S0025/02
INTERVENTION BY JAVIER SOLANA
EU HIGH REPRESENTATIVE
FOR THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY
on the occasion of the
LAUNCH OF CER PUBLICATION BY STEVEN EVERTS
"SHAPING AN EFFECTIVE EU FOREIGN POLICY"
(Brussels, 19 February 2002)
_________________
FOR FURTHER DETAILS:
Cristina Gallach - Spokesperson of the Secretary General, High Representative for CFSP
É 02 285.6467 / 285.8239 / 285.5150 / 285.5151 Ê 02 285.694
internet: http://ue.eu.int/newsroom
e-mail: [email protected]
1
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends
Introduction
-
Let me thank the Centre for European Reform, and my good friend Charles Grant, for the
invitation to speak. I would like to congratulate Steven Everts (and the Centre) on their new
publication “Shaping an effective European Foreign Policy.” It is a stimulating read, with
many fresh ideas. I understand that the author will introduce his work later, so I leave that to
him. Instead, I would like to talk to you rather informally today.
The EU as a global player
-
The question of effectiveness and credibility is important because, like it or not, EU is set to
play a global role. History, geography, interests and values all propel us in this direction. We
have global interests and global responsibilities: in theory we could walk away from them, in
practice we could not escape the consequences of doing so. The question, therefore, is not
whether we play a global role, but how we play that role.
-
When making judgements on EU foreign policy, don't forget how recently our journey began
- The High Representative function was only created in Amsterdam; ESDP is only 2 years old.
Inevitably there exists some frustration and impatience. But all the pressure is for more
Europe. Within Europe this pressure is from leaders and public alike. Eurobarometer and
opinion polls throughout the EU tell us that the CFSP is among the most broadly supported of
EU policies. But also outside Europe, we are increasingly encouraged to play a fuller part in
international affairs.
-
There is a "demand for Europe": linked to our know-how in regional integration; to the
compassionate way we address humanitarian crises; to the values of inclusiveness and social
tolerance which are common to all our countries. We must match this demand with an
adequate offer.
Clearly great potential exixsts for further advance.
1
Acting effectively
-
Effectiveness demands that we play our role by acting together. To put it bluntly, Europe
can choose to speak with a single voice, or Europe can decide not to be heard. Are we speaking
with a single voice? Despite occasional bumps along the way, we have made remarkable progress
in a very short time. In the Balkans, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan we have shown a
coherence that would have been unimaginable ten years ago.
-
Are we being heard? Yes, increasingly so. In the Balkans, it is the EU that leads where once
we followed.
In the Middle East we are a valued interlocutor working in concert with our
international partners. In Afghanistan proof of our influence can be seen in the fact that agreement
on an interim administration was agreed in a European city, by the fact that the Europeans were the
biggest donors for reconstruction (45% of total pledges to date - more than 2,1 bn $ over 5 years),
and by the scale of European involvement in the stabilisation force.
-
But more could be done. I personally believe that we have not yet seen the best use all of the
assets at our disposal, and - let me add - not yet exploited the full potential of the High
Representative's role. We should make the most of the extraordinary range of contacts and talents
at our disposal. Let us deploy our strengths flexibly. Sometimes this might mean one of our
Foreign Ministers can use his "privileged access" for the general European benefit. Sometimes, it
could mean joint visits. Take the recent example of the joint French/British visit to Africa –
evidence of instinctive rivalries giving way to a reflex of cooperation and coordination. But on
other occasions we should recognise that more can be achieved with fewer: some of my contacts are
more useful and productive when I can travel "light". And I think this is increasingly accepted as
an effective way of conducting business on behalf of the 15, and in everybody's interest.
Instruments and resources
-
As to instruments, we have enormous potential at our disposal, but need real efforts to apply
this potential in a coherent and coordinated fashion.
We have more diplomats in more
embassies than does the US. We account for more than half of all development assistance
worldwide. We enjoy a unique pattern of dialogue and preferential trade agreements with
countries and regions around the world.
All these aspects offer real opportunities for
influence if we can deploy them to best effect.
2
-
In important areas we are creating new instruments and capabilities. We achieved at Laeken
an operational European military/civil capability which can be already be mobilised. In a
matter of months, we will have reached the stage where these capabilities can be called on at
any time for the full range of peacekeeping tasks associated with crisis management. A first
police mission was decided yesterday for Bosnia, others will follow. And look what European
nations are contributing in Afghanistan - 13 Member States involved, more than 90% of all
ISAF troops are European.
-
Effectiveness demands also that instruments be sufficiently comprehensive and integrated in
order to meet the diverse threats to peace in the years to come. Recognising this, the EU has
embarked on a range of measures in the domain of internal and judicial affairs, and of the
control of financial flows, to counter the kinds of crime which subsidise violence and terrorism,
for example, drug-trafficking, cross-border trafficking in people, money-laundering.
-
Significant progress has been made in our ability to deploy a "package of instruments" rapidly
and coherently. Consider the examples in the Balkans in the past two years: in FYROM, in the
Presevo Valley, Kosovo and in Montenegro. In each case there is hard evidence of the EU
acting early and acting effectively. The incentive to act in this manner is overwhelming. It's
not just good diplomacy, its good economics. In FYROM the cost of conflict prevention will
have been less than one-tenth of the cost of the conflict management in nearby Kosovo.
Through diplomatic engagement too, we are acting early to promote understanding and defuse
tensions. The recent EU/OIC conference in Istanbul is a good example of timely engagement
aimed at understanding and easing tensions in our “near abroad” in the wake of September 11.
Complementary capabilities
-
Inevitably there will be a certain complementarity of efforts and capabilities on the two sides
of the Atlantic: America seems set to maintain her military predominance for the foreseeable
future, while Europe has an unrivalled claim as a global “civil power”.
Such a
complementarity offers many advantages, in terms of efficiency, specialisation, and the degree
to which our two publics are likely to be supportive of different conceptions of a global role.
Each partner must recognise the value of the other's distinct contribution.
-
Much attention in the press and elsewhere has focussed on gaps in European military
capabilities. Less attention has been paid to areas where Europe has - and is expanding 3
capabilities for which the United States is in deficit. Deploying an international police force in
crisis situations, or preventing the collapse of civil or judicial authority may not make good
television, but it may be vital in avoiding the need for subsequent military action.
-
Stability, in a global world, is as much a "civilian" concept as a military one. No single actor,
however powerful, can tackle the world's problems on his own. Global problems require
global solutions. A genuine coalition is more than the projection of a leadership, more than the
rallying of other contributors around pre-set goals. A genuine coalition implies a collective
ambition, two-way communication at all times, and a fair share-out of responsibility and
decision-making rather than unilateral action, or strictly bilateral arrangements. A genuine
coalition is synonymous with a truly multilateral approach.
-
If we agree that the goal of stability is global and multi-faceted, and not limited to the mere
security dimension, then the scale (and the range) of contributors becomes wider, and the
balance sheet more articulate.
The combined financial efforts of the Community and its Member States are quite spectacular
in the area of development and humanitarian aid:
-
56% of overall public development aid (ODA)
-
36% of the UN budget (against 29% of world GDP)
-
45% of total pledges to date for Afghan reconstruction (more than 2,1 bn $ over five
years)
-
-
2,4 bn Euros in 2002 EDF budget (ACP)
-
906 m Euros in 2002 for humanitarian/food aid.
The EU is and will remain the United States' closest partner. Our combined economic
weight is enormous (one figure for all: EU/US trade accounts for 37% of world trade on goods,
and 45% on services). But with this weight goes responsibility for the less developed world:
the 10 largest companies in the world have each annual receipts higher than the GDP of 150
out of 187 UN member countries!
-
The partnership between the EU and the US would clearly be more stable and equal if the
complementarity that I spoke of were not based on complete specialisation. So the effort to
enhance European military capabilities should and will continue. We do not set out to rival
the US as a military power, but where we decide to set ambitions, we must realise these
4
ambitions. Where we decide to act, we must act, rapidly and effectively.
-
There is a strategic coincidence of values and interests: neither the US nor the EU will find
an alternative international partner of similar scale and importance committed to defending
values and interests so nearly identical;
-
I would also insist in putting into perspective some recent overstatements of differences in our
analyses of the threats to our values and interests after September 11. In reality, these
analyses converge to a very large extent in their identification of the main elements of threats:
international terrorism in all its forms; fanaticism allied to technology, proliferation of WMD,
regional conflicts with the potential for significant spillover (witness the shared analysis in the
Mitchell report).
-
For the most part, there are convergent views also in our choice of means to confront these
threats, but where there are not our differences must be discussed calmly and rationally. And
this is what happens every day. The creation of the role of High Representative has given
focus to what is a continuous and constructive dialogue on matters of importance. Quietly,
calmly an intensive dialogue goes on behind the scenes, which leads to a constant reassessment of perceptions, on both sides (e.g. US attitudes on Middle East, or on Guantanamo;
European appraisal of possible new threats surfacing in the wider Middle-Eastern region).
-
Ladies and gentlemen, in terms of profile, credibility and effectiveness we have achieved
significant progress in a very short time. I say that without any hint of complacency - because
I more than most am convinced of the untapped potential at our disposal. Recognising our
achievements should be the encouragement to the fulfilment of our ambition.
Thank you.
_______________
5