Quotes of the Day
TIME's James Graff spoke to Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, about Europe's future development.
Q: For many Europeans, 16 months of the Convention has seemed like a spat between the various Brussels institutions. Why should Europeans care, for instance, if the relative power of the Commission is weakened?
A: They probably shouldn't. I've never seen a constitutional debate where the population cares about technical aspects. But if you ask the european population, they'll tell you they want most decisions in Europe to be taken by unanimity — which means paralysis — or by majority voting, The Americans don't know about the technicalities of the Congress, either.
Q: But didn't the nature of the debate further the old idea of the EU's democratic deficit?
A: This idea is unacceptable. I've been proposed by 15 member state governments, which were democratically elected. I've been approved by the European Parliament, voted in by the European population. Don't confuse democracy with direct election; that may be the most impressive form of democracy, but it's not the only one. That will be impossible in Europe for a while because of the many languages; we'd need a campaign that everyone understands. Europe is a union of peoples and nations. What I'm trying to do is demonstrate to our american friends that Europe is different. It's not better or worse, just completely different.
Q: Is America's overwhelming power a big factor in Europe's drive for integration?
A: It's too soon to give you an answer. American policy has always helped the European Union until now; it's a new event, this sense of malaise or distance. We had controversy before, but that was normal. Also in the most delicate moment, when we built the euro, many American observers were very skeptical. I could quote a couple of Nobel prize winners who said it was scientifically impossible. But the U.S. administration supported us. They could have ruined the euro with one message, one well targeted speculation towards some weak country — I was prime minister of Italy at the time and I know. But they didn't do it. Now we have an unfortunate deviation from history, but I think our interests are still for common action. I'm going to Washington with concrete proposals to improve relations with the United States.
Q: America fears that a common European policy will go in the direction of France's position, not of Britain's.
A: Well, if you try to split Europe, the answer has to be chauvinistic. I think [America's approach] is a mistake. We share the same roots, the same interests, and we put should aside prejudice and understand that friendship must be accompanied by dignity. It's difficult now at a moment of American history where America was hit by tragedy of september 11 and also think they can be self-sufficient, but the new world will push us to a new agreement. It starts with NATO: the U.S. has an interest in having a united European army as the European pillar of NATO alongside the American pillar.
Q: What do you think of Chirac's idea of Europe being a counterpole to the United States?
A: We have to accept that right now U.S. military power is unbelievably superior to anything in the world. It's correct that U.S. accept that we are a huge economic entity, that we've created the euro, something no one else has ever done, Of course there are different opinions on basic problems — the Kyoto accord, the international criminal court, the role of the UN. But how much these differences reflect this administration or are total changes in American history, well, we'll see. It's clear that trying to divide Europe on these issues only deepens the malaise. In the iraqi war, was the most important push for before iraq, nobody pushed me for a common foreign policy. Europeans simply didn't care. After the iraqi war, people from right and left have said we need a common foreign policy, you have no reaction to something like sending troops to the Congo. This was done in one moment, and it's starting to become an army. I was surprised that no national parliament objected to that.
Q: What are the specific European values that are different from the Americans?
A: One that's difficult to delineate: about quality of the protection of the citizen, through public health system, what we used to call the welfare state. This is more a flavor than a deep difference. In europe we believe in a market economy, but with this flavor. It's just a correction of the market, not a negation of it.
Q: Why is such a bad idea to limit the Commission?
A: I don't think the size is the big issue. In this historical moment, you need to have a link between all the countries and the Commission. This is a political problem, not because of the share of power of the Commission, but rather if we are to build Europe, each country has to have a person in the Commission. When Giscard asked me how big the ideal commission would be, I answered 'one person: me." It's clear that with 15 members you manage the Commssion better, but the direct political representation is necessary.
Q: You've been very disappointed in the Convention's proposed constitution.
A: I expressed my great disappointment, and that got an enormous result. Now I have mixed feelings — you always do when you come to a compromise. But the main thing is that democracy is not a veto right! This is the main fault of this proposal. I'm in favor of abolishing in due time the veto right completely, except for things like accepting a new member. But I don't ask to do it immediately. Another goal in my mind, that I was typically too shy to put on the table a year ago: one day the president of the Commission and president of the Council will be the same person. That's a clear sign that I'm not just defending the Commission. In the end we'll arrive at a simple European president.
Q: Will that happen in 10 years, or 20?
A: More 20 than 10; just like the European army. Everything is done through democratic process: so long, so long, so long?.
Q: In turning down Giscard's proposal to debate him in Stuttgart, you've characterized public debate as "simplifying and polarizing." Isn't that better than what we've had?
A: I didn't want a public debate as a theatrical event, but a serious discussion in front of the Convention. And of course he didn't accept that, because he wants to keep the Convention in the background.
Q: But don't you acknowledge that there is a lack of connection to the European Union?
A: I could ask you if the debate between Hamilton and Madison was so popular in the States. To make an institution popular, you need a political battle, and for that you need power. Even the less than radical changes proposed now will give the European Parliament more power, and therefore it will be more popular. . As long as people think the EU is about the size of bananas, it will never become popular. But when you deal with the euro, something for which everyone underestimated the consequences, or big decisions about taxation or foreign policy, then we'll have a sense of belonging. And hey, let's not go too far. Why did 77% of the Poles vote for the European Union!? 57% of them participated in the vote, more than in any recent American presidential election. People use two different yardsticks when they judge the American government and ours. It's not justified.
Q: But the lack of connection isn't just an American judgment; it's a continual undercurrent of opinion among Europeans themselves.
A: But a minority one. Sure, it's hard for the British to abandon a currency they feel a strong attachment to. But you see the British keep the door open to the euro, completely open. They will decide, as Britain always has done, when the mutual interests are on the surface and very clear.
Q: Do you think that the EU would be better off without Britain?
A: No. Europe would be much better off with a more cooperative Britain. In the future Britain will have no alternative. Now the country thinks it has alternatives. But you can't forever have one leg on one side and one on the other side. Over time that becomes an uncomfortable position, and I think Britain's long term interests are in Europe.
Q: Do you think the constitution will help stop the EU being a scapegoat for the national governments?
A: In the last years, there's been an increasing move to ask us to decide on all kinds of things, even pensions. When there's a problem like SARS, we have no competence. But people came here and asked us to coordinate a response. More and more we are changing from a scapegoat to an anchor or a troubleshooter. Both are wrong, but if you have this sentiment, it's proof that you're needed.
Q: Still, you've got France and Germany deciding last week, once again, to get together and stymie reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
A: I'm strongly against this. We made a very brave proposal on reform of the agricultural policy, opening the door to competition especially from poor countries, without abandoning our farmers. Nobody went with us at first, but step by step we've gained the backing of almost all the European countries, and it would be very unfortunate if there was an agreement to block it, because we've almost done it. This way people think that the most important thing is to block things — we have to remove that.
Q: It seems, though, that the political life and passion in Europe still resides on the national level.
A: You're right, Europe is a union of nations and peoples. We will never have a European nation. Language alone will prevent that, even if the institutions change.
Q: You came up with a very simple formula for voting in Europe: if a position is supported by half the countries representing at least half of Europe's population, then it goes through. But this wasn't accepted.
A: I knew it wouldn't be; instead we arrived at half the countries representing 60% of the population. I don't like it, but as we say in Italy, it's better to eat a bone than a stone.
Q: How do you move ahead in Europe if nobody knows how you get your money and you spend 45% of it on agricultural support?
A: We want our own financial sources, a European tax. Now we have customs revenues and a few other sources. But we don't want to get our money from member states; then they can always say "I want my money back." If you intimidate, you get the money back. As for the cap, it was once 80% of our budget, now it's 45%; step by step we're bringing it down.
Q: How are the next six months going to work, with Silvio Berlusconi as president of the Council and you in the Commission?
A: Very simple: I know my duty. I know my obligations. I know my institutional roles, and I follow them. You don't need passion to cooperate, simply to know your democratic duty.
Q: Are you convinced that Mr Berlusconi knows his?
A: I don't know. But I'm confident we'll have good cooperation.
Q: Will you take on a role in the Italian elections next year?
A: I honestly don't know, because in politics more than one year is a long time. Ever since I came here people have been saying Prodi will go back to Italian politics in one month, it was always next month. And I'm still here. The last two years I enjoyed it, because of the euro, enlargement, the reforms. I like this job, but first of all, most of these decisions won't be taken by me, and second, nobody knows what will happen when the first of May next year arrives, the new countries come in and we sign the new treaty.
- Q&A with Romano Prodi