Jacques Santer is a former prime minister of Luxembourg, one of the authors of the Maastricht Treaty on the establishment of the European Union. In 1994-1999, he was president of the European Commission. Now he is a member of the European Convention which is drafting reform plans for the EU.

The dramatic enlargement of the European Union, which will become a reality in the next few months, will usher in a new dawn across Europe. We have set ourselves an ambitious and highly noble task of making the entire continent – which was, until recently, divided into two parts – into a united whole once again. The Charter of Unity, the fundamental basis of this process, formulates our objective in a straightforward way: making Europe a bulwark of peace and freedom on the basis of the values that we, the EU member countries, all share. The admission of Central and East European countries, together with the Baltic States, into the EU will bring our nations closer together. This historic unification will also strengthen the pursuit of peace and prosperity, while giving additional political weight to the European continent.

This objective is fully in Russia’s interests, as well. Unfortunately, Russia is too large to be a full-fledged EU member, but there is no doubt that this nation belongs to Europe. Russia is a country of great culture, literature and arts and has clearly demonstrated that it is an inalienable part of European civilization. Throughout its history, it has pursued a clear-cut European policy which has had a marked influence on the entire continent.

My fellow countrymen will unhesitatingly acknowledge that Luxembourg owes its independence largely to Russia. When a treaty declaring Luxembourg’s independence was signed in London in 1867, it was Russian czar Alexander II who became one of the official guarantors of its sovereignty. I am sure that every European country can cite examples of its own which positively demonstrate Russia’s momentous and significant role in the development of Europe.

The EU’s enlargement is a difficult process which has a profound impact on the various policies now being pursued by the future member states and their neighboring countries. In its relations with Moscow, there may be occasional difficulties, but through negotiations the two parties can always find a solution to any conflict. Even the complicated question concerning the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, was finally resolved on terms acceptable to both parties. Problems may also arise over bilateral trade and other economic issues. This is an extensive area of cooperation since Europe is Russia’s largest trading partner. In 1994, we concluded the important Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia, and our further interaction will develop in the spirit of this document. I am fully convinced that cooperation with the European Union promotes Russia’s economic and political stabilization. We must work to create a common economic space with countries which are not EU members. But besides a mutually advantageous economic cooperation, which focuses primarily on energy requirements, there must exist a permanent political dialog with Russia.

Despite the many difficulties and problems now confronting Russia – which are inevitable when a country is carrying out transformations on such a large scale – the nation has chosen the right path. It is acquiring a worthy place in the choir of the world’s nations, and it is noteworthy that Russia has supported France and Germany on the Iraq crisis issue. This is a significant development which gives positive direction to Russia’s further cooperation with Europe in international affairs.

The Iraq conflict has highlighted an acute problem facing the European Union: its inability to agree upon a common foreign policy. The 15 member states failed to present a united position on this major international issue. The European Convention’s efforts to draft a development program for the EU is intended to remove this weakness, thus empowering Europe to speak as one voice in international affairs. The program, being drafted under the guidance of former French president ValOry Giscard d’Estaing, will have a section dedicated to that issue. The differences between our countries and peoples did not prevent us from introducing a common currency, the euro, which has become the world’s second leading currency. This proves that the various members of the EU can work out a common foreign policy. The European Union’s role in world politics must correspond to its role in the world economy. Today, however, things stand differently. Despite Europe’s economic weight and immense contribution of financial aid to other countries (the EU accounts for 60 percent of all Western subsidies), this economic giant remains a political dwarf in international affairs.

To improve the situation, the EU must alter its structure. Presently, several highly placed officials are in charge of the EU’s foreign policy. All these officials must be replaced by one vice president of the European Commission; this person must actually become a foreign minister of the united Europe. Then, the EU’s current dissonance at the United Nations and other international organizations will give way to a single influential voice of Europe. This consonance will enhance Europe’s authority on the international stage, while strengthening its positions in future dialogs with the U.S.

The damage done to the relations between the Old World and the New World is one more dangerous consequence of the Iraq campaign. I have no doubt that Europe and the United States equally require solid transatlantic relations. Regrettably, the differences over Iraq have resulted in many “broken dishes” between the transatlantic partners, and it will take much time to mend our ties. But in any case, Europe will remain a vital partner of the U.S. Europe conducts a very intensive trade with the U.S., although there are thorns in this relationship as well: conflicts over genetically modified foodstuffs, ’banana battles,’ and so on.

At the same time, it is impossible for Europe to close its eyes to the new tendency in the United States, which immediately emerged following September 11, 2001: America now believes it has the right to impose its will on the rest of the world when it decides. We cannot accept this. A partnership implies, first of all, mutual trust. In our relations with the U.S., this trust is going through a difficult period and has been seriously put to test. America, it seems, is opposed to the idea of a multipolar world. But our world does not consist of only one pole, as some people would have it. Our world is multipolar, and this is the reality we must face: there is the United States, there is Europe, Asia, China, India, and there is Russia.

Concerted efforts are important in countering the threats to international security now faced by all countries, above all, the threat of terrorism. This issue concerns everyone, therefore international security must be guaranteed jointly by all countries. Security cannot be ensured separately, by each country for itself. And it is unrealistic to hope that universal security can be ensured by the United States because it is the world’s strongest power. Combating the various threats to the global community requires an alliance involving the U.S., Europe, Russia and China under the aegis of the United Nations.

The future directions in the development of the European Union, and whether or not it will be an effective and consolidated actor on the world stage, are crucial factors for providing stability in the world. There are core countries in the EU which set the standards for the Union. These include, above all, the “founders” of the EU, the countries which first initiated European unification. And the central part of this core comprises France and Germany. These two countries play the main role in the European ensemble – truly justified as the European Community, which was later transformed into the European Union and was built on the success of Franco-German reconciliation. A positive interaction between these two countries is vital for the other partners of the European Union.

Increasing the number of EU members will further complicate the functioning of the organization. This is why the European Union must solve the problem of its internal reforms, and establish a pan-European constitution. In the future, the EU will include 25-30 members, and in order to run this large and sophisticated structure effectively, the Union will need to strengthen and improve the European Commission, a supranational executive body of the united Europe. The European Commission’s president must be given more powers and, at the same time, bear more responsibility.

After the admission of 10-12 new partners, the EU should hesitate before it decides to enlarge further. It will take time before the new members adapt themselves to their new situation, while future developments will indicate who may be the next member. All countries seeking EU membership must meet a set of requirements: achieving firm domestic stability, carrying out economic reforms and democratic transformations. These requirements are constantly changing, as the circumstances are changing, too.

The EU must help the republics of the former Yugoslavia overcome their domestic difficulties and assist with the stabilization process in the Balkans. Albania will be the next priority.

Turkey is also on the EU agenda, but negotiations concerning its accession can begin only when Ankara meets all EU membership criteria. The country must fully observe democratic standards, and its policy should not be formulated and enforced by the military. In 2004, the EU members are to decide whether or not it should enter into negotiations with Turkey. I think this decision will require much time.

The European Union is a federation of nation states. Each member state delegates part of its sovereignty to the supreme supranational body of the European Union. At the same time, each state remains sovereign and retains its individuality, without dissolving its identity in the European mass. Things could not be otherwise, as Europe is a multinational continent where the nations differ rather dramatically from each other. Each nation must preserve its distinctive features and culture which have developed for many centuries; they should not fall victim to the integration.

On the other hand, we all know the consequences of nationalism; the last century ushered in a wave of national fervor across the face of Europe. French President FranOois Mitterrand, an active proponent of national integration, said in his farewell speech to the European Parliament: “Where there is nationalism, there is war.” And Europe has had very many wars. The main goal behind the idea to unite the European countries was to bring a durable peace to Europe. Have we achieved this goal? Europe is now experiencing the longest period of peace and tranquility throughout its centuries-old history. There can be no wars between partners in the European Union, and the number of such partners is growing. This is the main achievement of the integration, and we must hold it sacred.