European Union Studies Center, City University of New York

 

 

“Old World, New Order: Europe’s Place in the International Architecture of the 21st Century”

 

Dr Benita Ferrero-Waldner,

European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy

 

15 September 2005

 

 

Let me thank Dr Kaufmann and the EU Studies Center at CUNY for this invitation to talk to you today.

 
As students and educators of EU affairs you know that the European Union is both a fascinating and sometimes a challenging subject– fascinating because it is a unique structure and process in international relations, and challenging because it is constantly evolving, so there is no end to the syllabus!

 

In the EU, we like to think that we are a model example of international integration on the on hand, while having a growing role as an international player on the other.

But I do not need to tell you that – as participants in the programme of “Centres of excellence on EU affairs”, you are fully aware of the importance of understanding the EU.  It is a challenge still to many Europeans and as the Member of the European Commission in charge of external relations I can only congratulate you for your efforts.

 I am going to make 3 points about the EU’s vision of its place within the international architecture of the 21st Century. First, our promotion of effective multilateralism; second, the role of the transatlantic relationship; and third, the EU as a global actor. And then I would be happy to get your feed-back and enter into a discussion.

 

1) Effective Multilateralism

 

This basically means for us that together we can address the challenges at hand better than alone. This principle lies at the core of the foundation of the European Union itself, but in some sense also of the United States. In a world of global threats and challenges, global markets and global media, our security and prosperity increasingly depend on an effective multilateral system.

And the central focus of our Security Strategy is promoting effective multilateralism, with the United Nations at its core.
I am in New York for the Summit of world leaders to mark the 60th anniversary of the United Nations and make it more effective. In fact I come to you directly from the UN’s General Assembly Hall where the Summit is still on-going.

Standing here in New York, only a few days after the 4th anniversary of 9/11, I do not need to remind you we live in a world of global threats. Hurricane Katrina is another example, which shows that we are all vulnerable to natural disasters, perhaps increasingly so. It also shows the scope of international solidarity in these instances, as European and other countries, even those devastated by the Asian tsunami last December, offered assistance to the victims on the US Gulf Coast.

 

Clearly, we need a stronger international society based on international rules created and monitored by well-functioning international institutions. Our security and prosperity increasingly depend upon it.

 

What can we do to achieve that? First and foremost, we must strengthen the current international architecture, and that means strengthening the pivot of the system – the United Nations.

 

That is what the Summit is all about. The UN’s original promise - anchoring international peace and security, promoting sustainable development and defending human rights and human security - remains as valid today as 60 years ago. But the world you are living in is radically different to the one the UN was born into, and the nature of conflicts and threats has changed enormously. The UN needs an organisational re-fit and a mandate for fresh action to equip it for the task of meeting 2005’s challenges and those of another 60 years hence.

 

Development, security and human rights are the three pillars of the vision of the future that Kofi Annan articulated so well. How do we measure up against that vision?

 
When it comes to development assistance, the EU leads the world. The European Commission and EU member states provide some 55% of the world’s overseas development assistance. From the outset of the debate, we have led the efforts to increase this assistance to 0.7% of GNI by 2015. We have set for ourselves an intermediate goal of 0.56% by 2010. Today we provide some 43bn euro a year in ODA (more than 53bn dollars). This total wiill increase by another 26bn euro over the next five years. At least 50% of this will go to sub-Saharan Africa. This is not negligible!

 

I very much hope to see other donors following our lead. In this context, I welcome the United States’ commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, expressed yesterday by President Bush in his speech at the UN World summit.

 

The other side of this coin of course is good use of these resources: and this depends on supporting countries to establish and reinforce good governance.


Trade will also make an important contribution to development. The EU stands ready to make a success of the forthcoming negotiations of the WTO in Hong Kong and to ensure that the development focus is maintained. Our offer to eliminate all export subsidies stands!

 

Agreeing on a Peace-Building Commission is one key result in the area of peace and security. We must now ensure that it begins its work by the end of this year. The European Commission has enormous experience in helping to stabilize countries emerging from conflicts, in all possible corners of the world: from the Balkans to Indonesia, from Afghanistan to Africa. We are looking forward to taking an appropriate place at the table, side by side with other key institutional donors, and to contributing to the best of our capabilities – as we always have.

 

Another important outcome is our recognition of our collective responsibility to protect populations against atrocities. I have always strongly believed that people must be at the heart of security concerns! The UN's credibility is much reinforced by adopting this concept.

 
Nobody questions any longer the need to confront terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purpose. Concluding a comprehensive convention on this topic during the 60th UNGA session is long overdue, but will become nevertheless.

 

Peace and security is of course grounded in education for peace and human development. This is something I wholeheartedly endorse. Indeed, the ideas it embodies are very much the focus of the Commission's many and diverse educational policies and programmes.

 

Human Rights are universal. And putting them on the same level as development and as peace and security underscores their universality. We cannot tolerate abuses of our fellow human beings, wherever they may occur. The Commission on Human Rights has lost the ability to act on behalf of victims, and thus its credibility. Forming a new, smaller and more functional Human Rights Council will help the UN become a driving force behind human-rights protection. We had hoped to be more ambitious in turning this idea into reality. Let us finish this important chapter by February 2006!

 

On the other hand, the Democracy Fund is a tangible result which the Commission will support, politically and financially.
 

On all of this, we will have to work closely with our American friends, and that brings me to my second point:

 

2) The importance of the Transatlantic Relationship

 

The European Commission’s President Barroso said, “The relationship between the United States and Europe constitutes the world’s strongest, most comprehensive and strategically most important partnership”.

 

Europeans and Americans are natural partners, united by the same fundamental values. The European reaction to the terrible flooding and destruction inflicted by Hurricane Katrina went beyond the natural shock and intense sympathy for any disaster on this scale. It reminded me of Le Monde’s headline after 9/11, "Nous sommes tous Américains" - we are all Americans. We feel a special solidarity for each other. And just as Americans have been there for us at difficult moments of our history, we have mobilised our civilian protection coordination to send assistance from across Europe.

 

So it is natural that when we think about the EU’s place in the 21st century, we think about our cooperation with the US. To implement UN reforms, indeed to achieve all our goals – combating terrorism, bolstering homeland security, and promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights – we need each other.

 

But of course there are those on this side of the Atlantic who are sceptical that Europe can be a useful partner for the US – who believe the EU will never be anything other than an economic giant but continue to be a political dwarf. And, unfortunately, the confusion over what the "no" votes on the European constitution in the Netherlands and France meant will only support their opinion.

 

So let me turn to my third point:

3) The EU as a global player

First I want to clear up the confusion about the implication of these “no” votes. They have not plunged the EU into crisis. It is true that we were disappointed – the draft Constitutional Treaty includes many useful innovations to make the enlarged EU work better and bring policy closer to our citizens. But our institutions continue to function, even without it.

 

However, coupled with June's lack of agreement on the EU's future budget, we decided on a “period of reflection” to address the unease felt by some of our citizens about the EU's future. We have given ourselves until next spring to take stock of where we stand.

 

There is still overwhelming support for the EU, but our citizens now take for granted the most impressive achievements – most importantly, 60 years of peace on our continent. The challenge for Europe’s politicians is to ensure that today’s EU also tackles the current concerns of our citizens - the economy, jobs, quality of life, and security.

 

We also need to play a greater role internationally - both the EU's citizens and our partners throughout the world demand it. So a large part of our reflection on the EU's future will focus on how we can do more and do it better.

 

I read that a US Commission on the future of the military recently wrote in its report to Congress that the “no” votes “highlighted the continued political weakness of the Union”.

 

I disagree. It is true that we need to do more to match our political clout with our economic power. But we are already a powerful global actor – I know from my daily experience that when we talk, people listen. Not only are we the world's largest economic bloc, we are the biggest donor of development assistance. We use our foreign policy tools – aid, trade, and economic agreements - to promote human rights and good governance in every corner of the globe. And for those who say we are no military power – more than 50,000 European soldiers are currently keeping the peace and promoting stability across the world.


As we work through our internal challenges we will remain a committed international player. Let me tell you about our efforts for peace in Aceh, Indonesia. Just today our 230-strong peace-monitoring mission arrived on the ground. We brokered the August peace deal putting an end to 30 years of bloody conflict, the world’s longest lasting civil war, in the world’s largest Moslem country. Together with 5 members of ASEAN we are now staffing and funding a mission to monitor the decommissioning of arms and relocation of police and military.

 

We are also engaged in Afghanistan, where we are providing significant financial assistance to this weekend’s elections and have sent the largest international election observation mission. And we are active in all the major hot-spots around the world – Darfur, Iran, Gaza, and I could go on.

 

My point is - we are still in business, and our partners around the world can count on us as a responsible global player.

 

Let me give you a flavour of what lies ahead.

Working for an effective multilateral framework and deepening our relationship with the United States are the fundamentals. But the EU also has Strategic Partnerships with China, Canada, Russia, Japan, and India which we want to develop further.

 

We are building closer relationships with many other countries and regions. But rather than go through a long list, let me tell you about the EU's newest foreign policy instrument, the European Neighbourhood Policy.

 

The challenge of EU foreign policy is first and foremost to ensure stability and security in our immediate neighbourhood. Traditionally, enlargement has been our main policy instrument. It has indeed been enormously successful, bringing 10 new members into the EU last year alone. We leveraged the EU’s attractive power to promote sustainable political and economic reform in those countries – a triumph for soft power. And more are set to join them.

 

But recent events perhaps suggest that this policy is, at least for the foreseeable future, reaching its limits. We will honour our commitments to those already on track for membership, but we have to watch our absorption capacity carefully.

 

That is why the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is even more important today. ENP is designed to expand the EU’s area of security and stability to our eastern and southern neighbours. It’s a win-win policy, based on mutual interest and shared values. We share our neighbours desire to become more prosperous and stable. We encourage them to take meaningful steps to modernize, open up markets, and strengthen the rule of law, good governance and human rights. In return we offer a share in the EU’s single market, closer cooperation on energy and transport links, and a chance to participate in the EU's internal programmes.

 

ENP has already been a success – we applied it in Ukraine at the end of last year to push events in the right direction. We wanted to offer Ukraine a closer relationship, but we could only do that if Ukraine shared our fundamental values. Ukraine needed to demonstrate its respect for the rule of law and democratic principles.


So we spelt out the incentives on offer and stressed that we were ready to begin implementing them as soon as possible. That gave the EU's negotiators the necessary leverage to reach a successful outcome for democracy.

 

The ENP has a lot of potential to resolve disputes and promote political and economic reform in our neighbours. I hope that we will soon be sending contributing to resolving the frozen conflict in Transnistria. And we will use the ENP Action Plans we signed with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to help advance the peace process, following on from Gaza disengagement and engaging the parties back in the Road Map.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

Let me end with an American comment on Europe, from Jeremy Rifkin, who wrote, “[the] European Dream is a beacon of light in a troubled world. It beckons us to an age of inclusivity, diversity, quality of life, deep play, sustainability, universal human rights, the rights of nature and peace on Earth”.

That sums up the 21st century international architecture we want to establish, one which will protect our interests and principles of democracy and freedom. I am a firm believer in that European Dream, and in the potential we have for promoting democracy, freedom and justice throughout the world. But we can only fulfill that potential if we work ever more closely with our closest, most natural partner, the United States.

 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.