*{A "United States of Europe" or a "United Europe of States"? http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/A%20%22United%20States%20of%20Europe%22%20or%20a%20%22United%20Europe%20of%20States%22%3F?open&topic_id=300350000&theme_id=300

            27.01.2001

            Annual Meeting 2001}

            Moderator Dominique Moïsi, Deputy Director, Institut Français des Relations Internationales, France, launched the discussion by expressing his severe disappointment with the results of the Nice Summit. He lamented both the "lack of political leadership" for the European Union and the intolerable paradox that "real Europe is doing well but institutional Europe is doing poorly." On the other hand, Moïsi warned participants to beware that "you exit ambiguity at your own risk."

            Anna Lindh, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden and current Chair of the European Union, began with an acerbic comment (picked up by all participants) on the last-minute absence at the panel of the French Minister Delegate for European Affairs and the German Foreign Minister. Lindh said that the Union is and will always be both a United States of Europe and a United Europe of States -- that is, supranational and intergovernmental. Enlargement and integration are simultaneous processes, she said. Who among the six founders of the Community would have believed even 15 members would be a possibility? Finally, she introduced a theme all would echo: the need for more clearly stated common values in the EU. 

            Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, made the point that Europe is and will remain "good for business and good for people, a win-win situation." He said that the Nice Summit was a disappointment only in the eyes of the press and enumerated a list of issues, from deficit reductions to low unemployment, wherein Europe is doing well. Then came the list of challenges -- crisis management, environmentalism, fiscal policy, developing a partnership with Russia and, above all, better relations between European institutions and 300 million citizens. To the latter end, he championed a simpler, more understandable edition of the European constitution, and a statement of common values and rights. 

            Spain’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy, Rodrigo de Rato y Figaredo, remarked upon the silence, thus far, about the euro. The latter, in his opinion, had profound political-integrative consequences as well as economic benefits. He, too, championed the importance of concrete issues that affect people’s everyday lives: pensions, health, social security, unemployment, crime, etc., though he also granted that a statement of common values would be desirable. The challenge would be for Europe to remain truly open to trade and to sustain economic growth over the next four or five years. 

            The budding consensus around the greater importance of issues as opposed to ideals and institutions was challenged by Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman and Managing Director, Goldman Sachs International, United Kingdom. Sutherland spoke of Europe as "the most noble ideal" to have developed in a thousand years on this continent previously known as "a cockpit of conflict." Enlargement is a "moral imperative," even though "we are on a journey to an undefined goal that probably cannot be defined." While Sutherland praised concrete achievements -- "we have a freer flow of financial services in Europe than in the United States" -- he stated that not nearly enough attention is being paid to ideals and institutions. Europe, he said, must become a supranational enterprise, not just a pragmatic agreement among governments (as Rasmussen put it, "among men coming out of buildings and getting into black limousines"). To that end, the recently marginalized European Commission (EC) deserves more respect and a larger roster of responsibility and power. 

            US Senator Robert Torricelli from New Jersey roundly criticized the European Defence Force, calling it too small, too prone to rivalries, too dependent on American transport (which would not, in any case, be forthcoming, he said) and harmful to NATO. His opinion received blanket disagreement from panellists. Rasmussen then admonished Sutherland to belay his impatience and acerbic criticisms and to recall that building majorities among European citizens would take time. Notably where Germany and France are concerned, it should be clear that considerations of national pride and sovereignty, if not dealt with sensitively and with great patience, would entail the complete breakdown of the process of building Europe. 

            Moïsi summarized five principles of agreement to emerge from the lively discussion: pragmatism on concrete issues; the need for a statement of common values; the comparative success of the Nice Summit (a B+ in reality, even if only a C- in the newspapers); the "silent success" of the euro; the need to defend the European Commission. And he added a principle of his own: "in our journey in an undefined direction, the intergovernmental method will not be sufficient and it contradicts the spirit of the ultimate goal."
                        *{Contributors:       Lindh Anna
                  Moïsi Dominique
                  Rasmussen Poul Nyrup
                  Rato y Figaredo Rodrigo
                  Sutherland Peter D.}