year the European
Union will have agreed on a European constitution, and thereby created renewed
institutions capable of enhancing the effectiveness of the Union and its role
in the international community.
Enormous progress has been made since the end of the 1940s, when the European
Union’s Founding Fathers conceived a project aimed at creating a long-term
union among Europeans. This progress is the best response to current waves of
Euro-pessimism or Euro-skepticism.
Three major forces have made such remarkable progress possible: faith in the European
ideal, the determination of Europeans to take responsibility for their future
and recognition that European integration is in the best interests of every member
state. Looking back at the recent, difficult enlargement negotiations and the introduction
of the euro, I feel that both results have been achieved because European integration
has acquired a dominant position in the political life of every European country.
Ideals and a sense of responsibility have motivated different generations of European
political leaders over the decades: time has shown that the only possible future
for Europe is to build on tangible achievements based on enhanced solidarity.
There is now a widespread consensus that further unification should, and can, become
a reality. Although the European countries are highly individual in many respects,
their citizens nevertheless share common interests and opinions, and go about
their lives in very similar ways.
The driving force behind European integration has been widespread awareness of
the need for a constructive balance between intergovernmental cooperation and
shared European sovereignty. This balance should not be upset. We have gotten
this far only because the balance between these two principles has been maintained
and because it has proved compatible with the interests of all the member States.
In order to function equally well in the future, the balance must be adjusted
by giving greater weight to shared sovereignty. In important ways, such as the
adoption of the euro and the move to economic and monetary union, this is already
happening.
Nevertheless, many obstacles remain to be overcome: we have no idea how a Union
of 25 states can be made to work and we are investing a great deal of energy in
trying to solve the problem. Under no circumstances can we afford to envisage
failure as a possible option.
It will not be easy to involve the new Central and Eastern European members in
the process of integration or to improve decision making among 25 countries. But
it is clear that operational and decision-making capacities will have to be radically
reformed: the sooner such changes are made, the better it will be for the effectiveness
of the European Union.
The Convention on the Future of Europe has the historic responsibility of defining
the role of Europe in the 21st century and of creating a genuine political community.
The work of the Convention so far suggests that we are on the right track toward
providing the European Union with strong and effective institutions, based on
the principle of majority voting.
The European Union is now at a crossroads. We face crucial choices over whether
to cede further national sovereignty to the central institutions, creating a kind
of European sovereignty, or to maintain the distinct authority of national governments.
On the one hand, there is the possibility that Europe will move toward becoming
little more than a single market, with loose institutions and cooperation based
mainly on the goodwill of national governments; on the other, the possibility
that it will evolve into a real Union, capable of defending its values and its
interests, and looking beyond the national horizons of member states.
The first choice would pave the way for a sort of Commonwealth of Nations; it would
run counter to the history of the past half-century. The experience of political
institutions based on intergovernmental cooperation is not very reassuring, whereas
common institutions provide the framework for defining common interests and for
making sound decisions. Jean Monnet, one of the Founding Fathers, used to say
that institutions stay while people come and go.
Furthermore, only a supranational model will provide an answer to a problem that
has long been a source of American frustration: the difficulty of knowing who speaks
for Europe.
If the negotiations on a European constitution are complete by the end of 2003,
Europe will be able to acquire an international legal personality. At that point,
the identity of the European Union will have taken an important step forward:
it will not only have a ßag, an anthem, and a currency but also a constitution.
It will become an integrated political union; the balance between national sovereignty
and European sovereignty will have shifted permanently in favor of the latter.
In other words, Europe is not an international organization or an alliance of
nations. Europe is taking steps toward acquiring statehood: it is not there yet,
which explains the trouble Europeans have defining the borders of Europe, but such
an outcome is within reach.
To achieve such a lofty purpose we need a visible European executive that is capable
of taking the initiative and coordinating the actions of the national Governments.
European statehood must be based on balancing the three key institutions of the
Union: the Council as the political engine, the Commission as the guarantor of
the treaties, and the European Parliament.
The task, however, is far from complete. In order to speak with one voice in the
world, the European Union needs a common approach in areas that are crucial to
its credibility: foreign policy, defense and the economic governance of the euro
zone.
These problems should be solved quickly and with political vision. As a first step,
we need clearly defined principles and objectives; as a second step, we need common
policies decided by the Council and implemented by a European Foreign Minister;
as a third step we shall need a common European foreign policy.
Foreign policy is a test case, especially in relations with the United States.
The European Union’s failure to develop a common foreign policy is one of
the shortcomings that prevent the Union from narrowing the gap between its huge
economic potential and its limited political capacity. We are well aware that
a great deal of effort is still needed to add ßesh to the bare bones of a common
European foreign policy.
Furthermore, we cannot live for long with an imbalance between a centralized monetary
system and more diffuse economic governance. Although we draw great satisfaction
from having a federal monetary government, embodied in the European Central Bank,
common monetary policies must be supplemented by tighter economic coordination
– as a first step toward joint economic policies.
It is essential that a group of countries highly committed to European integration
should now become an engine of further unification. Such a group could be composed
of the six founding members of the European Communities: they have been the builders
of the main pillars that sustain the European architecture; they include large
and small countries; they are bound by common historic memories and their experience
in constructing a united Europe remains unique.
The founding nations – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the
Netherlands – are still members of a special club. But it is not a closed
club. It is open to other similarly motivated countries that do not want the drive
for further integration to be delayed by those who prefer a slower pace.
This is not the first time that Europeans have had had to tackle serious and unprecedented
political difficulties. Each time, such problems have been resolved by further
expanding the horizons of integration.
As for Italy, it knows its place in the world and the areas in which it can operate
effectively. It has consistently played an active and judicious role in Europe,
a role that has enjoyed strong bipartisan support at home. Italy has always been
among the most dynamic and constructive forces driving European integration.
Italy will hold the Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2003,
and will make every effort to ensure that the constitutional process is not delayed
by external events, as some are now predicting. Any delay could mean a serious
loss of momentum. As President, Italy will strive to make a significant contribution
to the integration of Europe, hopefully by finalizing a Constitutional Treaty that
will define the functioning and identity of the European Union for years to come.
Antonio Puri Purini has been Diplomatic Adviser to the President of the Italian Republic since 1999. Before that, he was Permanent Representative of Italy to the Council of Europe. During his long career in the Italian Foreign Service, Ambassador Puri Purini has held a number of posts in Rome, in the Directorate of Political Affairs and the Cabinet of the Foreign Affairs Minister, and abroad. Most recently, he was Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington, D.C.
go to top
