Conference by His Excellency the President of the Portuguese Republic, at the Norwegian Nobel Institute - "Peace and European Integration - Challanges and Expectations"

Oslo
04 de Fevereiro de 2004


Director
Ministers
Ambassadors
Ladies and Gentlemen
Dear Students

My first words go to thank Professor Geir Lundestad for the kind invitation with which the Norwegian Nobel Institute has honoured me to speak at this prestigious venue. I would also like to thank the Centre for European Studies of Oslo University for having organised this meeting with its customary efficiency. Lastly, Director, I wish to thank you for your very kind words.

I am particularly pleased to be here today. The subject on which I have decided to speak - Peace and European Integration – seems to me a natural one. Symbolically, on account of where we find ourselves at this moment, as a tribute to the memory of Alfred Nobel and those who each year are awarded the greatest peace prize ever, keeping alive the trust of all who believe in the ideal of peace and fight for that cause; it is also a just tribute to the founders and builders of the European Community, as a unique undertaking of enduring peace.

Lastly, because of the unusual times in which we live where the expectations and challenges surrounding the European Union accumulate and intertwine in ways that are not always clear, so that clarifying debates are essential.

I propose to divide this subject into three periods, corresponding to differing realities and ambitions:

- The first, from the remote to the recent past;

- The second, from the recent past to the present;

- The third, from the present to the future.


From the remote to the recent past

As Raymond Aron wisely said, war belongs to all historical periods and to all civilizations.

A brief glance at the history of the political assertion of the nation-states in Europe shows how these, zealous of their sovereignty, authority and independence, embarked on a succession of wars, conflicts and rivalries, constantly seeking to promote their own interests, assert their power or administer an unstable balance of power.

Hegemonic ambitions, alliances and coalitions, where the great oppose the great and the small act as counterweight, making alliances left and right according to the interests at stake, mark the history of Europe. That is why the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 expressly mentions the need to ensure “a fair balance between the powers”, and later, at the Congress of Vienna, Europe is reorganized as a result of a balance between the five main powers.

On a formal plane, this reality corresponds to the classical idea that war is a legal instrument at the disposal of States. We find it, for example, formulated by Grotius in his work, On the Law of War and Peace, endorsed by Montesquieu in The Spirit of Laws, and later extensively developed in the treaty On War by Clausewitz. According to him war is not merely a political act but a real instrument of foreign policy, a continuation of politics through other means. This viewpoint is nothing but a transposition to the theoretical plane of centuries of warfare and of an obvious fact: war and the military victory, which is sought, are not an end in themselves.

We had to reach the 20th century and see the abominable savagery that went with it for war finally to be outlawed. As you will recall, the Briand-Kellogg Pact, signed in the aftermath of the First World War, solemnly proclaimed that war as a political instrument was illegal.

And to preserve peace in the world, the League of Nations was born.

This unheard-of initiative won President Wilson the Nobel Peace Prize in 1920, and whilst not immediately bearing fruit corresponded to a genuine revolution in the history of international relations: the power-politics and the secret diplomacy of States were to be replaced by international co-operation.

However, we had to experience 55 million dead, 35 million wounded and 3 million disappeared, the devastation of a whole continent and the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki before States undertook to guarantee peace in the world through conflict prevention and peaceful resolution of disputes by signing the United Nations Charter of the League of Nations.

From then on States were obliged mutually to acknowledge their sovereignty and equality. The principle of the balance of power that sustained so many hegemonic plans in the history of international relations was replaced by the universal principle of a union of States, resolute in their desire to find a peaceful solution to conflicts on the shared assumption that war violates the law of nations.

This sovereign equality of States, enshrined in the Charter, introduced a qualitative leap in the nature of international relations and altered the course of history. Although some differences in status naturally continue to exist, depending on whether or not we are dealing with small or large States, considered in terms of their resources, despite the distinction that continues, naturally, to prevail between small and large powers, this sovereign equality placed at the core of international order gives States added legitimacy and negotiating capacity based on the recognition of the formal equality of all peoples. It was in the name of this sovereign equality, translated into the right of peoples to self-determination, that decolonisation occurred and that, in Europe, several States of Europe agreed to take part in the integration process, through which they proceeded to share sovereignty, paving the way for the prospect of a political union.

Besides, together with the progressive set up of the international community, we also witnessed the emergence of new dynamics at world level, restricting States’ political power. New forces and agents appeared, assuming a hitherto unknown relevance, conditioning the very exercise of state sovereignty. In this respect, several examples could be given, namely: the internationalisation of the economy, which transferred competences and confronted States with effective losses of sovereignty; the increasing role and influence of public opinion in formulating political decisions; and, naturally, the reinforcement of international law that imposed limitations on the actions of States and introduced new demands. Nowadays, for instance, it is no longer only the interests of States that are taken into account by the international law but also those of their societies; to the reason of State is added the defence of human rights and the international awareness of the important role of the individual and his fundamental rights.

In this regard I would like to recall the case of East Timor as a paradigmatic example of people’s right to self-determination and to independence. As you know, both the intransigent efforts of the international community and Portugal’s firm engagement were vital for the independence of the Timorese people, over and above their determined struggle for self-determination. In recalling this victory of international law and ethics, in which the United Nations played a decisive role, I wish to insist on the need for us to continue together to support the Timorese people in the difficult process of achieving the rule of law, stabilising democracy and building an economy based on sustainable development.


From the recent past to the present

The Second World War brought an end to the apogee of Europe, demolishing its pretensions of occupying a dominant role in the concert of nations. Europe ceases to be the centre of the world and becomes a continent. Nothing will ever be the same again.

On the rubble of war, fighting against the spectre of the idea of its decline, Europe then begins its search for unity. Almost all European multilateral organisations date from this period. The Council of Europe was created in 1949; in 1950 the European Coal and Steel Community was born and finally, 1957 witnesses the signing of the Treaties of Rome on the formation of a European Economic Community and on the use of atomic energy.

With these treaties began the process of European integration, leading later to the Treaty of Maastricht, enshrining the creation of the European Union. It is never too much to emphasise that this integration project was mainly designed to provide conditions for a solid and enduring peace. As you know we owe this totally new and innovating project to Schuman and Monnet, particularly daring in view of the fact that Europe was divided into two opposing blocs and the only peace then possible lay in the bipolar balance of the cold war.

As a result of their vision, Europe has experienced the longest period of peace in its history. Three consecutive generations of millions of European citizens have been fortunate enough to be born and to live without directly confronting the atrocities of fratricidal warfare, gratuitous violence and barbarism.

Then, thanks to this vast integration process, Europe changed and also helped to transform the world. For instance:

- freedom, democracy and human rights, which are the positive expression of the values of peace, are now the face of Europe.

- prosperity, stability and growing development are a part of Europeans’ lives.

- today the citizens of the European Union can claim shared citizenship, they have equal rights and can enjoy the same freedoms and guarantees.

- The freely associated European States are building a sui generis Political Union, which is increasingly closer and deeper, in the certainty that they are united by a common destiny and shared values.

There are two additional factors: this integration process has successively been enlarged to all European peoples who freely express their desire to join this project; then, the Union has not remained closed in itself, confined to the European continent but rather has, with its principles and values, moulded the international scene, making a decisive contribution to the consolidation of peace in the world.

I would like to underline this last point, because the still irregular and occasionally diffuse nature of the European Union’s actions and its yet insufficient weight as an efficient agent of globalisation, lead us on occasion to underestimate its intensive external action. As the first trade power in the world, the European Union has played an important role in strengthening and regulating the international trade system, namely within the World Trade Organisation. Also in the context of the international financial institutions, Europe has been able to assert itself as an influential agent, helping to establish policies that are better adjusted to the needs of developing countries, particularly in the areas of education, health and the struggle against poverty. As for co-operation for development, we should not forget that the European Union has employed innovative criteria that go beyond the simple “trade for aid” principle, taking into consideration the institutional and political context and the local situation inherent to each country so as to make aid more effective and integrate these countries in the world economy. Lastly, I would also like to mention the European Union’s important role in promoting the struggle against poverty and in pardoning the external debt of poorer countries.

For all these reasons, the European Union has been a centripetal force of peace among the peoples and nations that it contains, in the fully positive meaning of peace and not only in its negative meaning as the absence of war. The European Union has also acted as a centrifugal force for peace in relation to the whole continent, as shown by the present process of enlargement. In fact, the prospect of joining the European Union was decisive in determining the peaceful and rapid way in which the transition process of the young Eastern European democracies occurred, following the fall of the Berlin wall.

Added to which the European Union has in fact acted as a peace-maker in the rest of the world, not only through its example but through its actions in terms of foreign policy, on behalf of democracy, reducing inequalities between peoples, and promoting north-south dialogue, as well as more recently, by carrying out military and policing missions in the Balkans or the Congo, for instance.

In my view, the European Union is an almost perfect model of a “net contributor” to world peace: first of all, because it has built itself on the assumption that lasting peace lies in freedom, democracy, human rights, social justice, viable development and progress. Secondly, because it is based on the idea that peace involves preventing conflicts through the negotiation of peaceful solutions in the respect of international law. Then, because it has grown on the ultimate assumption that peace is indivisible and cannot firmly be reached whilst major differences exist in the levels of development among peoples, whilst freedom, democracy, justice and human rights are not universally applied, whilst the right to a proper life is not recognised worldwide. Fourthly, because the European Union rests on the values of difference and diversity, be it religious, ethnical, national or cultural, in the conception that diversity is not a threat but rather a factor of common, reciprocal enrichment, and that respect for diversity is a fundamental principle of peace. Lastly, because the European Union has also perceived that peace cannot be imposed but must be collectively lived and that, not being a natural and spontaneous condition, must be cultivated and promoted each and every day through on-going pedagogy and concrete actions that make it credible.


From the present to the future

Despite all the progress made, despite the potentialities of globalisation as regards people’s economic and social development, despite the consolidation of the international legal order, despite the effort of multilateralism as a guarantor of peace in the world and the reunification of the European continent, we live times of great uncertainty, indefinition and growing disquiet.

The Berlin Wall had barely fallen and war broke out in the Balkans.

Galloping globalisation and growing interdependence of economies and societies have not necessarily brought more justice, stability, peace, or greater equality of opportunities and development. The regulating function of the international society has not always met expectations or produced tangible effects. The terrorist attacks of September 11 and lastly the war in Iraq seem definitively to have shaken the world order of the 20th century. It is not yet possible to understand clearly where the current changes are taking us. We live, in fact, in a period of transition, with accumulating signs of recomposition of a new world order.

On the one hand, we have the intense but up till now incipient efforts to reform the major international organisations – UN, NATO, IMF, to mention just the more salient ones – that attest to the need to find answers that are better adjusted to the realities of our times. Besides, the crisis in transatlantic relations caused by the question of Iraq and the UN’s impotence before the emergence of new patterns of international action marked by regressive principles such as preventive war, corroborate the existence of a general uncertainty regarding the standard that will govern international relations in the future. In my personal opinion, the formulation of concepts such as that of preventive warfare carries with it the risk of a move backwards in the legalist concept of peace. In this context it was worrying to see in European countries before the Iraq crisis, for instance, a resurgence of attitudes that were more evocative of the times of the power politics than of the wished-for coherence that should shape the European Union’s foreign policy.

On the other hand, and beyond the European Union, we have positive signs of regional integration movements that are beginning to make their mark, particularly in South America, with MERCOSUL or ALCA, and in Asia with ASEAN. In this regard I would like to emphasise that although certain difficulties exist in the European framework that must not be underestimated, the project to reunify the continent, with the enlargement of the European Union to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and their accession to the Atlantic Alliance, has had a positive and mobilising function. Despite the difficulties inherent to this process of adaptation and reforms (the greatest since its foundation) and the challenges it represents, achieving this objective has created a constructive dynamic which has to a certain extent counterbalanced the negative effects of the international crisis and a difficult economic situation.

But as we know, the European Union also experiences a crisis in its growth that a disparate number of elements have contributed to worsen. In the first place, a difficult international situation, marked by the persistent threat of terrorism, with vague, ill-defined characteristics, and by the risk of the proliferation of irrational fanaticisms. In the second place, a discouraging economic situation, demanding sacrifices from citizens, contrasting with the strengthening and international affirmation of the euro. In the third place, political indefinition as regards the future of the European Union, its finalities and the political model to follow, which has been obstructed. Finally, the difficulties in establishing a consensus regarding common foreign policy objectives. Added to this are problems of the political leadership of the Union and certain damaging breaches in what should undoubtedly be a climate of trust between its members.

Despite all these adverse factors and the accumulated difficulties that I have just listed, the greatest enlargement in the history of the Union will take place as planned next May. That is why 2004 will go down in history as the year of the reunification of Europe and will also seal the realisation of an historic purpose, desired by its founders. However, I also have no doubt that we are facing an extremely delicate task and run the risk of an unprecedented crisis if we are unable to have a sufficiently broad vision of history and a strong ambition for Europe.

This enlargement, which brings to Europe a large and a relatively homogenous group of countries that shared a similar recent past marked by the same fears and concerns, introduces a new tension in the prevailing balances among the Fifteen, not only from an endogenous but from an exogenous viewpoint. When we are Twenty-Five the European Union will not only have changed dimensions but also in scale, as for some also in nature. In the eyes of the world it will appear with another profile, other contours; it may well have a different perception of and approach to the course of events; the degree of diversity between partners will be greater, the concerns more varied and positions more difficult to harmonise.

Obviously there is a risk of diluting the European project, fragmenting its unity, losing cohesion, rupturing the spirit of solidarity. The challenge then is simultaneously to consolidate enlargement by strengthening the union between its members, and continue to deepen the integration policies. In my view these are the two objectives that must be reconciled as they correspond to legitimate and complementary ambitions. Reconciliation will not be possible, however, without strong convictions and some pragmatism, without the spirit of unity and the capacity to differentiate, without a feeling of solidarity and ties of mutual trust.

Which is why I do not believe that the way forward involves solutions outside the European treaties, however provisional and pioneering they may be, nor by the postponement sine die of the deepening of European construction. Personally, I believe that it is vital to give Europe a Constitutional Charter that meets the Europeans’ aspirations in which all would be able to recognize themselves and that will allow for the renew of a stronger European pact. It is also important, however, that the future Treaty preserves the efficiency of the Union and allow for flexible mechanisms without prejudice of unity and global coherence.

I also believe that unless the sovereign equality between States is recognised, as the equality of law is recognised between citizens, it will be difficult to accept and exercise political union over and above the economic union that already exists. The fact that States are interdependent and economically integrated does not obviously mean that they cease to exist and to aspire to maintain their political sovereignty, even if they do agree to exercise some of their competences together. In fact, the worst mistake we could make would be to think that sovereignty and independence are almost meaningless. On the contrary, I believe that this enlargement will precisely show that the national dimensions and the ensuing diversity are living realities that can affect the future evolution of European history. We must find a way, then, to enhance the diversities without neglecting the principle of unity or the right to equality.

From a purely rational point of view, the ideal solution for a Europe of Peoples and of States that we wish to build would be a federation which, as Raymond Aron bluntly points out, is “the civilised or voluntary version of the empire”. But as we all know, history is almost never the product of reason. Therefore I do not believe in a pure federalist solution for Europe in the strict meaning of the term. I would like to defend a way close to Jacques Delors’ apt formulation of a Federation of Nation-States in which each one finds in the general interest the expression of its own particular interest.

I also believe that the expectations for a more just world with a more humane face are greater with a strong and enlarged Europe endowed with a coherent common foreign and security policy, because the right answers to the challenges facing us today will only be found on a collective scale.

People’s political options are the fruit of their history, of the vision they form of the present and of the future that they may want at a given moment. These options correspond to free, democratic and sovereign decisions that represent the collective will and therefore deserve our respect. For my part I believe that Norway has always occupied an important position in Europe, contributing to its wealth and unity. I would therefore like to say that I personally hope that one day the Kingdom of Norway will participate fully in the European Union, continuing to exercise that role within this community of States and peoples.

I believe I am not mistaken in saying that there is more to unite us than to separate us. And I believe that our joint efforts will enable us to outline a balanced way to create conditions for our youth of today to be citizens of the world tomorrow, proud of the Europe they belong to.

For my part I continue to believe that for us the European Union is the right answer to the challenges of our time. I believe it has an unmistakable role to play to preserve world peace, create a lasting and fair framework of development and preserve the value of the diversity of our cultures and traditions. I trust that the Europeans will know how to value the priceless opportunity that the European Union represents for peace, stability, prosperity, development, democracy, justice and respect for human rights in Europe and the world. And I also hope that Europe will continue as an area of peace among peoples, generating an international dynamic of peace in the world.