|
|
|
Inter view
given by Nicolas Sarkozy, French president,
to the quarterly "Politique Internationale"
Magazine, Paris May 2007
Posted
May 23, 2007
-
Do you
think, M. Sarkozy, that our foreign
policy calls for some clear shifts?
THE PRESIDENT:
It seems to me that so far we've not
given sufficient consideration to a key
question: what must the "backbone" of
our foreign policy be? Not that it's
desirable to start afresh; in many
respects, Jacques Chirac's track record
has been exemplary. But the changing
world forces us to prepare certain
shifts. In short, I believe the time has
come to give French diplomacy a
"doctrine". This must not prevent
pragmatism in the conduct of affairs. A
doctrine means a clear-cut vision of the
world, and of the long-term objectives
and interests we defend. It's a set of
values which guide our action. It's what
gives meaning and coherence over time.
It's the prerequisite for our
independence.
- Where
should we start?
THE PRESIDENT:
With Europe, naturally. It's urgent
to break the stalemate over the
operation of the institutions.
- Germany
has made getting Europe moving again the
priority of her EU presidency which ends
on 30 June. You're known to be in favor
of a "simplified treaty" which would
deal only with institutional reforms.
Isn't that being a bit dismissive of the
18 countries which ratified the text the
French rejected in May 2005?
THE PRESIDENT:
That's not what I've said and
still less what I think. I argued for
months, throughout the referendum
campaign, for a "yes" vote. I've not
changed on that point: I'm all in favor
of an ambitious treaty; but for that you
need time. And time is what we haven't
got. It is urgent to enable Europe to
function efficiently with 27 members.
That's the reason I've proposed that we
adopt a "simplified treaty" with the aim
precisely of remedying the institutional
emergency. I spoke of this simplified
treaty for the first time over a year
ago, in Berlin, then again last
September in Brussels. Today I see that
the idea has gained a lot of ground
among our partners.
-
Nevertheless a number of European
States, particularly Spain and Germany,
think that the constitutional reforms
can't on their own constitute the
substance of the treaty. Ruling out the
idea of a "minimal accord," they're
advocating on the contrary a "bold
proposal".
THE PRESIDENT:
I'm not telling you
anything you don't know when I say that
the Constitutional Treaty can enter into
force only if ratified by all member
States. We now know that won't be the
case. It is obviously impossible to get
the French and the Dutch to vote a
second time on an identical text. And in
any case we know that of the States
which haven't yet voted, several have no
intention of ratifying it. As far as
France is concerned, she owes it to her
partners to be clear on this. Let no one
count on me explaining to the French
that they didn't properly understand the
question put to them.
- Are you
saying that we have to content ourselves
with the Nice Treaty whose inadequacies
you yourself have highlighted?
THE PRESIDENT:
Certainly not. Everyone agrees that the
institutions inherited from the Nice
Treaty don't allow Europe to function
properly with 27 members. Hence the idea
for a "simplified treaty" focusing on
the institutional questions. The draft
Constitutional Treaty contained a number
of measures that everyone, including the
"no" camp, recognized would permit the
EU to function more efficiently. The
"simplified Treaty" would reintroduce
those measures on which there was a
consensus.
In the longer term, I am well aware that
the necessity of giving the EU a
referential text remains. This text
- let's call
it the "constitution" or "fundamental
treaty", it doesn't matter which
- will have to
go beyond the technical provisions in
the current treaties and seal the
basically political dimension of
European integration. Drafting this
fundamental treaty has to be done as
democratically as possible involving
insofar as possible the European
citizens and their representatives.
There could, for example, be a large
convention whose members would be
appointed after a genuinely democratic
debate, including in national
parliaments.
- What in
your view should this "simplified
Treaty" include?
THE PRESIDENT:
The simplified treaty should reintroduce
a number of key provisions:
- extension of qualified majority voting
and co-decision, particularly in the
field of police and judicial cooperation
in criminal matters:
- double majority rule (1);
- sharing of legislative power between
the European Parliament and Council, and
the election of the Commission president
by the Parliament;
- compliance with the subsidiary
principle. We must ensure compliance
with this simple rule: the EU should act
only when its action is more effective,
more appropriate than that of member
States. Respecting subsidiary means
Europe [acts] where necessary, as much
as necessary, but not more than
necessary. For this, the "simplified
treaty" must include a stronger role for
national Parliaments through the
so-called "early-warning" procedure;
- establishment of a stable European
Council presidency. Today, this no
longer seems to arouse controversy.
Everyone recognizes that such a
presidency would encourage more
long-term measures, with these being
more effectively followed through;
- creation of a European Union foreign
minister combining the current duties of
the EU's High Representative for the
Common Foreign and Security Policy, the
External Relations Commissioner and
President of the Foreign Affairs
Council.
There has been a genuine consensus on
two other series of measures. First of
all those concerning participative
democracy inside the EU and, more
especially, the citizens' right of
initiative, i.e. the possibility given
to a million Europeans [a proposal must
have the support of at least a million
EU citizens] to ask the Commission to
make proposals in a specific area. And
secondly, those which endorse enhanced
cooperation projects.
Finally, giving the European Union legal
personality will allow it to join, and
sit as a political entity in, a number
of organizations. All this can be
included in a simplified treaty, which
could be negotiated swiftly since
essentially it would involve
reintroducing the provisions worked on
at length in the European Convention and
IGC, without reopening the political
debates through which compromises had
been found.
- How will
it be ratified?
THE PRESIDENT:
This simplified treaty, which will
amend the Nice and Amsterdam Treaties,
can, like them, be placed before the
Parliament for ratification. Our
objective should be to start drawing it
up as soon as possible so as to have it
in force by the next European elections
in 2009, as the recent Berlin Summit
confirmed.
- This
simplified treaty leaves aside, however,
some important points, in particular the
reform of the Commission. It isn't
possible to go on working with 27 as we
did with 15?
THE PRESIDENT:
Absolutely. The Commission's composition
will have to be revised. It's one of the
most important institutional issues and
certainly the hardest to resolve, since
the Commission has a key position in the
Community institutions. In many spheres,
its decisions have huge consequences. We
shall have to take time to think about
and discuss this in order to find a
balance between the desire of some
member States to have a commissioner and
the need to give the Commission
sufficient coherence [to operate
effectively].
The Constitutional Treaty
- just like
the Nice Treaty -
adopted a system imposing a ceiling on
the number of commissioners and sharing
the posts between member States using a
strict rotation system. This isn't
satisfactory. The commissioners would
still be appointed on a national basis,
preventing the Commission from being a
genuine team and threatening its
legitimacy in citizens' eyes. It is
already too often used as a scapegoat by
the general public. What will happen the
day it has to take a major decision
affecting the future of a country
without there even being a commissioner
from that country within its ranks?
Several formulas have been contemplated,
each with advantages and drawbacks: for
example, keeping one commissioner per
member State or a differentiated
rotation system on the model of the UN
Security Council.
- What
solution do you advocate?
THE PRESIDENT:
To end the deadlock, I believe we
mustn't be afraid of making a sort of
"conceptual jump" and entrusting the
Commission's composition to its
president. After all, he has the
confidence of the European Council and
the Parliament, which have jointly
appointed him in line with the result of
the European elections. He could form
the team freely and then be responsible
for obtaining approval of it from the
Parliament and Council. National
governments aren't formed in any other
way. Of course, the Commission's
president-designate would have to
consult national governments and respect
the balances underpinning the EU,
particularly between the member States
and political movements. But in the end,
the choice would be his. That way the
Commission could work as a genuine team
headed by their president. The question
of its composition would not be settled
once and for all in the abstract, but
would reflect the political balance of
power after each renewal.
- Nor does
the simplified treaty say anything on
the rules for majority voting, which are
a key aspect of the Constitutional
Treaty?
THE PRESIDENT:
Clearly, the unanimity rule has to be
changed in Europe. How can we believe
and get people to believe that we're
going to fight terrorism effectively by
convening a learned assembly of 54
interior and justice ministers, giving
each two minutes to speak, and demanding
they be unanimous?
A while ago I talked about the creation
of a "super-qualified" majority
requiring, for example, 70 or 80
percent of the votes for a
decision to be adopted. What would be
the appeal of this mechanism? Because
there are areas which are so sensitive
for member States that it's illusory to
hope to get these moved into the sphere
of simple qualified majority voting, but
for which application of the unanimity
rule would be sure to lead to deadlock.
It's the case for taxation: we haven't
gone far enough in harmonizing the taxes
on businesses and economic activities
subject to competition. The result is
that States are allowed to indulge in
destructive competition on tax to
attract businesses to their countries by
cutting corporate tax, sometimes to
zero. Tax dumping, which is prospering
under the unanimity rule isn't
acceptable inside the EU. We must be
able to clarify the division of powers
between the Community institutions and
States, according to the principles of
subsidiary and proportionality.
-
Basically, doesn't the crisis into which
Europe has been plunged reflect the deep
concern of the people faced with an
entity whose limits they find hard to
grasp?
THE PRESIDENT:
You're right. Europe worries people
because we haven't had the courage to
ask the question about its borders. It's
time to consider the matter frankly.
Does Europe have to have borders? My
answer is yes. The negative results of
the French and Dutch referenda were
partly provoked by hostility to a
borderless Europe. Establishing a
geographical and political framework for
the European Union is essential for our
fellow citizens to regain ownership of
the European project.
- Where
should Europe extend to?
THE PRESIDENT:
What's certain is that there must be no
more enlargements until new institutions
have been adopted.
A new member's accession is first of all
a decision which the EU must take for
itself, in line with its own objectives,
within the limits of its capabilities
and with its peoples' consent, before
falling within the sphere of EU external
policy and its concern to encourage
reforms in other countries. The
important thing for Europe is not to
water down its policies and institutions
in an entity in which any decision
would, by definition, be impossible.
What's important for the EU is to be
solid enough to project its influence
and lay the foundations of an area of
stability and prosperity broadened to
include its continental and
Mediterranean neighbors. Which means
that the EU's absorption capacity isn't
infinitely extendable. I'd like this
absorption capacity concept to be given
specific content and made operational;
let me add that it's necessary to check
this at every stage of an enlargement
process and not only on its completion,
since then it's too late to react.
- Who is
European and who isn't?
THE PRESIDENT:
A distinction has to be made between two
categories of States:
1. Those whose candidature for EU
membership no one disputes. The European
Union is open to all States clearly
belonging to the European continent
(Switzerland, Norway, the Balkans) and
nearby islands (Iceland). These States
will join the European Union when they
can (the Balkans) or wish to (the
others), provided that the EU, on its
side, is in a position to accept them,
particularly from the point of view of
the operation of its institutions.
2. Those whose candidature for EU
membership isn't self-evident or who are
neighbors without being European. For
these countries in the Euro-Asian and
Mediterranean areas, our first step must
be to establish a particularly close
partnership. We must work with them with
due regard for our respective interests,
but without making concessions on our
values. To my mind, there's nothing
automatic: even though all those
participating in the "Barcelona Process"
are geographically destined to have a
partnership with us, only those who we
can see have made progress will be able
to be accepted as "privileged partners"
of the EU.
- Do
you think that, provided she fulfils the
conditions set by the European Union,
Turkey's place is in Europe?
THE PRESIDENT:
Fulfillment of the criteria isn't the
be-all and end-all here. On Turkey, I've
always spoken clearly: I think she isn't
destined to become a member of the
European Union because she isn't
European. But Turkey not joining the EU
doesn't mean that she will distance
herself from Europe. Who can seriously
claim that the close ties between Turkey
and Europe, which are the fruit of a
historic process and sincere friendship,
will be loosened overnight solely
because of her not joining the EU?
Turkey is a friendly country with which
we share interests and values. We must
deepen our relations with her in the
framework of a "privileged partnership".
We must even go further and propose to
the Mediterranean area countries that we
establish with them a Mediterranean
union, of which Turkey would naturally
be one of the linchpins. This union
would work closely with the European
Union and one day have joint
institutions with it. Its heads of State
and government could have periodic
meetings as does the major
industrialized countries' G8. It would
have a Council of the Mediterranean just
as Europe has the Council of Europe. The
pillars of this solidarity and
cooperation area would be a common
policy of concerted immigration
measures, economic and trade
development, promotion of the rule of
law in the region, environmental
protection and co-development with, for
example, the creation of a Mediterranean
Investment Bank modeled on the European
Investment Bank.
- The
recent gas and oil crises which have
pitted Russia against Ukraine and
Belarus have highlighted the fragility
of European energy supplies?
THE PRESIDENT:
Energy will be the major issue of the
twenty-first century. Europe must have a
common energy policy modeled on the
Common Agricultural Policy. Today, our
partners are prepared to move towards
this, which is excellent. France must be
in the vanguard when it comes to drawing
up a European energy policy based on the
security and diversification of our
supply sources, reduction of our energy
dependence and fighting global warming
by developing the use of
environmentally-friendly energy sources.
|
|
©
2006 All content property of European Weekly unless where otherwise
accredited
|