Without wishing to exaggerate the scope of a display of this kind, it seems to me that some of the interesting and occasionally illuminating thoughts which were a feature of the “The Sound of Europe” conference in Salzburg deserve to be highlighted, if only because of the figures who expressed them. I am certainly not about to take up every single theme discussed or speech by participants, as our bulletin has already given them more attention than any other press organ (see in particular bulletin 9120), but I would like to highlight some aspects which, in part, reinforce the opinions already expressed in this column, and which the reader will easily recognise:
1. The positive results of Europe. The euro-pessimism which is so fashionable nowadays was vigorously contradicted, not only by heads of government but also by artists and representatives of the world of culture in general. I would quote, in no particular order, a few phrases and impassioned cries: “Europe is not in crisis!” (Jan Peter Balkenende). “Let us begin by stating that Europe is a huge success” (Bronislaw Geremek). “Europe has reaped remarkable successes over the last few years” (Andrew Moravesik from Princeton University). “We too often forget what the EU has achieved in the last few years” (Javier Solana). “All over the world, I always hear how great a success the European Union is” (Benita Ferrero-Waldner). “Being pessimistic and negative is in the blood of Europeans, even though Europe today could undergo another renaissance” (Oliviero Toscani, photographer).
Of course, the speakers did not evade the problems: citizens' concerns, unemployment, insufficient growth, excessive defence of national interests. But these do not, in their eyes, justify the generally negative attitudes, the lack of understanding or the negation of progress achieved and systematic pessimism.
2. Enlargement and the borders of the EU. On the subject of the countries of central and eastern Europe, Javier Solana struck the elevated and firm tone of the European Minister for Foreign Affairs that he has not yet become, saying: “In the entire history of international relations, there has never been a strategy more based on European values and more successful than the last enlargement, which put an end to the division of the continent”. In terms of the future, and disregarding the accessions which are already under way and those already promised in principle (Croatia, the Balkans when the time comes), Dominique de Villepin said: “Accession cannot be the only solution proposed to neighbouring countries. Europe must be in a position to offer them ambitious partnerships; in a position to help them along the path to democracy and economic development”. The issue of Europe's borders was not gone into in detail, however. We know that, for example, Chancellor Schüssel, the President of the European Council, and Mr de Villepin do not have the same ideas on this subject.
3. Europe and agriculture. Chancellor Schüssel declared in Salzburg that the European way of life “also includes the common agricultural policy, which is often criticised, but which allows Europe to ensure the quality of its foodstuffs, environmental protection, the maintenance of biodiversity and the development of rural and mountainous regions”. There is no need to stress the significance of such a declaration coming from the President of the European Council.
4. European identity and culture. These two concepts were at the heart of the majority of speeches, including some particularly significant definitions. According to the President of the European Parliament Josep Borrell, liberty, democracy, human rights and cultural diversity are certainly European values, “but what really distinguishes Europe from other regions and powers in the world is social cohesion, based on the principle of solidarity”. In Bronislaw Geremek's view, education and innovation are two areas which Europe should prioritise in its actions (albeit acknowledging that the EU today has been “hit by a kind of innovation-fatigue”), and Chancellor Schüssel defined them as the “two principal raw materials in Europe”. Many suggestions were made, generally putting the protection and defence of cultural identities on the same level as defining a joint European identity. There were, nonetheless, visible divergences between those who think that Europe today should make a priority of concrete issues which are of concern to public opinion (in favour of an “agenda which is more targeted towards tangible results”) and those who think that the priority should be relaunching the ideals and image of Europe (“what is lacking in Europe today is the emotions, the feeling”).
The cultural identity of Europe raises some complex and sensitive issues which are the subject of in-depth analysis, notably in the organisation “Notre Europe”, and I will return to this subject.
(F.R.)