Lecture on "The State of the European Union" by H.E. Ambassador Osmo Lipponen,
Consul General of Finland in New York, on Thursday, February 15, 2007 at Graduate
Center, City University of New York
On these occasions it has become a habit to give an overview of the last Presidency of the European Union as well as an evaluation of the state of the Union.
It means that every member country reporting here has to evaluate its own performance and, if possible, to find something in it to criticise, which, of course, is extremely difficult. Rather, I think this would be a good occasion to shift focus and create pressure on and expectations towards the upcoming Presidency.
We should keep in mind that close to 90% of the agenda of each Presidency is inherited from the previous Presidency. Thus some get lucky and reap the fruits of something that has practically been worked on under several Presidencies. Most, however, are unfortunate (or may be fortunate) to get to preside in between non-eventful periods. But the hard work continues nevertheless all the time, fireworks go off only every now and then.
For Finland, like for every small or medium size EU country and, especially for the newest arrivals among member countries, the Presidency is quite a remarkable national effort, by which each country has to prove its ability to lead the co-operation between 25/27 countries and at the same time to be able to counter-balance the Commission and the rest of the EU bureaucracy, and every now and then the bigger member countries flexing their muscle.
The plain fact is though that if the Presidency and the matters run smoothly, nobody will remember afterwards how it was managed.
An exception to this might be when first timers are followed by first timers. Sweden followed our first Presidency in 1999 and made it a matter of honour to be even better.
We Finns like to evaluate ourselves and feel very vulnerable if we have doubts of not living up to our standards.
The evaluation process of our second Presidency is still underway but the initial conclusions are that we did fairly well in general and in comparison to the great success
of our first Presidency.
Most of the work we did will be tested during the German Presidency. To guarantee the continuity we had very good co-operation with Germany and did some groundwork for the demanding agenda of the German Presidency.
According to the feedback from other member countries we seemed to have done also well. This is important to the Union which has been strongly criticised for the capability and know-how of small states to successfully run the Presidency. These tendencies are reflected in the constitutional treaty in addition to the real practical need to guarantee a better continuity of the management of the Union and to clarify the responsibilities between the EU organs as well as to create proper check and balance between them.
The EU Presidency is too often said to turn out to be something different than expected. The course of events often overtakes the planned one. That happened to us too.
Finland was full of expectations when taking over. It was quite comical that the very beginning brought us back to earth. Today visiting professor in New York, then German Foreign Minister Joscha Fischer left his front row seat at the big opening ceremony at the Finlandia House because of a time confusion on his calendar. Helsinki is one hour ahead of Central European time. That happened when our Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen made his way to the podium to give his speech. Our nation's crème de la crème present of course did not leave.
You should not take this small anecdote as descriptive of Germany's line. Seriously spoken, I have to remind you that Germany today, as in the past, has put great emphasis on the importance of the small states in the EU. The German line has been also tested in practice. Chancellor Angela Merkel has now in her turn given her guarantees that Germany will not pass the smaller member states in the decision-making. This line has been also tested in practice earlier and, when Finland applied for the EU membership, Germany stood up for us against the Commission's negative stand.
Also the recent statement by Chancellor Merkel against the initiative by Commissioner Verhaugen proves this. Verhaugen wanted to deprive smaller states of their Commissioners in the future.
Now back to our Presidency.
Austria did a great job before us even though the situation in the Union was not satisfactory. The problems of enlargement and the constitutional treaty were only one
layer of the cake. It was difficult to imagine how we could achieve very much more although, before each Presidency, there always are the expectations of a miracle.
That is why we decided to give priority to practical issues, to prepare and lead the work of the Council in such a manner that decisions could be reached, to represent the Union in third countries and international organisations, to keep up an effective co-operation between the different EU organs, to prepare and run efficiently over 3,300 meetings, of which over 100 large meetings, including the summit, were held in Finland. This required quite a special organisation. As a footnote I can mention that we chaired over 110 meetings in Washington, D.C., and at the United Nations here in New York many, many more than that.
We wanted to promote the European agenda with coherency, efficiency and transparency. We wanted to emphasize that coherency and transparency are part of an effective Presidency. It is hardly news that many Presidencies have been criticised for the lack of these qualities. It was no surprise either that our style raised some controversy within the EU bureaucracy. The EU Parliament has recently also made efforts to increase transparency by introducing broadcasts of the Parliament’s sessions, commissions and documents to the internet.
The main goals of the Finnish EU Presidency were
1) reform of the treaties
2) a new consensus on enlargement
3) enhancing competitiveness
4) political guidelines in the areas of freedom, security and justice
5) climate change
6) Russia
7) the Western Balkans
1. Reform of the treaties
by i.a. having informal consultations on possible ways to further the constitutional treaty and paving the way for the report to be submitted during the German Presidency.
This was implemented. One of our ministers had secret consultations with all the member states and with Bulgaria and Romania. Details or conclusions of these consultations have not been made public. The work was done to pave the way for Germany, and the report was given to Chancellor Merkel around Christmas time. Debate on the treaty was also frozen during the Austrian Presidency. When Germany gives out its report in June, the debate will no doubt burst into full bloom. It is interesting to note that the plan is to reach a new compromise during the French Presidency in 2008.
2. A new consensus on enlargement
One of the main achievements during the first Finnish Presidency was the facilitation decision on enlargement including Turkey. Even now when the consensus has become all the more difficult to reach within the EU, the issue of Turkey was a matter of honour for Finland. Despite clear progress in the country (among them, abolishing the death penalty, criminalising sexual harassment, increasing the rights of the Kurds, criminalising all forms of torture and diminishing the powers of the Army), the issue of Turkey proved impossible to solve. We tried to help the negotiations with Turkey out of the cul-de-sac and supported the Commissioner from Finland in charge of the enlargement. Because of the impasse, we decided to withdraw this issue from the summit. A real crisis in the EU was avoided by the decision of the foreign ministers to freeze part of the negotiations with Turkey. We further failed to facilitate the dispute between Cyprus and Turkey despite intensive diplomatic efforts.
3. Enhancing competitiveness
We managed to finalise an agreement on internal service markets. The impact of this agreement is really important. The service sector comprises 70% of the EU's economy. The fundamental principles of the EU have not been implemented before in the service sector - i.e. free flow of goods, services, human beings and capital. Especially many central European countries have continued to protect their service markets to the very end. At this point we expect 2.5 million new jobs to be created within the EU. Those against this are afraid of wage dumping and other conditions of employment, difficulties with foreign firms and unskilled immigrants replacing skilled labour.
At this very moment, the EU has entered into a heated debate about the Commission’s plan to liberalise energy and transfer energy markets outside the borders. The Nordic countries are serving as an example.
4. Political guidelines in the areas of freedom, security and justice
Under the Finnish Presidency and based on our initiative, an agreement was reached to give up border control on so-called internal borders by the end of 2007, on land and sea borders and at the airports by the end of 2008. A precondition is that a common information system will be in place and that the countries entering Schengen meet the criteria. We have to remember that, within Schengen, movement is already free across the borders.
Many concrete steps taken by us managed to improve the cooperation between law enforcement authorities. The biggest problem in the area today, the growing illegal immigration, did not really get resolved but we got quite far in drafting policies and measures. We hope that the German Presidency will be able to move ahead with more concrete steps.
We witnessed debates with some harsh tones about the lack of burden sharing among the member countries. Some concrete measures and increased material help, like in the case of the Spanish Canary Islands and the nearby states in Africa, were attained. To our satisfaction these issues will have special emphasis on the German agenda, too. The greatest consensus so far is that we all agree that the main problem is in the countries of origin where we have to be able to influence the economic, political and social development to control illegal immigration.
Finland also made an effort to increase the majority decisions in judicial and internal
affairs since there still is very much to be done on these issues. EU citizens expect that the membership in the Union will enhance security and justice. We managed to create a positive discussion between the ministers but consensus was not reached.
5. Climate change
Many important issues were on our global agenda. We found the dialogues with many non-EU countries extremely important and rewarding. Our main goal was to advance as far as possible in the preparations for post-Kyoto (2012). For Finland, the reopening of the debate of EU's internal emission quotas and the rules of trade on emissions was of special importance.
The dialogues with Canada and the United States were extremely constructive as were the high-level talks between the EU and the US in October in Lahti, Finland. The dialogues on environmental issues conducted with Asian and Russian leaders were also encouraging.
Environmental issues, according to some recent news reports, have gained higher priority even on the American agenda, and the first statements issued under the German Presidency, speaking on behalf of the Union, have had a new positive tone. We have to admit however that there are some differences of opinion in the EU about the future emission trade and its policies. Despite them we believe that the Union will reach an internal compromise after a normal strong debate.
6. Russia
The term of the agreement on relations between the EU and Russia was to end. That is why, before the Presidency, a high priority was set by Finland to pave the way for a new agreement and, besides it, to enlarge and strengthen the Northern Dimension Concept which was launched during our first Presidency.
Our aim was to reach a partnership treaty that would not only deal with trade and energy issues but be a treaty on a wide based companionship where the European values and global interests would be shared, i.e., to find a way to involve Russia in a closer co-operation with the Europe.
We partially failed. The framework of the agreement met strong resistance from some member countries. At the Lahti Summit, the Union could only reach an agreement of a strong united message to be given to President Putin. The reason for the failure was, as some might say, too much beef, or others, too little beef…
Of course, we felt disappointed. The Union needs a strong united Russia policy. We know that relations cannot be carried out bilaterally through a few capitals setting the tone for the rest of the Union. Several members are extremely sensitive to such policies.
7. Western Balkans
The Western Balkans was very high on the EU agenda. The desire of the Union has been to assume primary responsibility for this area crucial to the EU.
During the Finnish Presidency, little happened publicly regarding the Balkan agenda but behind the scenes the work concerning Kosovo, Albania and the issue of war criminals was hectic.
It seems like the EU will have a leading role in Kosovo if the Ahtisaari report is approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. If it is vetoed by any members of the Security Council, Kosovo and the spillover from it will be very much on the Union's and German agenda. Even if everything still seems problematic, it looks like Ahtisaari's plan will be accepted. How the EU will implement the powers given to it by the UN will be seen. The plan is to have OSCE in Kosovo report to the EU, which could be pretty problematic.
The Western Balkans is a headache for the Union because of the enlargement. Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia and in the long run Albania are in line. Serbia's problems will probably delay integration of those who make the needed progress. Some members have a strong stand that Serbia cannot be left behind in the integration.
Lebanon
In the beginning I already mentioned that the Presidency of the EU is often unpredictable.
The military activity in Lebanon hit Finland with full force in the middle of the holiday season. The normal Presidency work had been anaticipated to resume in late August when the EU members were back from the holidays.
We were forced to face a serious crisis which endangered the peace and security in the whole Middle East. Finland managed well in chairing the Union’s activities, and the co-operation between our Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, Mr. Javier Solana and Ms. Benita Ferrero-Waldner was unexpectedly smooth. Minister Tuomioja gained international recognition by his actions and managed to unite the EU. This line held at the Security Council, and the strong European input made the UN operation in Lebanon possible.
The evacuation of EU citizens from Lebanon was a massive operation and tested not only the chairmanship but also the common crisis management capacity.
Crisis management and EU defence are issues that will be focused on more actively now when the constitutional issues will be back on the table.
Another sermon would be needed on the EU's Middle East policies, commitment and failed promises. The EU is now in a hot spot in Lebanon but the efforts to be the first international player in an area close to the Union have not been fully successful. After the first Gulf war the EU wanted to assume responsibility for invigorating the political system and economy in the occupied area. The long process which started in 1993 in Casablanca named as the Mediterranean Process has not produced satisfactory results. The Union’s vast financial aid and input in the area have kept growing but without the political and social success we had been looking for. The Middle East is and remains one of the Union’s most important foreign political efforts.
The second hot issue was energy, which actually lasted in the headlines longer than Lebanon, and is very topical still today. The Russo-Ukrainian energy debate was regarded as having limited consequences. Later after cutting energy supplies to some other countries, the growing Russian influence in the European energy markets was finally realised, as were the restrictions and limits of the European energy markets. The Union's electricity markets/networks are open only in the North. We have long promoted free competition in the European energy markets. The first report of the Commission and,
as we expect, also the final report will help to integrate the energy markets.
The Russian energy investments in the EU, especially in the Baltic Sea pipeline, have drawn mixed reactions and caused serious debate. Among other issues it has been considered especially important to have Russia in the WTO and in a more structured co-operation with the EU, which failed at the Lahti Summit.
How the citizens see the Union and how their interests are taken care of constitute a part of the evaluation of the state of the Union. Many polls show that the popularity of the Union is in decline in many member states. The basic knowledge of the Union is alarmingly low. But if the question is asked 'is there an alternative to the Union', the answer is on a great scale unanimous. For example, the old established democracies like Finland and the other Nordic member countries, find it irritating to get a treatment from above and “besser-wissering” from the Commission bureaucrats on issues that for sure are best known and with the best record in these countries. Subsidiarity, i.e. the principle that as much as possible should be administered on the local level, is often being violated. The growing bureaucracy in Brussels has also irritated decision-makers and politicians on national levels. Finland made a failed effort during her Presidency to cut down the number of staff in Brussels. The way the bureaucracy resisted was a telling tale for the future.