He focused on three issues decided in the wake of the 9th November 1989: the euro, free movement of all EU citizens, and Europe’s foreign policy.
On the euro and the economy, President Van Rompuy said: “Saving the euro, making the eurozone sound and solid: that will be the legacy of my generation of European leaders.” He stressed the need, in view of rising global competitiveness, for all European countries to reform, “without any exception”.
In this context he said about Germany: “Over these last years, within the eurozone, the role of Germany has been essential. Not only have you stood by the euro, but you have been perhaps the strongest advocate for economic reforms – alerting to risks, injecting economic foresight into the European debate. That is something for which I commend your political leaders. Your country faces its own foretold risks and challenges for the future. To prevent them from materialising tomorrow, it is today that your country must act boldly. For results as for reforms, the most convincing leadership is leadership by example.”
President Van Rompuy also addressed the issue of populism, in many countries. “Populism: an outlet for anger and resentment, the promise of a restored identity, the illusion that closing a fence can turn back the clock, the lie that you can survive on the global market without efforts…”
In order to redress the situation, “the first and basic answer: results. We are clearly going through a difficult phase, but the track is right. In the end people will be best convinced by results. By growth coming back, by jobs being created; by the visible signs that the work that societies and governments are doing – individually and jointly as a Union – is paying off.”
But for President Van Rompuy convincing people is not a matter of economy alone, but also a matter of words: “Leaders must tell the truth. One such truth is that there are no quick-fixes, that reforms on growth and jobs takes time. Another one, that the ultimate answer to the crisis does not lie in new financial instruments (funds or bonds), nor in a return to national currencies, but in changes in the real economy. And yet another truth: that the cost of non-Europe would be unbearable. Those who pretend that their country can succeed on its own sell illusions.
In speaking about recent concerns about free movement of all EU citizens and external migration, President Van Rompuy called the former “a sign of civilisation”. “Like any right, this one is abused by some individuals. That is highly regrettable. But rather than restrict the right, it should be a reason to fight the abuse. National and local authorities have the means and legal possibilities to do so – and the EU is doing more to help them.” And he added: “And don’t forget movement within the EU works in all directions: for each Polish worker in one European capital for instance, there are 2 of its nationals on the Spanish Coast.”
Along the speech, the President focused not only on EU policies and decisions, but also on the actual experience of people of the continent. “One fundamental question then is this: is Europe just a space, a zone to roam around, ein Raum; or also a place, where we can feel at home, ein Ort, der Heimat ist?”. He concluded in expressing the hope that Europe, alongside a space of freedom and opportunities, one day can also be a Heimatort, a place to feel at home for all – “East Europeans, West Europeans, North European, South Europeans, and ‘new’ Europeans”.
This Fourth Berliner “Europa-Rede” took place in the Allianz Forum, Pariser Platz, and was organised by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the Stiftung Zukunft Berlin and the Robert Bosch Stiftung.
I. Introduction
[DE]
Es ist eine große Freude und Ehre hier in Berlin zur Erinnerung an den 9. November eine Rede halten zu dürfen. Vor drei Jahren schon war ich in Berlin zum selben Anlass. Jedoch hielt ich meine Rede an einem anderen Ort, im Pergamon Museum. Umgeben von Olympischen Göttern und antiquen Statuen – es war sehr beeindruckend. Heute, nehme ich ein anderes Umfeld wahr, eine andere Perspektive…Wir haben die Antique verlassen und befinden uns stattdessen im 18. Jahrhundert, als dieser wunderschöne Platz gebaut wurde.
[EN]
Its very name, given some years later, when your city was healing its scars from the Napoleonic wars, testifies to a moment of Prussian pride. Even if, in this respect, the name Pariser Platz is definitely more diplomatic than the London version for the same battle…
Waterloo Station…!
Of course, for you here today, for the Berliner and Berlinerinnen, the “Pariser Platz” brings a more recent history to mind. Certainly on the day we celebrate the Mauerfall. From here, we can almost see the Brandenburger Tor where twenty-four years ago, at 9:30 in the evening, the thirst for freedom burst out into the open.
I said it three years ago, but today I will say it again: to me, the 9th of November 1989 is perhaps the most important tipping point, not just for Germany but in our recent European history.
So I gladly accepted the invitation of the organisers to come here today, and thank them all. I hope they will allow me to thank one person in particular, President Hans-Gert Pöttering. A former President of the European Parliament and its longest-serving member, he is also the driving force behind the “House of European History” in Brussels, which will soon start telling the story of why we Europeans united, and why we need to keep uniting.
Vielen Dank.
II. Post-Wall Europe
One European Prime Minister at the time phrased it this way: “History galloped riderless through the night of the Fall of the Wall, like a runaway horse.” History, “reiterlos, wie ein durchgegangenes Pferd”: how to catch its reins, how to harness its strength?
The events of these last months of 1989 may already seem distant history. But what they set in motion is still shaping our world today. The Fall of the Berlin Wall closed the ‘postwar’ period, die 1achkriegszeit. It opened the ‘post-Wall period’, “die ach-Mauer- Zeit”. And we in Europe are still in it today.
With 9th of November came a united Germany, in a more united Europe.
Reuniting Germany, politically, went extremely fast. With only eleven months: vom Mauerfall bis zur Wiedervereinigung. The sheer speed was breath-taking. For society however, for the people, it took longer for those sweeping changes to sink in. It took time, some effort, to develop a sense of common belonging, for all to truly feel at home in the new Germany. At times, there was Ostalgie, also Westalgie. Yet eventually the ‘new Germany’ became just that: ‘Germany’, for all.
Bundespräsident Gauck spoke one month ago – in Stuttgart, I think it was – about your country’s pride for having achieved this together “Ostdeutsche, Westdeutsche und 1eudeutsche, alle zusammen”.
Now let’s take a moment to look at how this process played out for Europe as a whole. It was just as momentous but perhaps more difficult to grasp – happening in the shadow of German events and lasting over a longer period. In fact, in Europe, we are still in the midst of getting to terms with this new situation. We have not yet reached the moment to say: “The ‘new Europe’ has become just that, ‘Europe’, for all.”
In Europe, the chain of political events also unfolded at amazing speed. Within four years, in 1993, the old economic Community (die Europäische Gemeinschaft) had become a political Union (die Europäische Union). In June that year, the leaders of the then twelve Western member states declared their readiness to welcome in the Union the countries in the East that had been locked behind the Iron Curtain. Es war keine Wieder-Vereinigung, dennoch eine Vereinigung!
And on 1st of November 1993, with the entry into force of the Maastricht treaty (or Union treaty), the path opened towards European citizenship, towards the single currency, towards a common foreign policy. Revolutionary changes, and none of this would have happened then, were it not for 1989.
So there it was: Vom Mauerfall bis zur Europäischen Union.
But – just as for the Germans –, for Europeans, for people and societies, really coming to terms with these new realities, really feeling at home in this new Post-Wall Europe, takes time. In fact, much longer than it did for the people of Germany.
We can even see forms of 1ostalgie, in Europe’s case too: for the days of the cosy Community of the Twelve; for the days of the French Franc, D-mark, the Lira or the Dutch Guilder. But no-one would dream of returning to the days before 1989. Post-Wall Europe is still under construction.
Those big changes that I mentioned – the currency, the citizenship, enlargement and our common voice in the world – are still being shaped and debated today, twenty years down the line. And it is of these changes, that I would like to speak today.
III. Eurozone and economy
During my time with you this morning, I want to speak about how we are still shaping this new, post-Wall Europe. And I will focus on three themes:
– What it means to share a currency;
– What it means to be able to move and live freely in any EU country;
– And what it would take to exert our full weight in the world.
Not just in terms of policies and political decisions, but also in terms of people’s experience in this new Europe.
Let me start with the first point: the euro. Because what I just said, that we-in-2013 are still dealing with the impact of what was decided between Mauerfall and Maastricht, is obvious when it comes to our currency.
The crisis made brutally clear that the eurozone as initially designed was regrettably underequipped to withstand a storm, like in 2010.
Since then, we worked around the clock, collectively. Mit Erfolg. Today, the existential threat to the eurozone is behind us. Saving the euro, making the eurozone sound and solid: that will be the legacy of my generation of European leaders. And history will testify of the important role of Chancellor Merkel and others in this achievement.
The shock of the euro crisis was a wake-up call. For countries individually. But also for all of them jointly.
All the work of the past three, four years – the rescue mechanisms, the Schuldenbremse, the new economic and budgetary oversight, the banking union now under construction – all this can be summarised as: drawing the lessons of interdependence. Getting to terms with what it means to share a currency across countries.
It was not always easy. Yet together, as Europeans, we mobilised the means-and-money to shelter countries in need from the markets. It was unprecedented solidarity, and very visible, nothing compared to anything that existed before in the Union.
Of course there has been critique. For instance against ‘austerity’, or against monetary policy decisions. But such criticism perhaps forgets that some countries had built up enormous underlying problems before the crisis erupted, and that correcting those would have been far worse without the euro. Or that solving a crisis of excessive sovereign debt with more debt simply won’t work. And for programme countries, calling for slower adjustment is jumping over the simple fact that, one way or the other, it means more money will have to be borrowed – and eventually paid back.
As European Council President, from the very start, I have constantly reminded all leaders that we need to work on two fronts: more responsibility, more solidarity. They go hand in hand. And we have achieved this overall balance. Not by compromising on each, but by doing both. Think for instance of the twin treaties we decided, the one for the European Stability Mechanism and the Fiscal Compact – unser Solidaritätsvertrag, und unser Verantwortlichkeitsvertrag. A fine balance.
And now look outside Europe. While we were overcoming existential challenges, the world has not stood still. It is becoming a hugely more competitive place by the day, with hundreds of millions men and women leaving poverty, and entering the global market for jobs, ideas, resources; with energy and diplomas.
And it’s not just new competitors catching up, but also older competitors risking to race ahead. For instance the United States, now running on much cheaper energy than ours. I don’t have to remind anyone in Germany about that.
Here in Europe we are 500 million people: overall well-educated, relatively prosperous, enjoying civil liberties and security… Together we are the world’s largest market, and a force to reckon with.
But the truth is this: if we want to stay in business …to preserve our social models, our jobs, our unique way of life…, we simply cannot sit back. It would be the surest way to squander the future of the young generations.
And that is true in all our countries. All – without any exception – must become more competitive. All must reform.
And many are reforming, especially those most shaken by the crisis. The countries where productivity has most improved since 2010 are precisely those from the so-called “periphery”: like Spain, Portugal or Ireland.
But the wheel of history is also turning for the countries of the so-called ‘north’. What has gone up, can come down. They too must reform. And that includes Germany of course: think of the massive demographic challenge you face, or the quality of road infrastructure, or the unused potential of your services market, or of high energy costs… But I know these issues are part of the public debate here in your country.
Over these last years, within the eurozone, the role of Germany has been essential. Not only have you stood by the euro, but you have been perhaps the strongest advocate for economic reforms – alerting to risks, injecting economic foresight into the European debate. That is something for which I commend your political leaders.
Your country faces its own foretold risks and challenges for the future. To prevent them from materialising tomorrow, it is today that your country must act boldly. For results as for reforms, the most convincing leadership is leadership by example.
We’ve found out with the crisis that economic distress in one country can affect us all, just as the success of one country can be beneficial to all others. We call it interdependence. In the eurozone, we must look at the parts and at the whole. A common currency requires more common policies: it’s as simple as that.
Several new instruments for more economic coordination are already in place. One important element is still missing: the ‘contracts’, whereby countries commit to certain key reforms to improve competitiveness and employment, with solidarity elements. On these contracts, we’ll move forward in December.
By then, we will also decide on the next steps for the Banking Union. With single supervision for eurozone banks, which we are already putting in place, now comes single resolution. The two go hand in hand. To prepare this, the banks will go through an asset quality review, to make sure they are sound before they enter our joint banking union.
With all of this, the report which I presented to EU leaders on how to achieve a genuine Economic and Monetary Union, is close to completion.
A final point on the euro. As a result of all this work – in fire-fighting, on preventing future crises, on long-term objectives too –, Europeans are now much better equipped to face turbulence. The serious shock means that, at least amongst leaders, there is now a vivid awareness of the magnitude of the economic challenge. For leaders, the crisis has been a major wake-up call. A good start. But the difficulty now lies in mobilising the public support for these- and further changes…It’s the only way for the European continent to remain this attractive place in the world.
IV. Populism; Europe as space and as place
The work of European governments mending the economy is one thing, the experience of the people across Europe very often is another.
People are worried. Understandably so. In the global competition, it’s becoming harder to hold on to jobs – or to find one. For many, making ends meet isn’t as easy as it used to be, and could well become even harder for their children. Disorientation can feed anxiety – Angst –, a feeling of loss of control.
It can result in withdrawal, within closed circles, in search for some grip of sorts. Or even in retreat into indifference of selfishness, into “Jeder für sich”. Widespread phenomena, already at work 10 or 20 years before this financial crisis.
In some countries – and Germany today may be an exception, an important exception –, we see how this mix of change and fear fuels populism. Populism: an outlet for anger and resentment, the promise of a restored identity, the illusion that closing a fence can turn back the clock, the lie that you can survive on the global market without efforts…
The success of populism – in its different brands – on the political market also points to the weak offer on the other side. To a crisis of traditional politics in many member states. To a declining trust of voters in their representatives, in many places. Trust really is the key word.
Faced with today’s global changes, people know that some things in our societies will have to be adapted. But deciding what exactly to change, and when and how, that is never easy. We pay a price for our societies’ incapacity to cut the knot. People blame globalisation. But more often than not, its ‘victims’ are in fact victims of the reforms-which-have-not-takenplace
It sometimes seems a vicious circle: no political trust means no mandate for change. But no change will eventually further erode trust… We can and must break this circle and open a perspective for positive change.
Yet in this climate, the European Union is under double pressure: it is affected by the low trust in politics in general, and it is specifically hit.
For instance, ‘Europe’ now is blamed for what is asked by globalisation. Of course, the fear of global market forces was there long before anti-European populism. But the common shield is now perceived as outside threat.
The economic crisis has forced the European Union into a new role. For decades (complaints about curvy cucumbers aside), Europe was all about opening, liberating, creating possibilities, emancipating, empowering…Today, Europe is seen as being intrusive, meddling, dictating, judging, correcting, prescribing, imposing, even punishing…
It’s alas worth adding that the institutions have been asked by the governments to take up this role; as if the latter have outsourced their “Über-ich” to Brussels… Put differently, where self-constraint fails, where common rules are broken, eventually constraint has to come into play. It’s not angenehm, for either side.
It all boils down to this: today many people across Europe have the impression that Europe makes them weaker. Whereas the founding promise was that Europe would make people and countries stronger.
What can we do to redress the situation?
The first and basic answer: results. We are clearly going through a difficult phase, but the track is right. In the end people will be best convinced by results. By growth coming back, by jobs being created; by the visible signs that the work that societies and governments are doing – individually and jointly as a Union – is paying off.
But convincing people that Europe is part of the solution is not a matter of economy alone; of course it is also a matter of words.
Leaders must tell the truth. One such truth is that there are no quick-fixes, that reforms on growth and jobs takes time. Another one, that the ultimate answer to the crisis does not lie in new financial instruments (funds or bonds), nor in a return to national currencies, but in changes in the real economy. And yet another truth: that the cost of non-Europe would be unbearable.
Those who pretend that their country can succeed on its own sell illusions. Populism and nationalism cannot provide answers to the challenges of our times. Politicians must set out clearly what is at stake. They also have to speak out loudly their European convictions.
How can you ask to favour the European cause if leaders do not have the courage to defend and promote European integration? It is as simple as that. We need a positive language – as I hear from the political leaders in this country. All must defend what we achieve; not half-heartedly, but with conviction.
Results, straight-talk, conviction: these are the elementary notions. Some commentators think that the unpopularity of the EU could also be fixed via another avenue, with a huge overhaul of the institutions. For me this is largely beside the point.
Instead I should like to explore something else with you, something perhaps more fundamental, which is people’s actual experience of our continent. One key question before us then is this: Is Europe just a space, a zone to roam around, ein Raum; or also a place, where we can feel at home, ein Ort, der Heimat ist? The two are not the same thing; they can even be at odds.
A place (ein Ort) is about order, it brings stability and predictability. For instance two things cannot be in the same place. A space (ein Raum) on the other hand is about movement and possibilities. A space brings element of direction, speed and time into play.
These may seem abstract notions, but they are clearly at work in today’s European Union.
Think about it. European leaders have worked for decades to turn the territory of the member states into a space. From the start, the Community was founded on an élan of movement. The typical action was to remove borders: allowing goods, services and capital to circulate freely, allowing persons to travel freely. It was – and still is – all about creating opportunities: for people and businesses to move, to take initiatives, to seize chances elsewhere. And what an amount of energy, vision and conviction has been devoted to this task. Even today – on energy, services, telecom, the digital economy – bringing down borders is the job. One long battle to establish this Europe-as-a-space.
Much less attention has been paid to Europe-as-a-place, a home. During the Cold War, nobody even expected Europe to transform itself from a market into a home. For a good
reason: bringing stability and predictability, offering protection and a sense of belonging,
that was the remit of the member states – think of the welfare states.
The implicit deal was that the Union would not interfere. A good division of labour, but one that has come under pressure – not least since the crisis. This leads to sometimes contradictory demands. Today, some ask Europe to interfere less, to stay away. Some ask it to come in, and help more. We need a balance.
In any case, for Europe to become a place, to feel more like a home, our Union must be able, if not to protect people, at the very least to respect the places of protection and belonging – be it certain national welfare arrangements, or local cheese.
There is another challenge: our still open geography, which doesn’t make it any easier for Europe to become a Heimat, a Heimatort. Each time our Union grows, we ask people to feel at home in a new club.
Certainly, successive enlargements brought Europe’s political and geographic identities closer together. The large majority of countries on our continent is now within the Union.
Yet, where does “Europe” end? We must admit, we don’t have an answer yet. There’s no reason to be ashamed, it happens with many important questions in life!
Some cases are clear. Like the Balkans, whose future lies firmly in the Union. After Croatia, our most recent member, others will follow if they meet the criteria – it is their ‘manifest destiny’.
Other cases are not clear cut. And more generally, for reasons easily explained, we seem unable to define where the Union’s final borders will lie. It’s a reality for diplomats, but for citizens an un-settling experience.
This week we reopened negotiations with Turkey: a good thing indeed. The case also illustrates for Europe what I said before, that existing as a space can be for some at odds with becoming a place…
V. Free movement and migration
Talking about space, you may think I have completely drifted off… But not at all! For our relation to geography is key to understand the two other areas which fundamentally changed “vom Mauerfall bis Maastricht”: EU citizenship; and our role in the world.
You may not have realised, but eight days ago, most of us above the age of 20 could have celebrated their 20th anniversary as “EU citizen”.
It was a novelty of the Maastricht Treaty that became reality from day one, legally speaking at least. The new “EU citizenship” established among other things the right for all citizens of member states to move and live freely anywhere within our Union.
This freedom builds upon existing provisions in the original Rome Treaty, about the free movement of labour It was thought-of as an economic disposition, for the Common Market, with movement of labour on a par with that of goods, services and capital.
The fundamental change, the breakthrough that took place in the wake of the Mauerfall, was that this economic disposition became a fundamental freedom, a political right.
And I find it beautiful to think that what started as the 1989 flight from tyranny – the stirrings of freedom in Gdansk, in Budapest, in Prague and Leipzig, its climax right here at the Brandenburger Tor – grew into the freedom of movement for all Europeans. Since then, so many men and women from East and West, and North and South have seized the opportunities, to be Europeans, at home or abroad.
For me, a space of freedom and rule of law – for restless travellers and home-staying citizens alike – is more than an element of an economic Union: it is a pillar of the new, post-Wall Europe: it is a sign of civilisation.
Recently this great achievement has come under some criticism. Sadly unsurprising of course, given the current economic uncertainties. Around catchwords like ‘benefit tourism’ or ‘social dumping’, all kinds of issues – real or perceived –, tend to get mixed up. Amidst all the confusion and emotions, prejudice against other EU citizens is worryingly on the rise. And this must be fought at the core. With facts, with understanding, with conviction.
To quote the Treaty… (I don’t do it every day, but I know in Germany you are a good public for this):“Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the EU countries”: a freedom enshrined in our fundamental law. So legally speaking, a fellow European using his or her right to move within the Union is completely distinct from external migration, from people coming from outside into the Union.
Of course there are conditions to free movement (like carrying a valid passport, and not being a burden on the welfare state of the guest country). Yet like any right, this one is abused by some individuals. That is highly regrettable. But rather than restrict the right, it should be a reason to fight the abuse. National and local authorities have the means and legal possibilities to do so – and the EU is doing more to help them. For instance, to fight marriages-of convenience to acquire EU-citizenship rights.
While taking into account worries of their citizens, the governments also have the duty to keep a sense of proportion.
Today, fewer than 3 % of all EU citizens live in another member state. Their main motivation, overwhelmingly, is work, and they contribute to overall welfare. They usually pay more into host country budgets in taxes than they receive in benefits and social security, because, on average, they tend to be younger, better educated and more economically-active than their host countries’ workforce. And don’t forget movement within the EU works in all directions: for each Polish worker in one European capital for instance, there are 2 of its nationals on the Spanish Coast.
What free movement still means at heart is that people from around the Union can move freely to the member state where their abilities and qualifications are most needed. Even today, with so many unemployed, across the Union, two million vacancies remain unfilled precisely because the employers cannot find the right people. Germany is a case in point. So all these unfilled vacancies, rather suggest that far from their being too much, in fact there tends to be too little obility within the European Union.
As I said, internal free movement is one thing; external migration really another. Look at the way people move around the globe. Today, people no longer flee from Europe as in centuries past, but to Europe. Think of the millions, of the Irish, Germans, Poles, Jews, or Italians, who fled hunger, poverty, wars and genocide on European soil. It is something we should keep in mind when we talk about asylum. After all we’re now the richest continent in the world. Solidarity of this kind should give us pride.
Still, legal migration should not be mistaken for illegal migration. Illegal entry into the Union is a problem, not just for the stability of the societies but also for the migrant people themselves.
We all have the recent drama off the coast of Lampedusa in mind. At our October European Council, all leaders agreed that determined action should be taken in order to prevent the loss of lives at sea, and to avoid that such tragedies happen again.
We want to address the root causes of illegal migration flows – working with countries of origin and transit. We want to step up the fight against trafficking and smuggling of human beings. We will reinforce our presence and activities in the Mediterranean, patrolling our borders, also to detect vessels and protect and save lives.
Here as well, it’s good to keep a sense of proportion, which sometimes get lost. Just to give you some figures:
– There are just over 300.000 asylum applications to the EU every year.
– About a third were granted protection last year. That is about 200 asylum seekers per million EU citizens… Surely these are manageable numbers.
– Almost three quarter of all applicants went to just five EU countries: Germany, France, Sweden, the UK and Belgium; although those receiving most refugees per capita were Malta, Sweden and Luxembourg.
– Looking at applicants, last year most came from Syria, followed by Afghanistan and Somalia – people fleeing war zones. And here it is really important to set things into perspective: in 2 years of war, our 28 countries saw the arrival of about forty thousand Syrian refugees, compared to now two million refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey alone.
I hope these figures can help nuance some of the discussions…!
VI. Europe in the world
This brings me, to conclude and briefly, to the third theme today: what we do in the world.
Our joint policies on asylum and migration reflect the fact that (especially the Schengen countries), we have a common outside border.In a way, it is the start of a common foreign policy.
The realisation that what happens on the other side of the border is not just a matter for the EU neighbour, but for all of us.
I notice that this awareness has massively grown in the past few years. I can clearly feel the difference since I took office.
To give an example. Two weeks from now, at a summit in Vilnius, we will decide whether the EU can sign an Association Agreement with Ukraine.
Whereas five years ago, if I may caricature, this relationship was seen as something of interest for Poland, today all leaders – from Spain to the Netherlands or Austria – clearly realise that what happens with Ukraine is a matter of common concern.
Likewise, the events in the Arab world since 2011 have made clear that developments in Tunisia or Egypt do not only impact Italy, Malta or Spain, but all European citizens. This realisation is completely new.
A shared neighbourhood, a shared responsibility.
European countries are taking much more joint action in the world than people think.
We are the biggest donor of development aid in the world – by far.
Despite the financial crisis, the EU has launched no fewer than five new civilian or military missions in the last two years: in Mali and South Sudan, in the Sahel, on the borders of Libya and off the coast of Somalia. In the course of 2013 we have also renewed operations in Afghanistan, Georgia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Europe is represented in crisis and conflict zones, by doctors and emergency staff, by agronomists and engineers, and also by magistrates, police officers and soldiers. They are all there to support the efforts of their local counterparts to stabilise a country, to restore order, the rule of law and a sense of justice, and to provide hope for the future.
The European Union as such is of course not a military power. In any case, in today’s world the importance of military power is on the wane. Economic might counts for more. And among the democracies with the biggest armies, we see – think of the reactions to Syria – that their public opinions or parliaments further restrain the use of that force…
Nevertheless, in view of the turmoil in the world around us, we need to be able to fulfil our responsibilities.
The geopolitical repositioning of our ally, the United States, further encourages us to do so. But are we ready to bring in the means? People are looking at European countries, including Germany, to see if they are ready to play their role. In terms of money, and also in terms of manpower. The question of financial means has become even more acute in view of current tight budgetary constraints. That’s why I have called for a European Council on Defence next December. Collectively we spend more on defence than the United States. But with a different impact…We should be using our money more efficiently, through pooling and sharing.
Upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize last December, European leaders said that the European Union stands-by those in pursuit of peace and human dignity. To fulfil such responsibilities, we need to have the means at our disposal.
VII. Conclusion
When I oversee all this work that is currently done, in these past few years I have been in this office, by the governments and institutions, by men and women all across our continent, I am confident. Not only are we overcoming the worst economic crisis that has hit us in two generations, but we also bring together our strengths for the future. We are building this Post-Wall Europe. Das “1ach-Mauer-Europa” gestalten wir gemeinsam.
The road ahead will still be long, and we may well meet surprises on the way, but in these past years we proved to the world and to ourselves that we have the political will to come out of this together, and stronger.
The challenge today, as I said, is to set forth this work, at a most difficult moment for the people of Europe: when the results to convince them are not yet all there, and with globalisation and the crisis already having left their traces. But I trust this work of conviction, and of convincing, will succeed; and that Europe’s citizens will rise to the occasion.
One of my successors will give a speech, perhaps in Berlin, or in Stuttgart, or perhaps in Athens, or Warsaw; a speech in which he or she will be able to tell the story of how we Europeans achieved the reshaping of our continent in the decades since the Wall came down – as “Osteuropäer, Westeuropäer, 1ordeuropäer, Südeuropäer, und 1eueuropäer, alle zusammen”.
(DE)
Und ich hoffe, dass Europa uns immer mehr auch ein Heimatort sein kann. Heimat, so wie es Johann Wolfgang von Goethe gemeint haben mag, als er an einem heiteren Novembertag sagte: “Alle diese vortrefflichen Menschen, zu denen Sie nun ein angenehmes Verhältnis haben, das ist es, was ich eine Heimat nenne.”
Vielen Dank.
