Former President of the French Republic Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and the former German Chancellor, Helmut Schmit, have published an article together, to which Le Figaro gives the title: "Europe's Lesson". In our opinion, the article is exceptionally important because both players denounce, with refreshing frankness, the evils that are currently eating away at the building of Europe. They sketch out a solution for the future.
These two celebrities, who, in the positions of power and responsibility they held, marked the history of Europe by giving their full support to the creation of single currency, have for the most part reached a similar conclusion to that described at the beginning of the year by Jacques Delors: real integration is not possible with 30 members. In order to safeguard "the initial ambition", the six founding countries of the EEC, together with other countries "which are determined and show good will", should launch an initiative with a "federative approach", with additional institutions.
We reproduce the text below, leaving to one side only a few historic passages, which recall facts well-known to the readers of EUROPE. Nothing has been omitted from these passages. The titles in bold do not appear in the original text. We have added them simply as a guide for the reader. It is obvious that the reproduction of this text in no way implies that Agence EUROPE shares all the points of view expressed, some of which - over and beyond the fundamental thesis - will no doubt give rise to some controversy, mainly those which concern criticism of the European Central Bank and the distinction between the different applicant countries. (F.R.)
"EUROPE'S LESSON" BY VALERY GISCARD D'ESTAING AND HELMUT SCHMIDT
A move towards no more than a free trade area? Even with just the Fifteen Member States, the existing institutions do not work well. Unless they are changed, they will no longer be able to work once the number of Member States has risen considerably. And it follows from this that any reform will be even more difficult to carry out! If the obvious haste for enlargement is not accompanied by institutional reform, then the Union will lose itself in a series of serious crises during the first ten years of the 21st century.
It will perhaps end up becoming no more than a free trade area with marginal institutions. Such a change in the nature and the goal of the European Union, unique of its kind in history, could please nationalists of several countries. But it would mainly please those who, in Washington, hope to maintain a certain control over Europe in order to serve America's global geopolitical aims, and sometimes illusions.
If the euro did not exist … If we did not have the European System of Central Banks, some former national central banks and their currencies might today be in a crisis situation, where they would have to comply with conditions imposed by the markets. The single European market would then be faced by considerable tension. As far as the euro is concerned, we do not agree with this "laissez faire" attitude of the European Central Bank, and the lack of all support from the political institutions. The Europeans who criticised the United States in no uncertain terms for this kind of policy towards the dollar should avoid causing the same outcry.
We shall see whether the United Kingdom … A great deal of effort will be needed to convince the older European nations that the importance of our societies and the protection of their interests will in future depend on our capacity to integrate. We shall see whether the United Kingdom finally decides to fully join the European Union. As long as the English nation prefers not to be any one thing in particular, to be half inside and half out, progress will depend above all on the close cooperation between French and Germans.
What each European country cannot do on its own. Individually, each of the European Nation-States is not powerful enough to deal with the great world powers who would surely be tempted during this century to resolve their problems without taking into account the interests of the others. It is only by acting together to finish the building of the European Union and by making it a fully operational entity that European nations will be able to hope to conserve their global influence. Otherwise how will they be heard when it is a case of making important decision on new international legislation on the limiting of armaments, the way in which to react in case of war in other parts of the world, the way in which to manage world trade, to avoid global warming, to slow the explosion of the world population and to deal with the influx of refugees and displaced persons. And there is more a urgent issue: to transform the presently chaotic financial markets into a stable and viable world system.
Making the difference between countries? Presently the accession of Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, in total 60 million inhabitants, deserves to be treated as a priority. Though what is the most urgent is institutional reform. What a great area for political initiatives for the members of the European Parliament! The accession of Turkey and so the extension of foreign policy and common security to the borders of Syria, Iraq, Iran and the Caucus region, is absolutely not a priority, it is the least we can say.
In certain cases, "economic association" would be more appropriate. It would be unwise to suddenly expose weak European States to the game of competition with very developed EU companies. The fate of Former East German industry does not warrant repetition. It also would be unwise to encourage millions of immigrant workers to come to western Europe, where they are tempted to stay as the wages are five to ten times higher than at home.
The European leaders should take these social and economic questions into account before jumping forward unprepared.
The three different forms of future European building. Now that the enlargement process has started, it is clear that in the next twenty to fifty years, Europe will develop according to three different paths:
1. The organisation of the European area as a result of enlargement. This organisation will deal with economic and free trade subjects, accompanied with a limited amount of political integration. At the most that which presently exists. Institutional reform is a priority so as to achieve usability, otherwise the system will collapse as was the case last year with the Commission.
2. The organisation of common European defence. This process is now well under way with the active support of Great Britain. To be operational, it must rely on countries that have significant military power and on public undertakings to accept a rapid and effective decision mechanism.
3. The organisation of what remains of the initial desire for integration. It is evident that full integration is not a realistic objective for 30 countries that are very different in their political traditions, their culture and their economic development. Attempting the integration of so many countries can only lead to a complete failure. It is also evident that integration cannot be imposed on a country that refuses it.
The only realistic option is for integration to be undertaken by countries that have the political will and in which the economic and social conditions are nearly identical. Presently, all these countries belong to the Euro-area, whose population already exceeds that of the United States. Will some of these countries embark on a new path, aiming to integrate part of their political competencies on the basis of a federal approach?
For that, it will certainly require an initiative from the founding countries, France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux, as well as other determined and properly motivated countries. For this process to be efficient, it will require additional institutions: a Council, a parliamentary structure that can have operational links with national parliaments; definitely not through an additional Committee. In reality it will concern "Institutions within Institutions" that already exist within the European Union.
The only restriction that could be imposed by the non participating countries, is that the new group, let us call them the "Euro Europeans", respect all the undertakings made by the enlarged European Union and that the new institutions cannot enter into conflict with the competencies of the existing European institutions. This new group will form - with the implicit limits of this new analogy - a political entity on the European continent and like the United States will be a distinct political entity on the North American continent. (Unofficial translation).