Sommaire: March 1, 2002: Keynote speech at Adelphi University delivered by George Cunningham, Head of Press and Public Affairs, European Commission Delegation to the United Nations
This speech is divided into five sections:
INTRODUCTION: AN EXCITING TIME FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION
I am proud to address this important gathering and am very pleased to have been invited by Professor Regina Axelrode to open this European Union conference here at Adelphi University with a keynote speech.
This is an important week for the European Union. Yesterday, the EU's first constitutional convention was launched. The task of the convention is to consider the key issues arising for the Union's future development and to identify ways to go forward.
Moreover today, the euro became the sole legal tender in the twelve eurozone countries, capping an extraordinary smooth change over. The eurozone's former national currencies - including the Deutschmark and French Franc - have now disappeared into history.
We at the European Commission Delegation in New York have used the disappearance of the eurozone's national currencies to contribute towards strengthening EU-US relations. We launched a campaign in New York to collect the old currencies and donate the equivalent amount in US dollars to the Twin Towers Fund for victims of 11th September.
As the world becomes more and more globalize, events which appear at first glance domestic such as the convention and the launch of the euro notes and coins will grow to have profound international effects and impact on the EU-US relationship.
With the increasing strength of the EU - more united, an economic superpower, soon to be enlarged with probably ten more Member States - the EU can serve as a stronger and more complementary ally to the United States to face the problems we share in the world.
THE EU, THE WORLD AND THE UNITED NATIONS
The EU believes in a multilateral approach to world affairs. It does so because it is by the process of negotiation and consensus-seeking among its current 15 Member States that it has built itself into the power that it now is on the world's stage. It is the way that the EU has grown since its inception and the way it does business internally.
Multilateralism is therefore part of the nature of how the EU gets its job done. And by extension working within the UN system is natural for us.
The EU is a major player in world affairs. It is an economic superpower. The European Union has almost a 9 trillion US dollar economy compared to United States' 10.7 trillion US dollar economy - and that comparison will improve with enlargement and with a strengthening of the Euro: US dollar exchange rate.
Together, the EU and US are almost 60% of the world economy. The EU is equal to US in trade volumes - together the EU and US are responsible for over a third of the world's imports and exports.
The European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy has been developing since the early nineties. More and more positions at the United Nations and other international fora are taken by EU Member States in unanimity - and in association with candidate and other European countries too.
The EU is already preparing to take over the policing functions in Bosnia from the United Nations this year as the first step in its new European Security and Defense Policy. It also expects to have a Rapid Reaction Force of 60,000 soldiers fully operational by the year 2003.
The launch of euro notes and coins and the forthcoming enlargement is further cementing the EU's impact on the world scene. After the next enlargement of the Union, almost one in seven members of the United Nations will also be a member of the European Union.
The EU is engaged in all parts of the world. Its main actors in foreign policy currently are the EU Presidency Foreign Minister Josep Pique, External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten and High Representative Javier Solana. As you have heard more and more in the news, they have been busy focusing their efforts in crisis management especially in Afghanistan, the Balkans, the Middle East and even Korea.
The biggest military contingents in the Balkans already come from EU Member States. The EU is also consistently the biggest giver of foreign assistance in times of crisis, as witnessed in the Balkans and also, for instance, in financing the Palestinian Authority to try to stop the Middle East sliding further into chaos.
The European Union is also generous towards the United Nations:
A considerable amount of solidarity has grown between the EU and the UN over the past two years in particular. The UN is very interested in the potential for the EU's rapid reaction force being helpful in peace-keeping and other UN mandated missions. The EU and the UN are also beginning to increase coordination in the realm of conflict prevention. Last year, the EU hosted for the first time a major UN conference on Least Developed Countries in Brussels. There are more and more EU and UN senior officials visiting each other. And at this moment, there are seventeen UN bodies represented on the ground in Brussels liaising on all aspects of EU-UN relations.
THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM: THE VALUE OF THE UN CONFIRMED
As is well known, the UN is involved in all matters ranging from peace and security, economic, social and humanitarian as well as environmental issues. As the world shrinks, so issues become more global. It is clear that no country can act in isolation as the tragic events on 11th September have shown.
The UN is often portrayed as a talking shop but of course it has many agencies and programmes combating all the ills of the world. Even as a talking shop, it serves an important role in promoting jaw-jaw instead of war-war.
The war against terrorism today provides a concrete case study of how important the UN has become.
The scale of the destruction of the Twin Towers on 11th September shocked the world - a third of UN Member States lost citizens in the attacks. The UN Security Council Resolution 1368 immediately laid the cornerstone of effective international action by branding the attacks a "threat to international peace and security" - language in the UN Charter that triggers enforcement action. The Security Council declared that UN Member States have an obligation to help "bring to justice" the organizers and sponsors of these atrocities, and warned that those harboring terrorist networks "will be held accountable".
The UN General Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution the same day condemning the attacks and calling for international cooperation to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these outrages.
The UN Security Council resolution was no mere words. Security Council authorization makes a big difference - in practical as well as legal terms - to how the world as a whole reacts to crises.
For instance, many Islamic countries have already invoked the Council's resolution to explain their cooperation in rooting out Osama bin-Laden's terrorist network. Pakistan halted financial flows to the Taliban, sealing its borders and sharing intelligence. Other countries in the Muslim world similarly justify close cooperation with Washington in tracking down Islamic terrorists by citing their legal obligation to fulfill the Security Council's call.
The Security Council resolution vowing, "to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts" gave the UN's green light for military action by the coalition against terrorism, which has had such a dramatic impact now in Afghanistan.
Under Security Council Resolution 1373, the UN Security Council has set up a Counter-Terrorism Committee headed by the British representative to the Security Council, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. Up to now, 137 countries out of a total UN membership of 189 UN Member States have provided written detailed reports on steps that they have taken to implement anti-terrorism measures.
The Counter-Terrorism Committee intends to demand reports from all UN Member States and also coordinate action with regional and other international organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, OECD, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
Tackling terrorism on a global scale can only be done successfully through the ultimate global institution - the United Nations. No other institution has the authority of the world to respond to globalization, whether concerning its positive or negative impacts.
THE CURRENT EU-US DEBATE ON MULTILATERALISM
During the past month or so, the normally relatively calm (or slightly choppy) waters of the EU-US trans-Atlantic relations have been disturbed by disagreements on how we should be working together to solve the problems of the world.
As is well known, the recent use of the term "Axis of Evil" mentioning Iran, Iraq and North Korea by name has caused some controversy. Apart from provoking mass demonstrations in Iran, it has caused both EU and US sides to trade remarks, calling each others' views on international issues "simplistic", "profoundly misguided" and even "absurd".
Are we entering a new phase in our relationship between a convinced multilateralist EU and the "only super-power" unilateralist United States of America?
Under the current US administration, we seem to have gone through three phases in our EU-US relationship so far which I have had the privilege to observe during my time here in New York:
Phase one saw a new administration which seemed to be withdrawing from the world and Europe. The US did not seem to wish to involve itself anymore as a peace-broker in the Middle East or on the Korean Peninsula. It seemed to put into doubt its military commitment with its European allies in the Balkans.
The US distanced itself from the Kyoto protocol and continued not to sign up to other multilateral treaties such as the Biological Weapons Convention, the Proliferation of Small Arms Treaty and International Criminal Court. Missile defense in contravention of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia seemed alluring. Somehow, the Americas and the Pacific seemed more enticing as regions than good old-fashioned Europe.
The EU responded by lobbying hard for the US to stay internationally engaged and took action to fill the partial diplomatic vacuum left by the US in the Middle East and Korea in particular. It also started building an even closer working relationship with the UN, with the 15 EU Member States acting more and more in a united way.
Phase two was the attack on the Twin Towers. This provoked an outpouring of world sympathy towards the US. Massive opportunities developed almost over-night for building goodwill and reshaping the world based on the offers of help that came in and the unprecedented actions taken against terrorism by a united and determined UN Security Council.
The US entered a full-scale war in Afghanistan with the active support of most governments in that region, a "coalition of the willing" without hardly a single official voice raised against that action internationally. The US also paid a large part of its financial arrears to the UN.
The EU's response was unequivocal. It offered many hundreds of experts to help search for survivors at the World Trade Center in New York, took measures at home to impede terrorist activities and many EU Member States also offered military help.
At the same time, close cooperation between the EU and the US helped launch the Doha Development Agenda, a new round of multilateral trade negotiations with the particular emphasis of helping developing countries get much greater benefits from a more liberalized trading regime.
We now seem to be entering a Phase three: a victorious US in Afghanistan, which has reaffirmed its position as the world's only military superpower. But as we all know one victory here not a victory everywhere. The war against terrorism continues. Allies are still needed. And there is the major issue what happens after the victory has been accomplished.
Once the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan in the late eighties, the country descended into chaos and terrorism bred. Even now in Afghanistan, warlords in different regions are stirring trouble. The international community has returned to Afghanistan with a multinational force but currently only deployed in Kabul.
For its part, the European Union has pledged EUR 2.3 billion at the Tokyo conference for the reconstruction of Afghanistan during the period 2002-2006, almost half of the total pledged by the international community. We want to heal Afghanistan together with the US, but it takes much more than military combat to stifle terrorism.
In the phrase of Edward Luttwak, the well-known US military strategist, we wouldn't want America to "over-reach her victory" by trying to tackle the so-called "Axis of Evil" without sufficient international support. This means that we need to bring any evidence of future terrorist threats before the United Nations for a decision for action to be taken against another country in a military sense.
If we are not careful, the West may throw away a golden opportunity to make the world a better place.
Why should the US care about its European allies? Apart from our economic might, the answer is also that because of our common values, forged through history and especially in particular during the dark days of the Cold War, we are the most dependable group of nations available to support the United States. We have no hidden agendas. We are consistent in our support for the US whether in her hour of need or not.
That is why the EU was so steadfast in its support of the United States on 11th September. That's why her European allies invoked Article 5 of the NATO Charter. That's why the US trusts her European allies in NATO to help patrol the United States with NATO AWACs. We can be trusted to help out on the really big issues because we have a long history of working together. We are on the same side and always have been.
WORKING TOGETHER IN A COMPLEMENTARY WAY
We know that when the EU and the US work together, we set the international agenda. If we're divided, the opportunity for international progress is lost. Now we have to be very careful to assess what our strengths and weaknesses are, and ensure that they intermesh in a positive way.
Without oversimplifying too much, it seems to me that the US strengths are largely based on its overwhelming military power (even if substantial help was provided by her allies through special forces on the ground and in the large EU national army presence in the current multinational force in Kabul). The US also has strong convictions. The EU strengths tend to be economic instruments of foreign policy and our network of diplomatic relations.
The EU's diplomatic networks around the world can be very useful. For instance, the EU has been working for some time with moderate opinion in Iran. It is very delicate work. We do not lose sight of the big question of the problem of weapons of mass destruction in that country. But we feel that it is better to encourage the seeds of change to flourish rather than push that country further into the hands of conservatives who have antipathy towards the West and what it stands for.
Similarly in North Korea, most EU countries have now established embassies in Pyongjang and the EU as a whole is pursuing a policy of engagement with that country. We are trying to put a lid on the nuclear threat of Korea through such initiatives as KEDO, the Korean Energy Development Organization, and we think that we are being successful in this regard.
With both North Korea and Iran, our policies of engagement can be seen to be helpful to the US. If the US feels for quite legitimate domestic reasons that it cannot pursue dialogue with these countries - or those countries anyhow reject that dialogue - the EU is happy to complement the US efforts by doing so. This is what allies are for, and that is why we do it.
In the Middle East as a whole, the EU is mightily encouraged by the potential of the new Saudi plan for calming tensions in Arab-Israeli relations and creating a lasting peace. Two days ago, you may have noticed that EU High Representative Javier Solana had already taken the bull by its horns by talking to Crown Prince Abdullah in Riyadh.
The EU has made a special effort to listen to Islamic opinion especially with its joint approach on Middle East policy reached at a meeting with the countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference a fortnight ago.
Our task is not easy in the Islamic world. A Gallup poll in nine Islamic countries published this week has shown populations deeply at odds with the West and especially the United States. Most respondents displayed a belief that western nations do not respect Arab or Islamic values, do not support Arab causes and do not exhibit fairness towards Arabs. Perhaps our greatest global challenge together now is to win the battle of the hearts and minds of those populations.
Undoubtedly, our next great opportunity to work together to under-cut some of the roots of terrorism is the Financing for Development Conference this month in Monterrey, Mexico. The EU is looking towards increasing its already hefty 50% proportion of total world development assistance. There is a healthy debate for the US also to increase substantially its share from its current 17% proportion of total world development assistance.
Bearing in mind that, by 2004, the US defense budget is expected to be seventeen times bigger than the US State Department budget, this should not be too expensive from an overall US budgetary perspective.
In the words of our Commissioner Chris Patten: "No one shares our vision, the European vision, our history and our values as much as the United States. With no one else do we have such a wide range of common interests, such a fine national network of cooperation on all levels, such a strong economic base to build on."
That commonality of values and of interests is the foundation of the Trans-Atlantic relationship. And that commonality makes it more important than ever before that we work together to create a better world through the United Nations and the multilateral system.
Thank you.
| Haut |
Etats Membres de l'Union Européenne
Alertes par e-mail
Envoyer par e-mail
Imprimer cette page