Today's Date:

(...)

Barely three weeks ago, the Brussels European Council launched the final phase of the accession negotiations. In so doing, it started the very tight countdown for the take-off of European enlargement: signature of the treaty of accession next April, ratification in the 25 countries concerned, entry of the new member States some time in 2004.

As you know, the enlargement process is only one of the items on the European agenda. The work programme will be particularly heavy in the next few months and years: reform of the institutions, Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations, definition of the EU’s financial framework for 2007-2013.
This timetable offers us an opportunity for some hard thinking about the Europe of tomorrow, at the very moment when all of us sense that a genuine radical reform of our institutions is essential. The Europe of 25 tomorrow, and subsequently of 30 or more, must encourage us to tackle the substantive issues in response to a twofold imperative:

- the enlargement is transforming our horizons and forcing us to rethink the future development of our Union;

- our thinking about Europe’s institutions and policies must likewise adapt to this new reality and set new ambitions.

(...)

I - Enlargement raises the issue of the future direction of the European Union.

Indeed, everything stems from this. The reform of the institutions initiated under the auspices of the Convention is not an end in itself, but a way of answering a question, which today, on the eve of the accession of ten new member States, assumes a quite special significance. Europe has always moved forward by setting itself new frontiers: coal and steel in 1951, the common market in 1958 and then the single market in 1986, the single currency in 1992. Enlargement is just such a new frontier, this new goal capable of mobilizing minds and energies. It is both an opportunity and a tremendous challenge.

1/. No one, I believe, underestimates the challenge which enlargement represents for Europe as we know it.
The number of member States will practically double with the accession in 2004 of the “Copenhagen ten”, followed, we hope, as early as 2007 by Romania and Bulgaria. With 74 million additional inhabitants in 2004, and 31 million more in 2007, the EU will soon pass the 480 million mark.

This enlargement will profoundly transform the very nature of our Union, bringing to it a wealth of diversity, experiences and new concerns. It will test the limits of an institutional system designed for six member States and maintained, through successive enlargements, without the necessary reforms being adopted. Make no mistake, the sheer numbers will have a considerable effect: they will therefore need to be analysed, and responses furnished. Enlargement comes at a financial and institutional cost. There will also be implications for the development of EU policies and for the implementing instruments accompanying them.

2/. But this enlargement must be seen in a historical perspective. Let us be clear: how could we possibly justify closing the door to candidate countries and their peoples? Are they less European than we? Is it that they are less prosperous? Since the breach opened in a concrete wall a few steps from the Brandenburg Gate, thirteen years ago, suddenly gave them back the prospect of a future which had been taken from them, the candidate countries have, year after year, willingly undertaken enormous sacrifices to make up for lost time, to adapt to the rules of the market economy, to incorporate into their rules and regulations what our experts call the acquis communautaire.

(...) The idea of Europe is in reality an ancient idea, already present in the Middle Ages, lived as a reality for many centuries. Think of the way the artists of the Renaissance used to travel, regarding working in Florence, Paris, Amboise or Bruges as an ordinary part of their professional lives. Remember the travels of the Enlightenment philosophers: their forerunner Descartes dividing his time between France, the Netherlands and Sweden, the presence of Diderot in St Petersburg, Voltaire’s visits to London… Behind this movement of men and ideas, there were already the beginnings of our great single market. Above all there was the emergence of a European humanism, enriched by dialogue and interchange, built of tolerance and openness, which is the hallmark of the European spirit. And it is that same spirit which must inspire us today in the enlargement process. We shall thereby be doing nothing other than returning to the noblest springs of European thought, the source of our honour and our originality, of what impels us to keep faith with our illustrious ancestors, what makes ours a continent of liberty and solidarity.

It is that historical vision and that spirit of Europe which has to inspire us in our evaluation of Turkey’s candidature. The prospect of that country’s accession was introduced at the time of the first association agreement in 1963, and in 1999 the Helsinki European Council accepted the Turkish candidature. The elections of 3 November 2002 brought to power in Ankara the Justice and Development Party (AKP) led by Mr Erdogan. We have taken note of the Turkish people’s democratic choice, and we respect it.

The leaders of AKP have made statements favourable to the process of bringing Turkey and the European Union closer together. We shall judge them by their acts. For our part, we are ready to work with them in a demanding partnership, based on the common European values which belonging to the Union means sharing: respect for human rights, democracy, the rule of law. Respect for these common values is the yardstick by which the actions of the new Turkish government and Turkey’s candidature will be evaluated.

3/. Enlargement is also and above all a great opportunity for the future. Recent history has shown that we should have taken nothing for granted, that there was a temptation to call into question the equilibria which emerged from the war and to reopen old wounds. Enlargement will extend that post-war stability to encompass the whole continent. The EU’s principal achievement is indeed to have become a haven of peace and stability in an uncertain and dangerous world. Enlargement is an opportunity for the countries of Europe including France, in both human and economic terms: it will bring new blood to our nations, open up new markets for our enterprises, other people eager to take on our ideas. To the candidate countries, it will guarantee development and ensure democracy, peace and stability.

Enlargement is an opportunity for the world, whose security it will strengthen, to which it will bring a newly-strengthened player aware of its responsibilities, and an exemplary model of peace, tolerance and prosperity.
Lastly, the enlargement is welcome because it is forcing us to ask long-overdue questions on the institutional organization of the European system. At a time when the EU’s geography is about to change its dimension, political and institutional Europe absolutely must follow suit, failing which it will collapse under the weight of numbers.

4/. Enlargement is thus a response to a political and moral imperative: the reunification of the European family. But this raises the question of Europe’s borders.

“Any European State which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) may apply to become a member of the Union”, says Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union – which raises the question of where Europe ends. The answer to this question is based on two elements: the desire for Europe expressed by any given State, and respect for the accession criteria set by the treaty and by the EU. But that answer cannot be other than political, and being political it must be guided by a twofold concern:

- Europe must find the necessary balance between unity and diversity. Otherwise this area, which has been in a state of constant flux, will risk losing touch with its foundations. Worse still, we shall be in danger, as country after country joins us, of creating uncertainty in the minds of our fellow citizens, who need to know where the bounds of their future lie.

- But this legitimate concern for identity and stability must be pursued in the spirit of openness I mentioned earlier. We must therefore devise a strong border policy, a policy of close cooperation, fertile imagination and active will so that, between outright accession on the one hand and association on the other, there exists an original model of a partnership which is as full as possible, going beyond what has been done thus far and is open, bold and effective. A partnership in which our neighbours would benefit from the EU’s prosperity, from its experience in the field of security, from its technical assistance. Here we would have a mutual exchange, of benefit to both parties: Europe would gain by having stable borders, while its partners would find the cooperation they need to promote their development, without necessarily being integrated into the EU’s institutional framework.

The EU has already adopted a number of instruments tailored to meet its neighbours’ needs: the association agreements for the Mediterranean countries, a subject which will be central to the concerns of the Greek and Italian presidencies in 2003, the stabilization and association agreements for the Balkans, the agreements with Ukraine and of course Russia… We shall very probably need to adapt them to meet each partner’s needs, to the point where we can pursue a coherent and homogeneous partnership policy with all Europe’s neighbours in the aftermath of enlargement.

You can be sure that France has great ambitions for post-enlargement Europe. Our country has always been at the heart of Europe’s progress; today it is determined that the enlargement should be a success.

II - For that purpose, we must adapt the institutions and specify the functions we expect of tomorrow’s Europe.

A - This French ambition for the enlarged Europe must be served by reformed institutions.

1/. The time has come for a first progress report on the work of the Convention on the future of the Union, whose mandate is to trace the outlines of the new Europe.

The Convention started its work early in March of this year with a listening phase. A few weeks ago it embarked on its study phase, characterized by the sustained activity of ten working groups. The beginning of next year will see the launch of the third and final phase of the Convention’s work, that of proposals.

a) The members of the Convention are making progress. We can already discern a certain convergence of views on a number of the subjects tackled at this stage: the principle that there should be a Constitution, the resolve to promote standard procedures, recognition of the EU’s status as a legal entity, integration into the Treaty of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, an enhanced role for national parliaments. All this is encouraging. But we must be clear: the most important work still remains to be done. The Convention has begun to look at the issues of external relations and defence; other questions, like the coordination of economic policies, seem to be encountering powerful resistance; institutional issues have barely begun to be tackled.

So the most difficult issues are still ahead of us. We all know that the future of the EU will turn on the emergence of a common willingness on the part of Europeans to go beyond their present rivalries such as those between large and small States, or between partisans of the intergovernmental method and the Community method. We must now move to what is essential, i.e. putting in place a set of effective, democratic and transparent institutions, which will enable the enlarged Europe to make progress in the search for better common policies and the strengthening of its role in the world.

b) The initial draft, “architecture”, of the future Constitution presented to the Convention last week is an important stage in its work.
The draft will serve to initiate the debate on the basis of proposals which are both specific and open to modification. It is in line with our objective of having a fundamental, clear and transparent text which will make it easier for our citizens to feel that Europe belongs to them. The principles it sets out – transparency, democracy, international presence, effectiveness – are those we have assigned to the future of Europe. It remains to make those principles more operational. So our reactions will be made known as the Convention goes ahead with its work. We shall in particular be concerned to ensure that the main existing common policies (the CAP, but also competition, trade policy, Euratom) are given their rightful place. Moreover, the treaty will have to guarantee an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe and growing solidarity, especially at a time when Europe is undergoing enlargement. Here, too, our efforts will have to concentrate on the need to give a real impetus to the European project through this Constitution. Such a text is indeed essential if Europeans are to be convinced of their leaders’ ability to make the system more comprehensible and effective.

c) A third feature of this progress report: our representatives are taking an active part in the proceedings, both in the working groups and the plenary. The dialogue between representatives of the government, those of our Parliament

(...) and those of the European Parliament is going well. The Minister Delegate for European Affairs holds a meeting of all the French members of the Convention at the Quai d’Orsay before each plenary session of the Convention.

(...)

Thus, thanks to these discussions between our Convention members, the message conveyed by our country is that of a France who has ambitions for Europe, is generous towards her partners and demanding vis-à-vis the goals she sets herself.

2/. France is well aware of the importance of the issues facing us. Beyond the reaffirmation of the acquis communautaire, we need to rethink the European institutions in the light of past experience.

a) The French position is in the first instance guided by the concern to go beyond the traditional dispute, as I said, between the Community and intergovernmental methods.

For the internal market and its concomitant policies, France is convinced of the advantages offered by the Community method, a guarantee of speed and effectiveness. Our wish in these areas, then, is to strengthen the Commission’s power to make proposals, widen the scope of qualified-majority voting in the Council, and strengthen the prerogatives of the European Parliament.
On the other hand, when it comes to fields like foreign policy and defence, the problems are different in nature; here it is more a matter of political will, in a framework where the need for legitimacy is particularly acute. This is why we consider that purely and simply bringing this within the Community dimension is premature, and are proposing an approach based on organized cooperation and strengthened solidarity, which must go further than the conventional intergovernmental approach.

b) The French position is in reality based on three simple principles: transparency, democracy and effectiveness.

1. First transparency The treaties have become incomprehensible, not just for the citizens, but for the specialists themselves. We therefore face the imperative need to simplify the institutional system. This means merging the existing treaties in a Constitution incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights and taking a whole series of associated steps such as the clarification of spheres of competence, giving the Union legal personality, or even adopting a treaty in two parts with different amendment rules.

3. The last principle, effectiveness If we do not want the machinery of Europe to grind to a halt under the sheer weight of numbers, it has to be given a new engine, a new ambition, and real leadership at the top. In this context, the rotating six-month presidency of the Council of Ministers must be reformed. The EU presidency needs to have the kind of permanence that would allow it in a sense to embody the EU’s authority. This is the purpose of the proposals put forward by President Chirac for the election of a president of the European Council and appointment of a real minister of foreign affairs to serve alongside him. The president of the European Council could thus chair the General Affairs Council whose coordination role would thereby be ensured, while the minister of foreign affairs would chair the External Relations Council.
Such an arrangement does not mean that our country wants to upset the balance between Council and Commission. On the contrary, we are seeking to enhance the existing equilibrium by encouraging the Commission, too, to increase its effectiveness and by advocating a better coordination between the two institutions so as to promote the adoption, in future, of clear and universally accepted political guidelines which can provide a common framework for the EU’s work.

B - It is also France’s ambition to help fashion a Europe which will inspire confidence among its citizens and be a strong presence on the international scene.

1/. The Europe we want must be capable of mobilizing Europeans in support of projects and policies which serve their interests and meet their concerns The Lisbon European Council set the target that within ten years Europe should become the world’s strongest area of growth and prosperity. This objective, which aims at our continent’s full integration into the modern world, must be based on the three characteristics which make Europe what it uniquely is: a well-established social model, a strong identity, and lastly an area of freedom, security and justice. These aims must also be those of the enlarged Europe; after the establishment of the single market and launch of the euro, these will be the great energizing projects of tomorrow.

2/. Tomorrow’s Europe must likewise be a responsible Europe, capable of exercising real influence in world affairs, to help guarantee world peace and stability.

The fall of the Berlin wall and globalization have made the world unstable. If we want to tackle the great challenges awaiting us, we as Europeans must not only display solidarity in the face of the threats, but also share a common vision of the world. We want a planet ruled by respect for the law, not by the force of arms; we want an international community founded on sharing and dialogue, not one torn apart by ethnic, religious or cultural conflicts.

Meaning must be given to Europe. We are heirs to the same history. We belong to the same continent. Nothing that happens to one of our neighbours can leave us indifferent. Defence Europe is part of this profound reality. We must be capable of together assessing the threats hanging over our fellow citizens, of together forging the instruments of an effective common response.

a) France’s ambition is to see the EU assert itself as a major player on the international scene, commensurate with the front-rank role it already plays in the economic and commercial fields. But this ambition is still far from being realized.

Significant advances have admittedly been made over these past few years. The creation, under the Treaty of Amsterdam, of the post of High Representative for the common foreign and security policy has made a significant contribution to the growing power of the Fifteen’s foreign policy.

Thanks to the efforts of Javier Solana and his special representatives, the EU has succeeded in developing an overall policy for the Balkans since the Zagreb summit. Its involvement in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) in particular was decisive in rescuing that country from a slide into fratricidal conflict.

Nevertheless, that is still an isolated example. In the Middle East, for instance, where Europe is much in demand, the EU is not sufficiently active and visible. Despite the efforts on the ground of its representative Mr Moratinos, despite its presence in the Quartet, despite its large financial contributions, Europe has not managed to give practical expression to the broad policy guidelines laid down by the European Council for rejoining the path of peace.

Yet Europe has not been unable to do this because of any lack of resources. The resources of member States, combined with those available to the Commission, are considerable: Europe has contributed EUR 1.4 billion to the Palestinian Authority over the past ten years!

This is all the more serious now that enlargement is about to render the EU more heterogeneous, while new threats – terrorism, proliferation, organized crime – are calling for urgent responses.

b) Faced with this rather mixed track record, we propose that member States should create a more unified European foreign policy, and that there should be stronger leadership at the top.

More unified, so that Europe may no longer appear divided when in reality the positions of the Fifteen are very close, as was the case on Iraq. I am struck by the discrepancy between the positions expressed by my colleagues at our working sessions, where we are very close, and their expression on the diplomatic and media scene, where it is the differences which are emphasized rather than the convergent views, though the latter are more numerous.

More leadership, permanence and a higher profile: that is the aim of the proposals by President Chirac which I have mentioned: the election of a president of the European Council, appointment of a European minister of foreign affairs. Political will cannot be decreed, it needs to be guided.

c) When it comes to Europe’s defence and security, Europe has become aware of its political role and the first practical steps must be backed by the putting in place of the necessary capabilities.

Since the Saint-Malo Summit in 1998 and the Cologne European Council, we have set up machinery for the conduct of crisis management operations: the Political and Security Committee, Military Committee, EU Military Staff. The structures are now in place and the EU declared its operational readiness at the Laeken European Council. We shall very soon have our first opportunity to put these new capabilities to work: in Bosnia where, from next January, Europe will deploy a force of 470 police officers, as in FYROM. But in that country we are still far short of the right number, since most of our European partners are reluctant to get involved in taking over from NATO unless the delicate question of relations between that organization and the European Union is settled first.

Our country is determined to pursue the effort to make European defence a truly ambitious undertaking. We intend to put forward a number of proposals to that effect, like the inclusion in the future treaty of the principle of collective security and mutual assistance in the face of possible challenges to our security, and the setting-up of a European Armaments Agency designed to enhance harmonization of the European armed forces’ operational needs.

Finally, with the new military estimates act, France has decided to tackle the challenge of an unstable world by arming herself with modern, high-performance military equipment. She has done so for the security of her fellow citizens, but also with the intention of making a significant contribution to European defence missions. Other countries must undertake similar commitments. We propose setting targets for convergence in this field, for our military credibility is at stake here.

These French proposals for Europe will be meaningful only if they can command very wide support in Europe, in the member States, in the European institutions and in the Convention. This is why we have embarked upon a process of in-depth consultation with our partners.

There are now frequent meetings between the President Chirac and the Chancellor as part of the Blaesheim process; my contacts with my opposite number Joschka Fischer, and Noëlle Lenoir’s with hers, are equally regular. Sharing responsibility, assured of clear political skies during the crucial years to come, the two governments firmly intend together to take Europe forward and make a success of its enlargement. We shall have an opportunity on 22 January 2003, the 40th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty, to reaffirm the full strength of Franco-German cooperation and give it the necessary impetus for continuing to be one of the essential engines of Europe (...)./.