Global reconnaissance. The presentation by Eneko Landaburu on the EU's external relations is, first of all, invigorating, which makes a nice change in the face of the dominant pessimism and defeatism. This phenomenon is well known: playing down the results and effects of European integrations has for some time been one of the favourite pastimes of many Europeans. But as Director General for external relations in the European Commission, Mr Landaburu knows what he's talking about; as someone who spends most of his time meeting officials from third countries, he knows their opinions. He is therefore well qualified to underline the “extremely positive perception” the world has of the adventure that is the united Europe, considered everywhere to be one of the most positive aspects of the history of the last century. The whole world is inspired by it and would like to emulate it. This is understandable: after century upon century of wars within Europe (an average of one every twenty years), half a century of peace and stability. And just think about everything that's going on elsewhere!
A counterweight, a factor for stability and a model. At the end of last week, as a guest of the organisation “Réalités européennes du present”, chaired by Hartmut Harold, Mr Landaburu spoke about Europe as a “global actor”. Quite without complacency. He acknowledged that Europe's stature is shrinking: soon Europe will represent only 5% of the global population, while the new giants have far more inhabitants and surface area. But these giants, be it China, India or Russia, are in favour of the emergence of a united Europe, to act as a “counterweight to other hegemonies” and because of its vital contribution to the challenges which humanity must face: natural disasters, the deterioration of the environment, terrorism, economic and social imbalances, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Europe already is, and will increasingly become, a factor for stability and a model.
“Europe exists, we exist as a soft power”, Mr Landaburu declared: the top commercial power in the world, the second global currency, a “powerhouse” in environmental matters, a leader in aid to poorer countries, now an incontrovertible actor in “real diplomacy” (Lebanon, Congo, Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, soon Kosovo). And he did not overlook the external dimension of certain internal policies, citing Galileo, in which a growing number of third countries are keen to participate. The “neighbourhood policy” could, if successful, partly address the problem of future enlargements and the “borders of Europe”, if it can correct certain errors (such as the idea of a uniform scheme for all Mediterranean countries, when all of their situations and ambitions are very different) and if it allows for “differentiation” between participating countries.
Shortcomings and endeavours. Mr Landaburu does, however, acknowledge that the EU is not yet a true “global political actor”, as several Member States are reluctant to pool national sovereignties and create the “instruments of power” at European level. The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) is exclusively “reactive” and does not have any capacity for anticipation. Endeavours are being made in this direction, within the limits imposed by the lack of the Constitution. Javier Solana has not been made European Minister for Foreign Affairs not Vice-President of the Commission, but he participates in joint reflection meetings on the Commission's broad strategic issues. The joint diplomatic service has not been created, but cooperation between the existing services (Council and Commission) and with those of the Member States are developing and exchanges of officials are planned. It is not possible to go further within the current institutional framework; in the short term, however, this is at least something.
And yet people know nothing of this! The visibility of the EU as a global actor is practically non-existent. Something should be done about this as well.
Mr Landaburu also mentioned other aspects, such as respect for human rights as a condition of being allowed to benefit from EU support: should this “conditionality” be strict, or should it aim to avoid the risk of the countries targeted hardening their line? Reflections are called for.
The cases of several countries were mentioned in the debate which followed. I share all of Mr Landaburu opinions, apart from his conviction that the EU should remain in Afghanistan with a “strong presence”. The local population clearly considers the Europeans on the ground to be "occupiers”; this is reason enough to leave, since Europe should not be “occupying” anyone's territory. If they prefer the Taliban regime and drugs as a key economic activity, we can only take note.
(F.R.)