With a European Parliament that is seeking a stance to adopt for reflection on the future of Europe and with Member States that, for now, support quite different views (see other article in this bulletin and this column in bulletin No.9107), it is useful for us all to have a vision founded on unequalled experience of the reality of Europe. By this, I mean Jacques Delors' vision. Invited by the European College of Parma to deliver the “lectio magistralis” that opened the 2005/2006 academic year, he seized the opportunity provided by this occasion to sketch out his “European project for the 21st century”. The text of his speech has been published by the association, “Notre Europe”. Our readers will already be familiar with some of the aspects, while others are far from both Parliament and Commission positions. The project as a whole is set out below.
Jacques Delors considers that, in order to speak of Europe with the necessary serenity, one must take three simple ideas as a base. He describes these ideas as “banal” although they are never to be forgotten. They are: Europe as a factor of peace, the EU as a contribution to the malaise of globalisation (which could be the greatest good or the worst evil), and Europe as a project of society. He reviews these ideas as follows.
A. Europe as a factor of peace. Such an assertion has “for some, young or not so young” become a subject of ridicule. We hear people say we already have peace. But, as Aragon said, nothing is ever “acquis”. This does not mean that we could be at war again amongst ourselves tomorrow, Delors explained, but rather that we should recall that “a considerable effort had to be made to overcome our tragic memories and our resentment”. The solution is to be found in Harma Ahrendt's formula: pardon (which is not the same as forgetting) and promise, which means that new generations are not responsible for what happened in the past. This formula is still, today, the “key to the solution of the problems in the Balkans, where mountains of hate have formed”. “The inspiration of our founding fathers of Europe in 1945-50” should have been applied to these countries by proposing that, from 1995, they could “create a union of payments to allow them to change era, increase trade and develop, with the economic and financial help of the European Union”. We did not do so.
The united Europe must, of course, adjust to historical developments. Jacques Delors explains: “When I began to campaign, I had my own idea of Europe. I could not foresee some of the events that were to follow. I reasoned on a Europe which - with six members or slightly more - would gradually go from an economic union to a political union, then from internal policy to foreign policy. But history upset all this”. Three times it was necessary to react: - the first time on the subject of Great Britain; the second after the end of the dictatorships in Greece, Spain and Portugal; and the third after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In all three cases, Europe opened its arms. “Some regret this” when it comes to Great Britain but, when it came to the new democracies, it was necessary to open our arms to welcome them and this was done “happily”, to the advantage of both former Member States and new. And then, thirdly, on the matter of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Europe “welcomed the statesmen and peoples who ensured that we would come out of the Cold War world without serious tension or loss of human life”. In the last case, Jacques Delors regrets that the EU had “lacked imagination and courage by not giving a political roof to these countries. A different climate would have been created with less fascination on their part for the Atlantic alliance and for the Anglo-Saxon model: a mistake for which we are now paying the price”.
It is not yet over, as history “continues to defy us”, and Jacques Delors cites Turkey, for which the EU has said “yes” to accession negotiations, but no more. It is up to each and every one to show that they can live together, in a spirit of difference but under rules of the game accepted by all. The “test” has still to be carried out.
B. Control of globalisation. Jacques Delors believes the divide between the Europe of “power” and the Europe of “space” is behind us, as Europe is already a power to be reckoned with: a leading world trade power, the first when it comes to development aid and humanitarian aid, decisive in defending the environment, and with a currency that counts. It must now “resume confidence at university and research level, to be able to gain influence in the world when it comes to our fundamental values: peace, respect of others, common rules for living together”.
Europe can give its experience and also its new ideas when it comes to globalisation. Jacques Delors above all speaks of the question of free trade: “one can no longer say today that free trade, in all its aspects, leads to progress for all peoples”.
He made two distinctions on this. The first between really poor countries and “already powerful emerging countries, like Brazil, China and India, whose share of world trade we expect to be as great as our own. China can become involved in the most sophisticated activities”. The second distinction is between economic sectors: “agriculture is unlike any other activity because it is part of our traditions and societies, it is part of our human and cultural richness and diversity”. Truly poor countries have to turn to food production to feed themselves; but in the current system, “large negotiating groups dominate the world”. According to Jacques Delors, Europeans do not have frank discussions on these problems, “they debate the principles of the common agricultural policy, its financial cost, but not what could lead them to ways of maintaining our agricultural power, promoting rural and environmental development, while at the same time helping poor countries gain that vital degree of food autonomy”.
Another worrying aspect of globalisation as it exists today is the excessive power of financial capitalism. Jacques Delors asked if it were thought possible that, “for thirty years, companies make year in year out 15% of their own capital as clear profit? And if so, at whose expense? Ther has to be balance between capital and work, between public authorities and the market. Otherwise …” And the three suspension marks are significant in themselves.
Overall, European experience proves that it is possible to make the rule of law work between countries, given that protection of the environment is to be included at international level in every policy (agriculture, industry, energy etc.) and that there is a need “to create a framework capable of bringing out the rules of the world game”. For fifteen years, Jacques Delors has been campaigning for a “World Economic Security Council” with gradually increased powers. A united Europe “proves that we can move towards a fairer world, more concerned with sustainable development”.
C. Vision of Society. The European idea of democracy should, in Jacques Delors' opinion, re-establish the balance between society and the individual. This balance, which is compromised today, should, in one way or in the other depending on each case, identify the European model of society, which is not necessarily a single model: in fact four different models exist in the countries of the EU, linked to the history, traditions, social relations and the role of the State. The standardisation of these models is neither desirable nor possible, but each one must adapt to common challenges: demographic change, inter-generational solidarity, the climate of uncertainty. Competence in these areas “lies with national authorities, but there are areas where European harmonisation should prevail”. And Jacques Delors quoted tax competition between States, which represents for him, “the most perverse kind of attack on Europe: it comes from those who want competition between companies to be supplemented by competition between nations”, and explains, “I'm giving a warning: if this continues, there will never be a political Europe, indeed there will be disintegration of European achievements through an excess of fiscal and social dumping”.
It remains to be decided “what value added the European Union can bring” to the vision of society. It is not a matter of taking every problem to Europe, but we need to return to what was proposed in the 1993 White Paper, which was approved by the Council but not implemented on the wishes of Ministers, that is, to European programmes on transport, new technology and research infrastructures. “We always expect the response to be up equal to the issues. Economic and monetary union is a test. The 1989 Delors report proposed an economically and monetarily balanced project. But, “from refusal to abandonment, under the spell of a single thought, we reached a point where EMU was walking on only one leg: the monetary leg. Reform is necessary, then: make the EMU the first strengthened cooperation. Is it right that the countries in the euro zone have to have their decisions ratified by countries that are not even members of the zone?”
Jacques Delors recognises that “governments will always change, right, centre, left. But European consensus must be able to hold on to what is essential. The difference between national experiences has to be accepted around two central ideas: a) finding a balance between social values and the power of the market economy; and b) recognising social issues as a development factor and not as a by-product of the economy. Moreover the countries that are best prepared for the changes in Europe are those which have the most successful social dialogue and a solid welfare heritage”.
Having thus shown what is needed to “get out of the current situation and once again find the bases of a minimum consensus without which progress is impossible”, Jacques Delors has drawn for us the structure that a revived Union should take. This will be the subject of the next column.
(F.R.)