– Twenty years ago, you tried to convince skeptics of the need for European integration. Would your former arguments in favor of integration be the same today?

– With regard to the specific tasks and methods for European integration, there would be no changes to my arguments because the globalization processes had already fully manifested themselves at that time. The only major changes that have taken place over the years were the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Communist system. But those events only made the need for a united Europe more urgent.

– Europe has united, but this factor has not put an end to predictions about its “decline,” which have been echoed since the early 20th century. The initial euphoria seems to have disappeared, and the European integration process has begun to raise a number of uncertainties and doubts about its success.

– You are right to some extent. As a rule, people have short memories and lack a global vision of the situation. Not everyone remembers that the period between the beginning of World War I and the end of World War II witnessed colossal human tragedies in the very heart of Europe, together with civil wars and numerous conflicts. Nationalism raised its head everywhere, and people refused to respect the rights of others.

Common sense suggested to the Europeans that those tendencies could have grave consequences. It was obvious that the epoch of internal European conflicts must be stopped. It was no accident that the fathers of a united Europe included many of those who had gone through that painful period in European history.

The unification of Europe was not only a political and economic undertaking, but also a spiritual and philosophical movement. People who had survived the Nazi and other dictatorships were able to reconcile themselves to their past and look into the future. Naturally, forgiveness does not mean forgetting. This experience would be helpful to contemporary Russia, as well: it should accept its history, without forgetting anything.

After World War II, the youth of Germany needed to understand that they were part of a single European community, despite the horrors that Germany was responsible for. That would mean establishing genuine peace in Europe.

Policymakers were to help translate that spiritual European mood into real political action. Peace and mutual respect between peoples, the formation of solid European ties and, finally, a system of legislation with which European countries could commensurate their actions (naturally, within the powers established for the European Union bodies) – all these objectives still remain vital.
There was a time when mutual integration developed very fast – for example, during my presidency at the European Commission. We started building a single European market, increased the amount of aid that poor European states received from rich countries, established the main principles for the social policy, and launched technical cooperation. Finally, we formed a single economic space and laid the foundation for a monetary union.

Now the integration process has slowed down. Those individuals who were always opposed to European integration are repeating their former arguments. But what do they suggest instead? Nothing! Do they really want to return to the traditional game of national sovereignties and then live in fear of local accords between large states? This would hardly deliver peace and prosperity, especially since such compromise agreements are short-lived and they ignore the role and historical destiny of smaller nations.

Look at the East European countries. For centuries, they repeatedly fell victim to treachery and were pawns in big games. The European Union gives these nations hope for peace and recognition. It helps them to embrace the political and social values that are important to many people even beyond the EU, for example in the former Yugoslavia. Yes, we are now experiencing a difficult period, but this is not the first trying time in the development of Europe.

– Many people believe that the European Union should slow down its enlargement at this stage and take a pause before admitting new members. Do you agree with this point of view?

– Europe’s enlargement per se does not create a problem. Difficulties arise when we try to answer some important questions, such as, what exactly do we hope to achieve in the united Europe? How should the 15 or 30 members interact in order to avoid over-bureaucratization of the European institutions and their excessive concentration on legal aspects? Receiving answers to these questions requires a clear idea of united Europe’s objectives, shared by all the member countries.

In the postwar years, the idea that Europe would never again allow an armed confrontation between its countries deeply inspired the youth, and many young men and women actively supported policymakers’ efforts to translate this dream into life. Today, we have the Europe they believed in. Has it lived up to their hopes? I think it has.

Europe has gone through three difficult ordeals, in which it proved itself to be quite viable. The first moment came in the early 1970s when Britain joined united Europe. Despite London’s special position on many issues, and its close ties with the United States, on the whole we coped with the difficult task of integrating the United Kingdom.

Second, I must mention the time when three European countries – Greece, Portugal and Spain – returned to democratic rule after years of dictatorship and also became part of united Europe. I took part in the completion of the negotiations on the admission of Spain and Portugal. Should we have refused the entry of these countries only because their integration seemed to be very difficult and could pose internal problems for other members? Despite the difficulties, we lent a helping hand to these countries – and look at the remarkable achievements they have made today!

Finally, there was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism in the East European countries. Should we have told these nations that, since their economies were too weak and their mentality differed too much from ours, they needed to wait another 20 years to become members? We thought such an attitude would be against European values, and therefore we admitted them into our union. Perhaps, their admission could have been better organized, but in any case, it was necessary.

– You talked about the need to set objectives. What objectives do you think Europe should have today?

– I see three major objectives. The first is maintaining peace and accord among nations in every way possible. Another is making every effort to develop mutual European solidarity, which must help to balance the development levels of countries and regions. The third objective is preserving the cultural differences between the European nations.

– Preserving the differences? Doesn’t integration have the opposite goal?

– In my opinion, a united Europe means unity in variety. Every language is a reflection of a nation’s soul, while the people that integrate into a united Europe do not discard their own history. This is a major condition for Europe’s genuine greatness.
If a limited number of the EU member countries wish to advance along the path of integration, developing economic or monetary ties, creating joint technological zones or acting together in the spheres of foreign policy or defense, they certainly can do that. The number of participating countries does not matter here. Other countries can later join them, if they wish.

But we must differentiate here, because the present generation of politicians and leaders are confusing two things: united Europe per se, and various collective actions. This confusion is particularly incorrect when we speak of joint actions by countries of the European vanguard. There is always a gap in countries’ development rates, and of course it makes itself felt in various collective actions.

For example, should the EU have waited for the consent of all its 15 members before introducing the euro? At that time, as it is now, only 12 EU states were ready to use a single European currency. Should we have waited until the other three member states finally agreed? In that case, the single currency might have never been introduced. We must tolerate the fact that some states may participate in joint actions, while others may decline.

Unfortunately, I failed to convince my opponents that Europe could be really united only by the three objectives that I mentioned earlier. Perhaps, they do not look very attractive from the political point of view or, to use contemporary language, they are not very sexy. Setting only three objectives may be simplified, yet it is a realistic approach.

– Your answer to the question about the EU’s enlargement was poignant, but I would like you to specify: What is your attitude to the present enlargement of the European Union?

– Do you think a poignant answer cannot be specific?

– Your answer was so elegant that it may have been easy for you to hide your personal position behind it. It is still unclear to me: Do you support or oppose the continuing enlargement of the European Union?

– I can tell you that I personally am against fixing any certain boundaries for the European Community. I proceed from the important problems that Europe is facing and I have told you about those.

– I guess you won’t be surprised to hear, after such an answer, a question about Turkey, Ukraine and, with certain reservations, Russia. What about these countries?

– Although I do not outline the final boundaries of a united Europe, three cases stand apart. These are the former republics of Yugoslavia, Russia, and Turkey. Let’s leave Ukraine and Belarus aside for a while. There must be a place in the united Europe for those states that have emerged on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. This is the only thing that can prevent ethnic conflicts between them. I do not mean making their people forget everything, but rather stopping conflicts and pushing into the background the mutual claims that divided these countries in the past. This will help to avoid dramas like the one that is taking place in Kosovo, for example.

Speaking of Russia, it is a very large nation – and takes pride in this. But it is too large to be integrated in the same way as with Poland or the Czech Republic. The EU should sign partnership agreements with Russia, clearing up in advance the issue of how much we share opinions with regard to the objectives of our coexistence and forms of cooperation. Work in this direction is already underway. But it is a difficult process, equally difficult for both parties.

As regards Turkey, it represents an extremely symbolic case. Symbols play an important role in the development of societies, in particular the European Community. Turkey is a Moslem country; meanwhile, the growth of Islamic extremism is threatening the whole world. Moreover, there are Islamic fanatics who deny our right to existence only because we, they say, differ from them. These tendencies can easily bring about local religious wars – or even a war of civilizations. Against this background, I say yes to negotiations with Turkey in order to demonstrate that Europe is not a “Catholic ghetto” or “Catholic empire,” and to emphasize: Despite Islamic fundamentalism, we are lending a hand in order to try and understand each other. But, of course, I cannot say whether these negotiations will be crowned with success.

Citing the factors that I have mentioned, some European politicians categorically oppose Turkey’s admission to the European Union. I do not think they are right. We must act as a community of people who, without being na?ve and boundlessly credulous, still want to have a dialog with others – those who renounce their tunnel vision and are willing to cast sectarianism on the garbage heap of history. I hope I have answered your question, if not so beautifully, but quite sincerely.

– Your answer was specific enough. But the “Islamic factor” poses a great danger to the contemporary world. Your political views aside, don’t you, a believer brought up in a Catholic family, worry over the present growth of Islamism in Europe?

– We have maintained coexistence with Moslems in each European state. Living side by side with people of different beliefs and even different philosophies of life, we try to follow a principle of mutual respect and the observance of the laws of each country. Of course, this is not easy. But difficulties are not a sufficient argument to refuse Turkey’s admission only because of our mutual dissimilarity.

Coexistence may take different forms, and laws regulating it are not identical in every country. This is due to a whole range of problems, many of which are still a long way from a solution. Nevertheless, one should not respond to a negative with a negative, hatred with hatred, and force with force. If we enter into this vicious circle, we will not be able to live together anymore. If we prove unable to keep the peace with people of other creeds inside the European Community, what can you expect from the rest of the world? What signal would we send to other countries then?

– Theoretically, this is right. But if we recall the outbreak of violence in the suburbs of Paris in 2005, there arises the question: Why do Moslems seem to create so many problems while demanding that other people have a special attitude with them? No one has ever seen similar disorders in, for example, the Chinese neighborhoods in Paris.

– Indeed, the roots and mentality of these two ethnoses differ. But you cannot say with absolute certainty that even the Chinese that have settled in France will necessarily turn into ideal French citizens over time. This is particularly true of some Moslems. Some politicians have oversimplified views, and due to these public figures the public has acquired the illusion that there is a certain machine for turning out law-abiding citizens – like, for example, a sausage-making machine: minced meat at one end, and finished sausages at the other. But the reality is much more difficult. One must realize and accept this fact.

Yes, we have problem neighborhoods, but the difficult situation there is caused not only by ethnic peculiarities of their residents but also by social factors. And the more actively we address social issues, the lower the ethnic tensions will be.

– In 1996, when Russia joined the Council of Europe, Moscow did not rule out the possibility that eventually it might receive membership in the European Union. Today, this idea has long been forgotten. Moreover, there is the impression that Russia, instead of getting closer to Europe, is becoming increasingly estranged from it.

– I know the history of EU-Russia cooperation very well. During the preparation of agreements with Moscow, I headed the European Commission, and I had many contacts with Mikhail Gorbachev, and later, with Boris Yeltsin. Those were impressive times – first of all, because despite the huge dimension of the events of 1985-1994, we managed to avoid tragedies, which does not happen very often in history. That period showed that mankind can be trusted – there were situations when very serious friction between states was removed thanks to the wisdom of the leaders involved. In those years, we signed the first agreement with Russia.

The main distinction between the present situation and the former is that Russia has again started to view itself as a great nation. It has demonstrated this desire very often, starting from the tragedy in Yugoslavia. I repeatedly said that we Europeans tried to close the door on Russia, yet it entered through the window. I made that comment following the events in Yugoslavia.
If Russia really wants to be a great nation again, why deny it the right, or why put obstacles in its way? Especially since it no longer acts at the bidding of the International Monetary Fund. We know very well that Moscow seeks to take an active part in international affairs and to show solidarity with its allies.

Building relations with Russia reminds me of the process of integrating Europe. We began by establishing direct ties – first within the framework of the European Coal and Steel Community, and later the European Community. Today, we continue to develop European solidarity and integration. So if tomorrow Russia and the EU come up with a good agreement that suits both parties from the point of view of oil and gas supplies, this will lend credence to their declarations that they are pursuing mutual forms of cooperation and joint responsibility.

As regards everything else, I believe the EU-Russia dialog may take various forms – with some reservations, of course. Perhaps an agreement will only require negotiations between the parties’ top leaders, instead of numerous meetings of large committees with their continuous discussions.

But since we have not yet agreed on many basic principles, it is difficult to resolve specific issues. These are classical relations between two great powers. Other peoples only gain from our disagreements. Therefore, our major task today is to show our mutual ability to solve problems that confront us – and the whole world – through negotiations and agreements. But relations must be allowed to take their course. One should not put the cart before the horse, as my grandfather, who was a peasant, used to say.

– One often reads today in Russian newspapers that Europe cannot do without Russia, whereas Russia can do without Europe. Do you agree with this statement?

– It would be an exaggeration to say that Europe is tied to Russia. In politics, like in the course of commercial negotiations, one can sometimes see a veritable theatrical performance, with elements of tragedy and farce. Oftentimes, one party plays arrogance, and then the other party responds in kind.
The dialog between President Putin and the European leaders is far from complete. This means that some important issues have not been resolved yet: What exactly can we do together? Will we lose part of our independence and freedom of maneuver if we act in concert? How do we see the world in twenty years? Can our present line of conduct bring about positive results?

– Politicians do not like questions that ponder what might be in store for us in the future. But since you yourself have said that different countries may have different visions of the future, I would like to know your own opinion on that score.

– First of all, I would like to emphasize that I do not believe in imminent catastrophes that will lead to the end of the world. Of course, globalization brings about many problems. We must seek to regulate the globalization processes more effectively, which means better global governance. For example, rapidly developing countries, such as China, India and Brazil, must be obliged to respect and observe at least basic rules concerning environmental protection. Furthermore, they should introduce certain social norms for their population, instead of orienting themselves only to gaining commercial benefits.

Undoubtedly, the world is moving toward greater interdependence, with more attention being given to social and natural factors. However, at the same time, deviations from the general line cannot be avoided. Economic development may destroy Mother Earth; preventing such a scenario will take more than the efforts of the Europeans alone. China and Russia, for example, must also make more efforts to counter this threat.

In the sphere of politics, there are many alarming factors. First, there are the so-called war of religions and various manifestations of extremism. Many countries are sliding into nationalism or seek to play some special role on the international scene. We have already witnessed such behavior in the past. Take, for example, the history of the Middle East before the Second World War when large powers, in particular Great Britain, posed as peacemakers. But at what price? There was constant conflict between the Sunnis and Shias, and between national interests of various Arab states. These factors brought instability into the world, which could no longer make progress, except on a purely economical basis.

I believe that future development must bring about a truly comprehensive agreement between Russia, the European Union and the United States, which will proclaim their common goals and show their common wish to enter into dialog and look for compromises. It does not mean, however, that these three parties will dominate in the world – one must also take into account China, India and the Latin American countries, especially Brazil.

Nevertheless, Russia, the EU and America – three political forces that are accustomed to disputing with each other – will play a very important role anyway. Every time they become divided by disagreements, when each party starts playing its own game, the risk of global instability increases dramatically. Our conflicts are a fertile ground for nationalism and serve as an excuse for integrism [In France, this term is used to describe the ideology of Islamic extremism. – Ed.].

– Everyone is afraid of forgoing one’s independence. In Europe, too, there are incessant discussions to the effect that the EU countries have delegated too much of their sovereignty to the European Commission, and now this overly bureaucratic structure is unable to see the real problems that beset ordinary Europeans. What can you say about this from the position of a man who for almost ten years headed the European Commission?

– First, I would like to emphasize that the European Commission only puts forward proposals, while the Council of the EU and the European Parliament make the final decisions. These matters should not be confused. You are simply under the influence of dubious European sentiments that have seized many countries, including France. The European Commission has the rights it was given. In keeping with the basic principle, it has the right of initiative, the right to make proposals. But these are adopted either on the basis of mutual consent of the Council and the European Parliament, or by decision of the Council alone.

If Europe is viewed as isolated from the vital needs of Europeans, this is only because national governments do not sufficiently explain to their citizens why a particular decision has been made. Unfortunately, such things happen all the time. Often, national governments avoid upholding pan-European decisions before the public opinion of their country. But they must do this! The European Commission must not be made into a scapegoat. For the European institutions to function better, they should return to their original nature. The European Commission is not a body that must explain to people in various countries the need for this or that decision, nor is it a body that imposes its will on other politicians. It is simply a place where representatives of the EU member countries meet and plan their decisions. Explaining to citizens how justified are its decisions is the duty of each individual country (or rather, its national parliament).

– You are an economist by training. Do you agree with those who believe that a high rate of the euro undermines European competitiveness?

– Absolutely not! This is a false idea. What is not questioned today is that the weakness of the Chinese and, to some degree, Japanese, currency, has become a serious monetary problem. Honestly speaking, we would prefer the euro rate to be 1.20; but even the present rate of 1.30 is not at all catastrophic for the European economy. Germany’s global leadership as an exporter serves as the best proof of this.

So all the talk that a strong euro prevents economic development is no more than a small lie, which is accompanying the present presidential campaign in France. And if we do not renounce it, we will have a painful awakening. It’s like as if you sleep in silk sheets and are told that tomorrow you will grow rich and meet the love of your life. The next day you wake up and see nothing of the kind. And then you are given an explanation as to why the promise has not been fulfilled.

– Many of the pre-election slogans seem to be frightfully unrealistic. Do you agree that France is gradually losing its main distinction, namely its dynamism?

– Things in France are going much better than it seems at first glance. Take, for example, such an important factor as the demographic situation. The birth rate in the country is very high, and even from this point of view it is in a much more advantageous position than the majority of other European states. The birth rate is always an indicator of dynamism. But, of course, the situation could always be better.

As regards the presidential campaign, at times like this you can always hear many promises. The blame for unfulfilled hopes will be placed on the “malicious” euro. There is still enough time left before the first round of the presidential elections to return to the real state of affairs.

– And what do you think France really needs?

– France, which now looks overly restless and often discontent, must regain its self-confidence. To this end, it must realize what exactly it cannot do well and why. It also needs a more optimistic view of its strengths. Once the country succeeds in those efforts, France will restore its former dynamism.

– The presidency of the European Council is currently held by Germany. What do you expect from this leadership?

– I have much confidence in Germany’s presidency. This state possesses features of both West and East European countries – thus its special striving for mutual understanding through dialog. The German economy is developing very well today. Furthermore, the coalition government of Germany is, actually, a coexistence of two parties – the Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party, which started the unification of Europe. And, of course, one should not forget the personal qualities of Madam Angela Merkel.