The European way is dominated by the European Union (EU). Its dimension can be read-off from the table lying before you, which describes the present EU of the 15 and the next of the 27 members without difficulty.

How does the EU function at present?

In the framework of its foreign and security policy (GASP) she has developed a joint strategy towards Russia, the Ukraine and the Mediterranean basin.
Since 1993 more than 70 common points of view have been elaborated and represented in international bodies. That reaches from the Balkans towards East Timor.

Since 1999 50 joint political actions have been decided and carried out; for example mine-sweeping in Africa, delegation of special envoys to the Balkans and to the Middle East.

Out of GASP a common European security and defence policy (GESVP) has been developed which let to the building up of a rapid action force in cooperation with NATO (EU-Corps).

The EU and its national member states do 55% of public development aid of the world, in terms of subsidies even 66%. 9,6 billion €/US$ are spent for grants to non-EU members – 2/3 of them to Eastern Europe, the rest to the Balkans, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. In the year 2000 44500 projects have been supplied, three times more than 10 years before.

The most important partner of the EU in the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO), in the framework of G8 and in regions of crisis, like the one of the secession states of former Yugoslavia, are the USA. Basis is the Trans-Atlantic declaration from 1990. The EU and the USA plus Canada are the biggest political economics of the World. One billion €/US$ daily in trade and investment are flowing between these two blocks back and forth.

Naturally there are also differences in conception. They are reaching from the refusal of the USA to sign the CO2 – Protocol of Kyoto, to the import embargo for hormone-treated meat from USA by the EU until to the different conceptions about the responsibility for social standards by the state. If the USA violates liberalization, not at least introduced by the initiative of the USA to WTO, by re-introduction of taxes for import of steel to the USA, the EU complains and by that at least forces the USA to far reaching compromises. Recently the interpretation of the meaning of what the USA has declared as “War against Terrorism” is increasingly divergent.

The relation EU – Canada is less divertive more cooperative. With Russia and the GUS states, seceding republics of the former Soviet Union, cooperation agreements have been signed. Their target is to build up a “Common European economic and social space”. But the target is not only to erect free trade zone, but at the same time to support the development of the institutions of the democratic constitutional state paying attention to the individual human rights.

The so called Tacis-programme in the years 2000 to 2006 pays 3, 14 billion €/US$ to Russia and central Asia. This should speed up the reform of public administration, should easen the social consequences of transition to market economy, and should improve the nuclear security standards – for example the disembarkment of the nuclear power station Chernobyl from the network of the electricity production.

The Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe – its Bureau is located in the same building as the International Institute for Peace – serves the stimulation of economic relations of the South-East European states between each other. It serves the fight against corruption, organized crime, ethnic discrimination and should build up the security administration in the partly new states in this region as well as the support of the independent media as a kind of correction against mistakes in the development of these societies.

In the Middle East the EU provides a secretariat for the development in the capital of Jordan, Amman (REDWG). Between 1994 and 1999 1, 6 billion €/US$ have been paid to Arabic states in the Middle East, 60% of it to the Palestinian authority. In addition 100 million € are paid annually to the Palestinian refugee authorities of the UN (UNRWA) which serves 3 million Palestinians refugees. Smaller projects have been financed in Jordan, Syria, Egypt and in Lebanon.

With Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) a co-operation agreement has been signed.

In the declaration of Barcelona the partnership between EU and the Mediterranean states have been established. The aim is to create a zone of peace and co-operation. This has been already proposed by the former Austrian Chancellor Dr. Bruno Kreisky at the founding conference of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE, now OSCE) in 1975 in Helsinki. Good things sometimes need too long to be realized. Based on this declaration association agreements have been closed with Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, the Palestinian authority and Israel; in the case of Israel unfortunately one has missed to ask for the recognition of UN decisions and the use of the International Law. Likewise the collaboration of EU with Morocco was not made subject to the respect of the UN decisions concerning referendum of the original population of the West Sahara, occupied by Morocco illegally, for independent decision about their own future.

The already named Mediterranean countries received annually subsidies of 1 billion €/US$ and another billion in credits from the European Investment Bank in order to easen the transition to free trade financially. At present the EU is importing goods and services for 63 billion €/US$ from those Mediterranean countries not being members while the EU exports to them is for 30 billion €. Loose partnerships of the EU have been established with the following organizations:

• ASEAN-States (Brunei, Darussalam, China, Indonesia, Japan, Rep. Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Vietnam).
• San José Group (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama)
• Mercosur (Argentine, Brasil, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela)
• Rio-Group (Argentine, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, Venezuela, Panama, Paraguay, Peru)
• SADC (South African Development Co-operation)
• EFTA (consisting of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein)

Switzerland has 7 bilateral contracts completed; (Swiss-people declined the EFTA Membership)

For humanitarian aid (ECHO) the EU has spent since 1992 5 billion €/US$.

The fifth EU Enlargement

Yet in this year it should be decided which of those countries negotiating now to prepare the admission to the EU will be really accepted. To the present 15 members another 12 should be added. It is to be expected that in the following ratification process the presently 15 members will decide the acceptance of the 12 new ones. The assignment of the enlarged EU will not easily to be realized in the field of the economic and legal community. Starting from the average per capita gross national product (GNP) the present standard in Cyprus is 79%, in Slovenia 68%, but in Latvia only 27%, in Bulgaria 21%. The differentials of economy and welfare are so big that it demands a joint exertion to manage the process of adjustment. The profit will be to secure peace in Europe.

Those who wanted join the EU must fulfil four main preconditions:

• democratic and constitutional state order, protection of individual human rights and minority rights
• legally based market economy which provides to compete with single market of the EU
• acceptance of political, economical and monetary union
• special case Turkey: the human rights are not sufficiently protected by the legal order although just now decision was made to abrogate the death sentence. The traditional tensions with Greece, in former days occupied by Ottoman Empire, territorial disputes about the Aegean Sea because of estimated gas deposit and the conflict over Cyprus until now have prevented to start concrete negotiations about EU membership. Turkey would be the first member of the EU with an Islamic majority. Although the fundamentalists in Turkey are a minority, they feel subdue to Islamic law, the Sharia. But this is in contradiction to the European laicise legal order.

EU - Foreign Trade Relations

The present EU quota on the international trade is practically the same like the one of USA and Canada. The share of the USA on imports of the EU in 1999 was 20, 6%. In the same period 24, 1% of EU-exports were directed to the USA. 12% of the EU imports came from the 12 countries which wanted to become members, 15,6% of EU exports were sold to them. Only with Japan and Asian countries the European trade balance was negative. The exchange of goods and services with Latin America with 4,7% imports from them and 6% exports to them was modest and only undercut by the group of 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific states (AKP) with 2,8% respectively 2,9%.

A general system of preference to easen the access to the EU market was introduced with the Andean States; Trade advantages have been also offered to most of Caribbean states. But there is no treaty with Cuba.

The smaller EU of 1990 - 11 states – spent 27 €/US$ designed to direct investments. This amount increased in 1998 to 186 billion €/US$, but 55% of it went into only five so called door steppe states, while only 1% was invested in 48 least developed countries.

The close entanglement at AKP-States with their former colonial masters led in June 2002 to a renewed and enlarged agreement in the West African capital of Benin, Contonou. Conditions for the partnership EU-AKP states are to respect human rights, to fight corruption and to promote regional cooperation for which purpose preferential references have to be developed until 2008. To the 39 least developed AKP states until 2005 free access to the EU market for nearly all goods is offered. All these regulations are suffering from the fact that trade and traffic especially in the marketing organizations are performed by Europeans or dominated by global companies. Still unsolved is the problem of rather fairly, effective equalization of price-waving on commodity markets. The AKP states are annually receiving 2 billion €/US$ for a period of seven years and reserves from former founds amounting to the 9, 5 billion €/US$ are additionally available in the forthcoming seven years. Another 1, 7 billion €/US$ annually can be added by the means of the European Investment Bank. It will be interesting to see whether this means really can be set in, because profitable projects are needed for it.

At the summit EU-Africa in April 2000 in Cairo a promotion of regional integrations a la-AKP was achieved. Otherwise the result was rather poor.

More robust the results of an agreement between EU and the Republic of South Africa lasting until 2012. According to it 86% of EU exports to South Africa will be tax free, while 95% of imports of the EU from South Africa don’t need duty. In addition 125 million €/US$ are granted financially.

Security – Defence

The whole Europe had to live from 1949 to 1992 in the shadow of NATO and Warsaw Pact Organization. A continental security policy was impossible. This question could even arise after the disillusion of the Warsaw pact, the unification of both German states, and the possibility to develop a common European policy.

The decisions for Common Foreign and Security Policy Maastricht (1992) and Amsterdam (1997) should safeguard the fundamental interests of the EU, the independence of the Union, the maintenance of peace and the contribution to strengthen the international security. The Middle and East European states promoted their endeavours for a democratic formation of free will and legal order and the respect of human rights. Finally the setting up of the rapid intervention force, the EU-corps, was decided. The participating member states, among them also those not belonging to NATO, together want to develop stand-by troops of 60.000 soldiers and to enable the corps technically to be within 60 days at the place of action. A political and security commission (PSK) can be authorized by the EU-Council – means by the representatives of the governments to decide upon the use of the corps if needed and if there a decision in principle for an intervention does exist. The military commission has to organize the set up of the corps and to carry out the military dispositions in case of action. The former Secretary General of NATO, the former social democratic foreign minister of Spain, Solana, has been appointed as the High Commissioner for Security in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security policy. In this field the development of a joint defence technology and weapons industry is coordinated.

Who decides EU-Policy?

Legislator – alone or in common with the Parliament of the EU – is the EU Council. The right of the Parliament to participate in legal decisions has been expanded during the last years.

The weight of vote of the 15 member states in the Council is different – from 2 votes for Luxembourg until 10 votes for Italy, France, Germany and Great Britain. In the Parliament member states are represented with between 6 (Luxembourg) and 87 (France, Italy, Great Britain) respectively 99 seats (Germany). Austria has 21. After the intentioned enlargement the figure of deputies will be limited to 700, that means that the old members loose seats in the Parliament, otherwise it would have to consist of 963 deputies being unable to function.

The executive body of the EU functions similar. There is 1 commissioner per member state, 2 for the big countries, presently all together 20; after 2005 each member state will have 1 commissioner. After the accession of the 27. member upon a new number of commissionaires has to be decided unanimously, which must be below the number of member states and nominated in equally balanced rotation. The concrete decision has to be made by the Council in 2005.

There is a tendency that decisions in the field of common law of the EU, the “Aqui communitaire” increasingly don’t need unanimity but a qualified majority. Depending on the size of the member states there need to be 8-12 of them. The enlarged right of co-determination of the Parliament is creating additional possibilities of influence by deputies directly elected in their home countries. The Court of Justice of the EU has a special significance: it does not only interpret existing law, but has to set up law if the national legislators are obliged to concretise EU-law but failed to do so and EU-citizens may suffer. (Look to the table about qualified majorities).

This sketch of EU`s decision structure makes clear that EU-Europe neither now nor after the enlargement can and intends to carry out weighty decisions rapidly. But not the one who rattles with his sward must be the best. The European nations by their rather complicated procedure of decision making are developing an ability of suffering which enables better to understand the desires of other states and peoples. As the “Common foreign and security policy” (GASP) as a precondition of a common security policy needs a joint foreign policy, both intentions are reaching their limits if NATO`s intentions are not in line with those of the EU. From 15 EU – members 11 plus Norway and Turkey are belonging to NATO as well as Canada and the hegemon USA. It is symbolic that the NATO-Treaty is deposited in Washington D.C. It was this place where at the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the pact in violation of its article V in a simple decision of NATO–Counsel out-of-area interventions were blessed. For this one can’t blame President Bush. But the mad action of 9/11 enabled him to set up upon domestic and foreign policy the war against terrorism. Meanwhile one year has passed. The front of solidarity of the first hour is falling apart, since the USA would like to sell without any evidence, the overthrow of the Iraqi President and dictator as part of fighting terrorism. At this point Europeans are instinctively not participating with. Their governments must take this into account if they wanted to be re-elected. Even in the third generation the globally unique bloodshed of Europe during world war two is not forgotten.

50.000 killed soldiers of the US-Army in Vietnam have led to a “trauma” for approximately 280 million inhabitants of the USA. Forced by Hitler’s Deutsches Reich to serve in the German armed forces more than 250.000 out of 7 Million Austrians lost their lives. Another 500.000 were wounded. 60.000 Austrians of Jewish origin, Austrian Antifascists and Austrian gipsies were murdered.

I have suffered together with the relatives of about 3.000 victims of the anarchic stroke in New York City because when I was 14 I have experienced the bombardment of British and US Air-force in the very primitive air raid shelter of our apartment house in Vienna and had come very close to death.

We are grateful to all who have given their lives for liberating Europe from Hitler’s National Socialism. When his 1000 year Empire was already brought down in spring 1945 allied bombing continued sending thousands of civilians in Vienna to grave and burning down cultural monuments by phosphor bombs. It was a senseless continuation of action which I don’t want to qualify legally. But these experiences rectify the European “trauma” and its name is peace.

The EU is until now the greatest peace project on earth. Its foundation is no more war in Europe. Whoever wants to leave it will be punished by Europeans. To the extent that NATO-intentions would not be supported by the EU, a different concept of EU-security policy would lead to a test of dismemberment for the European NATO-members and by that for NATO itself.

But the EU-corps, a start of EU own forces, is depending on NATO logistic who’s gearshift is under control of the USA which has developed and paid the techniques and therefore don’t want anybody to have an insight otherwise their technological advantage would get lost.

These questions have not been discussed openly until now in the EU. Rather the EU-corps is to be built up, whose technical capacity shall be good for actions in a radius of 4000 kilometres around Brussels, the capital of Belgium. Fortunately the EU-engagements out-of-area without UN-mandate are increasingly improbable. Building up militarism in the EU must be prevented. The permanent contact of practically all European states in and outside of the EU with NATO in the Partnership for Peace works according to an old Latin proverb: “Gutta cavat lapidem non vis sed saepe cadendo” or “The drop caves the stone not by energy but by permanent falling”, at least as military men are concerned.

On 3rd September 2002, in a discussion at Radio free Europe, the Journalist Lee Edwards, Senior fellow of the Heritage Foundation, expressed the point of view of influential circles in the USA, saying: “In the area of defence, we should reaffirm strict standards for NATO membership. Criteria met by Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic should certainly be given very close consideration in the next round of enlargement. It seems to me that NATO membership is a privilege, not a right. It will gain that much more if it is looked upon that way. Certainly, Europeans should have a much greater say in NATO governance, but at the same time, we should encourage Europe to improve its logistics, its intelligence, and other capabilities”

This is hallelujah to the revitalisation of old European politics.

Like civil society needs a police to save its citizens from crime, Europe needs a military defence capacity. What neither Europe nor the least the other world needs, is the preparation of forces replacing the former imperialism of European National States by one of the EU. Military capacities for out-of-area engagements therefore must be confined and their use outside Europe must be limited to actions under UN-mandate.

Again and again the shortage of raw materials in Europe is mentioned as reason for a future intervention of an European corps. Obscure powers otherwise could blackmail the EU.

The enlarged EU and Russia have enough raw materials. Producers of raw material don’t have any advantage, if they can’t sell their products. The EU is a big costumer and payer. Fair trade without military intervention club – naturally on both sides – is the actual solution for safeguarding raw material.

The EU is a seemingly cumbersome construction. She is neither a federal state with a strong central administration nor a loose federation of national states. In half a century it has developed from an economic community to a common market, a common currency for 11 of the 15 states, some common foreign and security policy, a directly elected Parliament and a far reaching common law. Its most important characteristics are a step by step development: increased unity maintaining the exercise of plurality in culture and language. An EU-convent is asked to contribute until 2003. In the majority it consists of members of the national parliaments and the European Parliament. There is a danger that they are so busy with increasing further democratisation in EU-decision making, that there is not enough time left for a more effective organisation of the common foreign and security policy. Just such one is needed more and more urgently.

Instead of an egoistic, there has to be developed an economic, finance, environment and social policy based on solidarity. After the enlargement, the EU will be the single economic power on earth. She will have the historical chance to work on a new quality of communications between peoples and cultures on this globe. She must have learned the lessons of mistakes by the former national states. She must secure its welfare society by supporting the building up of the basis for a better life in the developing countries, supporting them ideal and material. No mission, no happiness by force but advertising by setting an example.

The EU-enlargement secures peace and stability in Europe. This can be an export product to the whole world.

The Euro should contribute to strengthen the stability of international exchange rates in order to prevent exchange rate speculation, an element of additional pauperisation of the least developed countries.

In the course of leading the poorer regions of the own continent up to the welfare standard of the EU it would be good to suggest, to tax financial short term transactions and use the returns for financing development investments in the poorest countries – especially into their infrastructure. A mechanism of compensation of strongly staggering prices for commodities would help such political economics who are dependent from one or only few products to calculate.

This list could be continued as long as you like. It can be taken for sure that the EU is very much busy with itself and the enlargement; nevertheless she is dependent from the global development. The partly troublesome negotiated Europe may be even therefore prosperous. Its attraction can change the world of profit by fraud and violence – private as well as governmental – of alms for the hungry to one of peace, sound competition and chances for all. This is still not recognized by all Europeans. In national elections of some EU-member states, political parties extremely critical to European integration, have gained remarkable support by voters. They are afraid to loose what they already have. Also some contribution of traditional political camps – conservatives, social democrats and liberals – can not be denied. Until now they were not able to design an attractive Europe and to mediate it to their citizens. From the soil of fear grows right-wing radicalism. What has to be mediated to Europeans is the justified hope for a good future. One must not be afraid of the EU-enlargement but to its failure and by that wrecking the project of peace and welfare. That would be a disaster not only for Europe, but for the whole world.