The European Courier in cooperation with Foreign Policy Association presents:

THE REFORMED EUROPE - March 26, 2008

- an interview with Amb. Fernando M. Valenzuela,

Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to the United Nations.

Watch video here.

* * *

Sebastian Aulich: In July last year President of the European Commission, Mr. Barroso, called the European

Union “an empire”, he actually used a phrase a “non-imperial empire”. Do you agree with that? Can Europe be called an empire?

Fernando M. Valenzuela: A “non-imperial”? Yes. But in the traditional sense of course not. I think what he was clearly referring to is the fact that the European Union is becoming more and more important actor on the world stage. I think he was using a word “empire” in a symbolic way.

SA: Can the European Union become a security factor? Can Europe create a single European Army, which would be able to be deployed in different parts of the globe? If yes, should it be done within NATO’s structures or independently?

FMV: The real factor right now is that the EU has not a defense policy. What we call a defense policy is not a defense in a traditional term of a defense of a territory. It’s rather conducting missions outside our territory, for peacekeeping or humanitarian purposes. The real defense of the territory is basically in the hands of NATO. As you know the majority of the member states of the EU are also members of NATO, and that’s where the actual defense of Europe takes place. So these are two completely different things. One thing is our activity as a peace-builder and peace-keeper in the world. The other thing is our defense. I think that our defense will stay, in foreseeable future, within Transatlantic Alliance.

SA: U.S. government wants to place its national missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Do you think that this issue should be left to be decided by Poland and the Czech Republic alone or rather it should be decided by the whole European Union?

FMV: This is certainly a matter in which the Commission has no say whatsoever. Even as a citizen I would hesitate to have a short, clear answer to that. I think that these issues are basically of national, domestic competence. The question is, however, that even in matters of national competence, you may decide to take it one way or the other, more or less cooperatively, with more os less consultations. It is certainly a matter, which depends on your own decisions. I am sure that if you asked ten different Europeans, you would probably hear ten different responses to this specific question.

SA: Is the Reform Treaty a step toward federalization of the EU, toward creation of a federal state? Or rather Europe will continue to exist in its present form, as an organization of sovereign states?

FMV: Europe is not, already, a simple organization of sovereign states. It is, of course, something which is made of sovereign states, but is far from being a traditional international organization. These sovereign states have decided to entrust some of sovereign rights to this Union’s institutions. We are not a state, a super-state or an international organization. We are something in between. We use to refer to it as an integration process, which is something that gives an idea of an evolution of certain things. I think that a thing we need to try to avoid is to compare ourselves, our interactions, with traditional standards of a state or international organization, which do not really correspond to our Union. You asked me whether the new Treaty implies more integration. I would say yes. If you asked me, if this implies a step in the area of federalization. I would say not at all. I think that this Treaty has been done with a very pragmatic approach. The question is that there were certain aspects that were needed to be improved at this stage, in which we are in our process, and this Treaty is taking care of it. More democracy, more transparency, more efficiency, better representation toward the rest of the world - these were issues, which were badly needed to be improved, of which this Treaty takes care of.

SA: European Union has 27 member states, which sometimes have very different national interests. Can the EU have a single foreign policy?

FMV: I think, again, that it does, because most of the time we have common positions or common understanding. That’s what I was referring before. It is a mistake to try to compare our common positions with what would be a decision-making process of a single country. It’s a different thing. Certainly, what we have achieved are some basic parameters of foreign policy on which we all agree. Most of the time, we agree on many specific issues. We have common actions, we have joint positions, but sometimes even if we do not get 100% perfect common attitude towards a specific issue, we nevertheless try to build basic blocs that the EU can stand together, even if some member states differ or go further than others, but we are still keeping the unity.

SA: If the Reform Treaty is ratified, then since January 2009 there will be an institution of the EU’s High Representative for external relations. Can the EU try, in the future, to apply for a seat the United Nations Security Council?

FMV: I don’t think those two things are related in any way. There is nothing in this Treaty that would lead things in that direction, so I think these are completely independent issues. If you want my personal opinion, I think that the twenty first century is still perhaps too short a period to see an evolution of this kind. Certainly, it is not something that is on the table right now.

SA: Great Britain and Poland refused to ratify the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Poland, for example, points out that the Charter does not define a term “marriage” as a relationship between a man and a woman. Does it mean that since January 2009 homosexual marriages will have to be legalized in the European Union, in those countries which ratify the Charter?

FMV: Not really. One of the improvements of this Treaty is that it brings more clarity between the competencies of the member states and those of the Union. This is a good example of this case. The Charter speaks about a marriage but what marriage specifically is depends on each member state. So, the EU has no interference in how each member state defines the term “marriage”. And that’s why, most probably, the Charter is not entering into any specifications in this field.

SA: Has the European Union done enough to prepare Western Balkan countries to accession into the EU? For example, in Kosovo unemployment rate is 40%, in Serbia 20%, in Bosnia also 40% and so on.

FMV: I think that a word “enough” is a difficult term to define. I would not say whether it was enough or not, but I would certainly say that the EU has been doing a tremendous job and has been expanding billions of euros to the Balkans. The situation in which the Balkans were before the conflicts in the 90's and after the conflicts is such that you cannot change economy in a very short period of time, it will take time, investments, good governance, good managerial policies. We are witnessing today that Western Balkans are making progress and there is higher level of development. Having said that, the EU has for a number of years a clear common policy toward the Western Balkans, which is called Stabilization and Association Policy, which comprises number of agreements with Balkan countries that will lead them from the present state to the possibility of membership in the EU in the future. So we have an established common policy toward the Balkans. Simply, the situation is complex, economic and social situation is difficult, particularly after the conflicts, and it will take time to carry on these tasks. I think we are on a right way.

SA: Serbia is going to held parliamentary elections in May this year. Are you afraid that Serbia may go back onto nationalistic track?

FMV: I hope not. This is, of course, a personal opinion, because we don’t have to make opinions of what is a result of democratic election in a sovereign country to be . I think, however, that it would be much better for Serbia to really make a clear decision towards Europe. It is clear that now they are facing difficult moments. It is difficult for the country to face such circumstances. Unfortunately it is a result of their wrong choices, decisions made by Serbian authorities more than 15 years ago. They have to look into future and the future for Serbia, and as we were talking before for the whole Balkan region, is in the European space, when they become members of the European Union. It is sharing the values, attitudes, principles that we all share in the European mainstream.

SA: Turkey wants to join the EU. Can Turkey become a member? For example Mr. Sarkozy is in opposition to Turkey’s membership. Is Europe ready to admit a Muslim state?

FVM: Firstly, I need to say that Turkey is in association with European Communities since the 60's and has a well established relationship. There is always a lot of speculation about this issue. I would not like to speculate. The reality, right now, is that Turkey is a candidate country, is a negotiated candidate country, and it has been so decided within the European Union. When you start negotiations with one country you do it in a sense that the negotiations will end up successfully. This is a case for Turkey. At the same time no negotiation gives guarantee of its successful ending. It means, obviously, that all possibilities are open. It also means that we, the EU, are committed to negotiate with Turkey in order for it to become, one day, a member of the European Union. That’s the reality. All the rest are speculative aspects, analyses, which I should not enter into.

SA: How about Ukraine? It seems that Poland is the only advocate of Ukraine’s membership in the European Union. Do you believe that Ukraine can join the EU one day?

FMV: Can? The answer would be - yes, because the external borders of the EU are not defined anywhere. It means that any country, which is European, can join. But again, I would like to avoid speculation. The reality for now is that Ukraine is not a candidate, is not even in a process of becoming a candidate, what is much less than being a candidate. For the time being the accession of Ukraine is not contemplated by the EU. What may happen in the future, who knows?

SA: Are you afraid that the Reform Treaty may not be ratified by all member states?

FMV: I am not. I am personally convinced that this time the Treaty will be ratified by all member states. The stakes are very high. European public opinion is wise and in favor to see the EU, which is capable of dealing with future challenges.

SA: Should the EU have a common energy policy? We see that European countries are becoming more and more dependent on Russian gas. Should there be a common approach or should every country deal with that issue independently?

FMV: We are going to have a common policy, we are already making it. Precisely one of the things this Treaty will bring are new competencies in the area of energy, which until now were strictly national competencies. The new Treaty will set a legal basis on which the common energy policy will be defined. If you have a single market, single currency, when you have completely integrated economy, then at the end of the day you think about energy issues as well. There are competencies that remain at the state level but as you know we work on a principle of subsidiarity that at the EU level we do those things which are better done at that level than at the national one. In the case of energy there are clearly things which can be done better at the EU level, so applying the subsidiarity principle the EU should have a policy on those aspects.

SA: We have seen anti-Americanism growing in Europe, especially because of war in Iraq. Can Europe define itself in opposition to the United States and challenge the United States at a global stage?

FMV: Certainly not, and for a number of reasons. The main one is that basically we are good friends. We have so much in common in all aspects, from interests to culture, that it is unthinkable that we could be confronted somehow. What might happen and it already happens is that on certain issues, on which we share the objectives, we may have different approaches. This has happened before and certainly will happen in the future as well. But it is very far from what would be a confrontation. I don’t think it is in the interest of any of us, especially when we look at the challenges of the future. Basically, a large majority of the Europeans is very favorable towards the transatlantic relationship. It is important for our future, for our defense, as I mentioned that before. We have to build on the transatlantic relationship, not to destroy it. Sometimes when one speaks about anti-Americanism in Europe it is a kind of cliche. Obviously there is some anti-Americanism in Europe, as there is anti-Europeanism in the U.S., but these are minority movements. Even those people who may manifest against certain policies of the U.S., as you mentioned Iraq, on the other hand will be admirers of American culture, American literature or films. It’s not a basic anti-Americanism in the sense that people are anti-American. In most of the cases they are just against this or that particular decision, as they may also be against this or that EU’s decision, as a matter of fact.

SA: Mr. Kouchner, France’s Foreign Minister, said the we should prepare for a war with Iran. Recently the UN Security Council sanctioned Iran for not complying with IAEA’s directives. Do you believe that war is possible?

FMV: I hope not. Certainly, I have no competence on this, but as a person I always try to think that war is avoidable and I hope that in this case it is. If you look at the past years, precisely at the European approach, although I think that the U.S. has been basically supportive, Europe has tired to engage Iran and convince them that there is no point in development of nuclear capacities. Of course I am talking about nuclear weapons not about nuclear capacities for civil purposes. This conversation sooner or later should bring some results.

Conducted on March 25, 2008 in Manhattan , New York.