|
|
|
|
World Affairs
Vol. 3, Number 4 (Oct.–Dec. 1999)
The European Union: New Perspectives and New Challenges
Interview with Kimmon Sasi, Finland’s Minister for Foreign Trade
In a special interview with World Affairs, Kimmo Sasi, Finland’s minister for Foreign Trade, highlights the broad evolution of the European Union and the tasks ahead.
World Affairs (WA): What in your view are principal landmarks in the ongoing process of European integration since its inception in 1957?
Kimmon Sasi (KS): I think it is fair to say that European integration had reached one of its basic goals already before 1957, in the early fifties. As the European Coal and Steel Community was established in 1951 the six member-countries of that Community showed that they were ready to give up the traditional, nationally-oriented, economic and political thinking and acting. In the Coal and Steel Community, political stability and economic prosperity were pursued through cooperation and partnership, not through national solutions and at the cost of others. This qualitative leap, and new way of interpreting national interests has been a necessary precondition for all the integration measures taken later.
European integration is a multidimensional process. The development of the Union stays dynamic through new external and internal goals. Externally, the number of members belonging to the EC and later to the EU has grown from the original six to the present 15. At the same time there has been a consequent internal development in the activities of the European communities. Economic integration has proceeded from customs union to free trade, and further to economic and monetary union. Political cooperation has moved from modest coordination to today’s wide-ranging and regular meetings, to common strategies on EU’s foreign policy and to such institutions as the High Representative and his Policy Unit.
Each new enlargement of the EC/EU has been a landmark: 1973 Denmark, Ireland and United Kingdom, 1981 Greece, 1986 Portugal and Spain, 1995 Austria, Finland and Sweden. Six countries are negotiating about the accession and at least six more are waiting to join the accession negotiations. In the political field the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the Union will gain a further dimension as Common Defence and Security Policy is now being formulated. Economic and Monetary Union is already functioning. In 2002 EMU will become visible to EU citizens through common Euro banknotes.
WA: Though there are surely multiple reasons that have led to this successful evolution, do you see any primordial factor that may have catalysed this evolution — a factor that underlies the whole ongoing process?
KS: Politically, the belligerent history of European nations and the two World Wars of this century can be considered as basic starting points to the idea of integration. Particularly the wars between Germany and France, fought in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries with intervals of a few decades and the loss of millions of people, forced statesmen to look for new means to seek a lasting peace. European integration is essentially an ongoing peace process.
Certainly, the interests of the member-countries of the Union do not always coincide. Compromises worked out on various issues only partly meet the goals of the members. Through the tedious integration work it has, however, been possible to come to a situation where it is not possible to think that some member-countries of the Union would go to war against each other.
WA: Many argue that the public has been left out of this process, and that the real propellers were some political leaders and the bureaucrats. Do you accept such an evaluation?
KS: I agree that the process often seems remote or incomprehensible to the public: the subject matter is frequently very technical and loaded with jargon, and the procedures, not always transparent. During our Presidency, we have been trying to bring the Union closer to its citizens and to make it more relevant to their concerns. For example, we have concentrated on pragmatic solutions to boost employment. At the Special European Council in Tampere, we further developed the area for freedom, security and justice to ensure better security for the citizens in the Union. As the Presidency we have sought to increase transparency by concrete measures.
WA: Would you say that the European Commission (EC) has been the most decisive institution that has pushed this process? Do you think that this is still the case, or do you think that the balance is slowly shifting to the European Parliament, which has recently asserted itself, and which pushed President Santer’s team of Commissioners to resign?
KS: The Commission has a particular role in the EU architecture: it is the guardian of the EU Treaties and has the right of initiating EC legislation, so it is not surprising that it has been active in proposing new measures. The European Parliament has new powers since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty: I agree that it has been more assertive in exercising them recently. But it, too, can only push forward integration as long as it retains the confidence of the people of Europe: the low turn-out in the last elections suggests that it still has some way to go before the electorate is fully convinced.
WA: What are your views about the role of the Cooperation Council? Can one say that this institution has become less powerful, less assertive and less direction-oriented than before?
KS: The European Union has a very wide network of international agreements with non-member countries. The meetings of cooperation and association councils are an important institution in developing and enhancing relations with third world countries.
The EU has so-called Europe agreements with the candidate countries. The structure of the Europe agreements on a country basis consists of an Association Council, Association Committee and several sub-committees. The role of these bodies is to implement the agreements, monitor the progress and support the pre-accession phase as part of the enlargement process.
The role of cooperation councils, in general, has been under consideration during our EU Presidency and our aim has been to develop it in cooperation with other member-states. I think that the exchange of views and a real debate on various issues should be an elementary part of the cooperation council meeting.
WA: In sum, are we not facing an institutional crisis in the European Union?
KS: There was a crisis earlier this year when the last Commission resigned. But we now have a new College in place: Finland is pleased by the calibre of the new team and has received good cooperation and support from them during our Presidency. The past difficulties have acted as a catalyst for much-needed change. We welcome the reforms of the Commission initiated by President Prodi and look forward to further plans to reform the Commission by Vice-President Kinnock.
We are aware that the need for reform applies to all the European institutions. As the Presidency, we have been pursuing changes in the working practices of the Council in order to make the Council efficient, consistent and more transparent. We have also been active in preparing the next Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) which will look at the Treaty changes necessary to allow the Union to continue functioning after enlargement.
The areas of ASEAN cooperation include education, the environment, social welfare, science and technology, culture and information, youth, transnational crime, trade, investment, agriculture, transport, tourism, energy, finance, political matters and security.
WA: If one were to accept the hypothesis that the European Parliament cannot really lead, given its diversity and its incohesiveness, is it unavoidable that the European Commission will finally, once again, become the real catalyst of European integration?
KS: I think there is no reason to speak in terms of one institution or another taking the lead in integration. All of the institutions have an important role to play in building a better and enlarged EU. At present, I believe that th balance between institutions has reached a good equilibrium which allows us to work well together.
WA: : If one were to leave aside the question of membership expansion of the EU for the moment, what in your view are the tasks that remain unachieved in the economic, political and monetary sectors? Do you think that the eventual goal is to establish a supranational authority?
KS: There is still plenty of work ahead: the final stages of EMU, making the single market function even more smoothly and putting into practice the area of freedom and justice. On the external side, there is much to do to make a reality of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and we have only just started to create a European Security and Defence Policy. These tasks will fully occupy us over the next few years. I do not think we should be aiming for the establishment of a supranational authority.
WA: : The EU has continued to expand its membership. It had six members, now it has 15; what exactly is the optimal number the EU is envisaging to incorporate in its fold? Has a decision been taken regarding where exactly you propose to stop the membership expansion?
KS: In discussions so far, I haven’t heard any concrete proposals as to what the optimal number would be. However, the new Article 49 of the EU Treaty lays down the conditions for membership of the Union in general terms. Any European State, which respects the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, may apply to become a member of the European Union.
For some European states membership need not be the ultimate goal. There is also the alternative of developing other kinds of contractual relations with European states, for example, the European Economic Area or EEA.
WA: Don’t you think that this process of continuous expansion may jeopardise the deepening of the integration process? Is the deepening of the integration and membership expansion really compatible?
KS: In order not to jeopardise the deepening of the integration process the Union has to ensure that it carries out the necessary institutional reforms before enlargement takes place. At the same time we have to make sure that the applicant countries are ready to accept the acquis and take on the full responsibilities of membership before they join. A successful enlargement can strengthen the EU if the result is a unified, democratically-governed continent with equitable economic development..
WA: What is the present status of negotiations with the five countries of Eastern and Central Europe?s?
KS: The negotiations with the five countries of Eastern and Central Europe and Cyprus have been going well, as we expected. So far negotiations have been opened in 23 negotiation chapters, out of the total 31 chapters. The negotiations have been provisionally closed in between six and 10 chapters, according to the country.
WA: Is it really possible to viably integrate East European countries which have really not completed their economic and political transition to market economy and political democracy?
KS: It is important that the applicant countries fulfil the membership criteria before they join the EU. This includes full implementation of the acquis. Enlargement is a learning process on both sides. The EU should listen to the candidate countries and see enlargement as an opportunity to review community legislation with the aim of improving it. For the candidate countries the negotiation process is extremely useful as it speeds up reforms that would have to be carried out anyway.
WA: What do you think of the two-tier system under which you would have core countries continuing the deepening process of integration, and others, though with membership status, would be on the fringe?
KS: I do not think this is likely to happen because the EU has a consistent line that any applicants for membership have to be ready to adopt the full acquis: any derogations or transition periods must be strictly limited, so that all new members will take on the full rights and responsibilities from the time they join.
WA: We must make a distinction between foreign affairs and foreign policy. Europe is active in foreign affairs but sill does not have a framework of foreign policy. Now that Javier Solana, the former Secretary General of NATO, has been appointed as the head of EU foreign and security policies, do you think that the EU may shape the broad contours of a foreign policy? Is it really possible that 15-plus members can design a common foreign policy?
KS: Several important steps towards designing a Common Foreign and Security Policy have been taken in recent years: The Amsterdam Treaty, which entered into force on May 1 of this year (1999) provides an excellent opportunity to improve the coherence of the external action of the Union in general, and the efficiency of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in particular. The Treaty provides for a whole new set of instruments to improve the CFSP: nomination of a High Representative, creation of a Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit, and adoption of Common Strategies. During the Finnish-EU Presidency Mr Solana has started his work as the High Representative for the CFSP. The Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit has also been established.
The Treaty additionally provides the Union with a military crisis management capability, incorporating into the competence of the Union the so-called Petersberg tasks. Making this capability operational, and, moreover, developing a common European Policy on security and defence along the lines as defined in the Cologne European Council conclusions, is an important, if not essential part of the development of the CFSP.
WA: With France looking at the Mediterranean, Germany towards Eastern and Central Europe and UK towards the United States, is it possible to integrate the interests of all its members into one coherent foreign policy?
KS: It is true that the EU’s member-countries have had, and continue to have, particular interests towards the outside world. You mentioned a couple of examples. However, the importance of common interests seems to be growing. EU member states realise that a policy, whether towards north, south, east, or west carries additional weight if it is supported by all fifteen members. Finland has always supported the EU’s policy towards the Mediterranean, for example, being actively involved in the Barcelona process. We have also been very pleased to notice that our initiative regarding the EU’s Northern Dimension has received strong support among the southern member states.
WA:The Kosovo crisis is the first major turbulent crisis in which the EU is actively involved. How would you evaluate its performance?
KS:The European Union feared that allowing the Kosovo crisis to be prolonged could cause instability in the whole Balkan region. The Union was therefore involved in attempts to solve the Kosovo crisis through negotiation for nearly a year before the beginning of air strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in March 1999. By that time the situation in Kosovo had grown intolerable and air strikes had become unavoidable as the leadership of the FRY was unwilling to accept any kind of solution that would have prevented a deepening of the crisis. The Union as such was not involved in the decision to use force, but through joint statements we made our position clear. The responsibility for the situation lay with the FRY which had precipitated the crisis through using force against its own civilian population. This could not be permitted in today’s Europe. By the beginning of May, the international community once again stepped up its search for a diplomatic solution. Finnish President Ahtisaari — as a representative of the European Union — became involved in efforts to restore peace and succeeded in negotiating the terms of a settlement in Kosovo. This crisis demonstrated the ability of the Union to act in a cohesive manner. Out of the Kosovo crisis also grew a political determination to launch a process for the stabilisation of the region as a whole. The real challenges relate to rebuilding the economy of the countries of South-Eastern Europe, creating democratic administrative structures and institutions, and bringing a functioning civil society into being. This is the aim of the Stability Pact.
WA:Does the European Union have the principal responsibility of implementing the stability pact and of financing the restructuring of the Balkans? If so, does it have the necessary means of achieving this objective?
KS:Nowhere are the European Union’s efforts to promote stability and security on the European continent more important than in South-Eastern Europe. Unless the Union exports stability to the countries of the region, it risks importing instability from them. It is against this political background that the Union has launched both the Stability Pact and its own Stabilisation and Association Process, which offers for the countries of the region a new kind of contractual relationship with the Union. The European Union, with the Commission in the vanguard, already plays a leading role in the reconstruction and development of the region — both in the rebuilding and upgrading of infrastructure and by helping to build institutions that entrench the rule of law, democracy and civil society.
Since 1991, the Union and its Member States have provided 17 billion euros in support of the region. The lion’s share of the funding for Kosovo reconstruction also comes from the Union. We intend to continue to step up our efforts for the stabilisation of the entire region in close partnership with the countries of the region and with others under the overall aegis of the Stability Pact. In order to be able to sustain the support of EU citizens for such an ambitious programme, we will need the unambiguous and visible commitment of the countries of South-Eastern Europe themselves.
WA:What about present Yugoslavia? Are the European leaders not creating a dangerous precedent by openly calling for the removal of President Milosevic. Will it not have a spillover effect on other countries in the Balkans?
KS:It is the strong wish of the European Union that the central position of the FRY will in the future become a factor of regional stability. During the past decade, countries neighbouring the FRY have instead felt its influence through the destabilising and demoralsing effects of an ideology of intolerance and violence. The policies pursued by President Milosevic have led to the imposing of a regime of international sanctions against the FRY and to his own indictment for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Among the spillover effects of Milosevic’s policies on neighbouring countries in the Balkans have been the displacement of millions of people from their homes and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of others. Serbia and Montenegro have themselves suffered from a downward spiral in living standards which has only been compounded by the streams of refugees fleeing from the scenes of Milosevic’s wars. By calling for the removal of Milosevic, European leaders are signalling to the Serbian people that we cannot assist in the rebuilding of Serbia until a democratic government abiding by the standards of international conduct is installed in Belgrade. In the meantime, the European Union will support the Energy for Democracy project and other measures to support democratic forces in the FRY, including the democratically elected government of Montenegro. We will also continue to provide assistance aimed at alleviating the humanitarian situation of the people of the FRY.
WA:What led Finland to decide to join the EU?
KS:The end of the cold war brought about an overall change in Europe that gave impetus also to a new round of integration. Along with other EFTA countries Finland negotiated about the so-called European Economic Area with the EC which was supposed to settle the economic relations between these two European organisations. Then Austria and later Sweden applied for membership in the EC. In 1992 Finland also gave its application to the EC.
Even though the Finnish decision was based on the current change then taking place in Europe, it had been preceded by a consequent Finnish integration policy over several decades. The Finnish export industry earlier consisted mainly of paper and pulp. It was vital for us to have the same terms of trade as our neighbour and competitor, Sweden. This led Finland to participate in the EFTA cooperation in the early 190’s and a decade later to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EC. Finnish membership in the European Union in 1995 was at the same time a reaction to the change taking place in Europe and a continuation of a long time policy.
WA:What is Finland’s vision of Europe in this post-cold war era?
KS:In brief, it is :
WA:As the rotating President of the EU during the second half of 1999, what are the priorities you have established for the EU?
KS:We have concentrated on giving a decisive impetus to the enlargement process: we think this is likely to be the key issue at the Helsinki Council. We have attempted to bring the EU closer to the everyday concerns of citizens by addressing issues such as the environment, unemployment and organised crime.
We want the EU’s external profile to be improved: we have made a positive contribution to current crises (Kosovo, East Timor, Chechnya) and laid the path for better action in the future (through cooperation with the new CFSP High Representative and by preparing work towards the ESDP). And as I mentioned earlier, we have also emphasised the importance of greater transparency in the way the EU operates: we have published more information than ever before about Council meetings and encouraged more openness in our dealings with the media and the public.