Eliminating malicious interpretations of relations between Patten and Solana. It is fortunate that just as debate on the objectives of the European Union is being reactivated and large-scale initiatives are being announced to strengthen the economic aspect of Economic and Monetary Union, Commissioner Chris Patten has launched, and with great verve, a third fundamental aspect, i.e. Europe's external relations. His first press conference on EU assistance to third countries unfortunately stepped in line with the habit of denigrating what has been done to date and giving a negative image of management of aid by previous Commissions, and Agence EUROPE voiced its regret over this concession to facility and lack of taste (see 6 June, pp.3-4). But as for substance, Chris Patten is absolutely right when he calls for:
the definition of objectives and priorities, instead of one-off initiatives dictated by circumstances and events rather than reflection;
more flexible, rapid and effective management of the Union's considerable financing;
clarity in relations between the institutions, with recognition of the Commission's role.
Mr Patten has called for debate in the Commission on his memorandum on this subject (reproduced in No 2193 of the EUROPE/Documents series), but did not wait for a debate by the College to express his own views. And this is a good thing. The speech he made on 15 June at the "Institut français des relations internationales" (IFRI) clarifies what he wrote about his relations with Javier Solana, so as to dispel misunderstandings. The result achieved by Member States to "combine the Community and intergovernmental methods" is "far from perfect". "Luckily Javier Solana and I work extremely well together - but we are not much helped in that by the new institutional machinery." Mr Patten is therefore of the view that the co-existence of the CFSP High Representative and the European Commissioner for External Relations is a complicated state of affairs and that it is lucky that the two officials currently occupying these posts get along well and respect each other. The malicious interpretations that Chris Patten was hinting at rivalry and misunderstanding with Mr Solana are thus swept aside.
Three great objectives. As for substance, the Commissioner defined three major objectives for EU external policy:
a) more effective management of relations with the EU's neighbours. The Member States should give up the illusion that they can bilaterally manage relations with their nearest neighbours, because the instruments of an effective external policy are now pooled (Mr Patten clarifies this concept below in reference to the Commission's role);
b) sharing of the experience of multilateral co-operation on a wider stage. Europe's efforts to preserve the national cultures, languages, traditions and identities while overcoming the "demons of the past" (nationalism, xenophobia, destructive rivalry in trade and monetary affairs) must be made available to the entire world. It offers an original combination of personal freedom, economic prosperity and social integration as a model for globalisation. Mr Patten stated: "The EU's ambition must be to reflect abroad what is best about our own model: our sense of civil society and the balance we seek to strike between national freedoms and common disciplines";
c) becoming a serious counterpart to the United States. The Americans have got it wrong on several issues, said Mr Patten, mentioning the "United Nations, environmental policy and a pursuit of extraterritorial powers combined with a neuralgic hostility to any external authority over their own affairs". But the Europeans will not win arguments like these unless they are taken seriously: "At present, in many areas, we are not. Nor do we deserve to be."
The second part of the speech repeats his criticisms of management of EU external aid, with a radical conclusion: "If we cannot manage our funds effectively, we should not manage them at all." If funds are well managed, "external assistance is an area where there is obvious added value in Community action." Mr Patten adds ideas on enlargement and the changes this will involve for the EU and on the creation of a European security and defence policy, ESDP.
Evidence of Commission role in ESDP. The last part represents a passionate plea, and as a whole convincing, in favour of the Commission's role in all the elements of EU external policy, ESDP included. This role is necessary for two main reasons.
The first is the impossibility to separate purely military issues from related issues: "the military and non-military operations cannot and must not be separated as they must be closely co-ordinated to the benefit of the same strategy." The Commission can finance the necessary support to defuse a conflict, organise border-monitoring services there were mass migrations risk feeding a conflict, contribute to re-establishing the administrative structures in countries emerging from crisis, finance de-mining projects, supporting the independent media. Thus, the Commission must be involved in the day-to-day work of the emerging ESDP structures.
The second reason for which it is illusory to separate the security structures and the Commission is that "trade and the production of armaments cannot be treated as a protected area within the single market." The Commissioner cites the competition between the defence industries, research and development, trade in dual-use goods. According to Mr. Patten, the Commission is not looking to play a role in decision-making with regard to defence, with calls for "the indivisibility of European foreign policy that will only be entrusted to one of the Treaty's pillars." He concludes: "the Commission must be fully associated to all the activities linked to common foreign and security policy," while maintaining the independence "that constitutes its strength and raison d'être."
Thus here is, with Chris Patten, another British who, having arrived in Brussels with some prejudices and doubts and having understood the true nature and the true objectives to the Community building process, now shares and defends, with skill, the fundamental principals and guidelines.
If 33,000 pages are necessary… why is it so hard, in the UK and in other third countries, to understand the hopes, requirements and the realities of a United Europe? We do not think of the differences of principal or of the opponents to European unity, in itself, but to those who, themselves, want a united Europe. For example let us take the book by David Heilbron Price, Vice-President of the Robert Schuman Institute for Europe, "Russia and the danger for the European Union," reviewed at length in our European Library annexed to our Bulletin of 13/14 June. Mr. Price denounces in his terms the claimed slowness of EU enlargement: "the bureaucratic barrier of 33,000 pages defines in minute detail the entry conditions forming a barrier to entry throughout Europe." Sadly this is the widespread opinion that neglects the reality of the EU, which is much more than a customs union or an association of States and that needs these 33,000 pages to be what it wants to be: an entity including uniform rights for all its citizens, binding environmental standards, rigorous competition rules to protect consumers, uniform social standards, firm principals against all discriminations… to be part of the EU it is necessary to accept and apply all these provisions; and what does it matter if it is 33,000 pages. Is it difficult? This is the reason for which Jacques Delors suggested to start with a Confederation and now proposes to start a European conference, to rapidly unify the whole of Europe for what is essential.
In fact Mr. Price also thinks of starting with an initial realisation: the candidate States as well as Russia will start by signing the Treaty with which Schuman started with six, that is to say the ECSC Treaty, by widening it as a whole to include energy. All very well, on condition that the countries concerned accept the principals and the mechanisms of this Treaty. They are simple and clear: the authorities of the Member States renounce to the national coal ownership (adding, according to Mr. Price, oil and gas) and accept to have it managed by a supranational authority. If Russia accepts to submit its oil and gas to an Authority whose decisions are imposed on governments, and all the eastern countries do the same, Mr. Price is right. If they refuse, his suggestion is only rhetoric. Though this does not take away any of the value of his analysis and because of the fact that our European Library felt the need for an extensive coverage, but underlines the need to return to a correct visualisation of the aims of European unification. The main aim is not the creation of a rich and powerful entity, but reconciliation between the countries, which for centuries or millennia have been ripped apart by terrible wars. The definitive end of conflicts and disputes, the abandonment of sovereignty in favour of common institutions and the removal of borders that divide are the starting point. This has been true for the six founding countries, it must also be the case for all those who want the join or associate.
Ferdinando Riccardi
----------------------------
Note: The full text of Mr. Patten's speech is published in Nº 2194 of our EUROPE/Document series, which will be sent to our subscribers with tomorrow's daily bulletin.