63((&+ 'U)UDQ]),6&+/(5 Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries (8523(¶6 -2851(< )URP D &RPPXQLW\ $YDQWJDUGH WR D &RQWLQHQWDO8QLRQ University of Oslo - Schuman Lecture 2VOR0D\ Dear Mr N.N. Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you very much for your kind introduction and for giving me the opportunity to be here and speak to you today. Norway is an extraordinary country with its 2515km long land frontier and a coastline that stretches 22,000km. Due to this fact, you, the Norwegian people, have become one of the most open-minded and sea-oriented people of the world. Your ancestors have settled Iceland, ruled over French principalities, founded European cities like Dublin, and started the transatlantic dialogue as early as 1000 years ago, when Leif Eriksson discovered America. And yet, despite Norway’s long history of free movement of goods and people, a slight majority of Norwegians has rejected participation in Europe’s integration into a community of states and peoples, preferring to go its way alone. Be it as it may, I have the feeling that there are lingering misperceptions about the goals of the EU and about the way it works. Nordic media, just like in the rest of Europe, concentrate all too often on the shortcomings on the European scene and headlines about European affairs claim that ‘the EU wants to control Norwegian oil’. Editors tend to say that only bad news are worth printing. Let me therefore take the opportunity to convey to you my own view as to what the EU really is all about. − I will point out the reasons that led Robert Schuman to his famous declaration that he made 51 years ago. − Secondly, I will give a short overview of the success story that European integration is. − Moreover, I will take a look at the bilateral relations between Norway and the EU, particularly in the fields of agriculture and fisheries. − This will lead me to the question how small states can articulate their interests within the European Union. − And finally, I will draw my conclusions what this could mean for your country. Ladies and Gentlemen, From time to time, individuals or an avant-garde have been able to profoundly change the course of history. This notably happened 50 years ago today. After the end of the Second World War, Europe lay in ruins, food dependent, defenceless and discouraged. The continent was divided by what Churchill called an iron curtain from Stettin to Triest. Europe was turned into a tool of the Cold War. This was the result of autocracy, nationalism, intolerance, and sheer stupidity. A new deal was necessary if Europe was to be brought back on its best and vaccinated against further civil wars and pogroms on the continent. Europe had to be transformed from a theatre of war into an area of peace and solidarity, from a kindergarten of ill feelings into a family of understanding, from an area of discrimination into a school of tolerance. However, this was easier said than done. There had been many an attempt to unite Europe, from Charlemagne to Frederic 1st, from the peaceful visions of Coudenhove, Briand and Stresemann to Napoleon’s centralistic and Hitler’s autocratic plans. Similarly, the “concert of nations”, orchestrated by Metternich, had to fail, because it was based on the assumption that Europe could be managed by the big nations, leaving the smaller ones on the sidelines; not as makers, but as takers of history. 2 All these models of co-operation had failed. Therefore, there was a need to find a new strategy to peacefully organise our continent, by giving a role to all its nations, whatever their size, and give back to Europe a political and economic role in the world. This is where the French foreign minister of the time, Robert Schuman comes in: he adopted and promoted Jean Monnet’s revolutionary plan to create a supranational institution through which the European countries would manage their coal and steel industry together. This idea was ground-breaking: Schuman was realistic enough to know that a political unification of Europe would not work from one day to another; on the other hand, he was visionary enough to know that the unification of the key industry would make wars impossible and lay the ground for an even deeper union. In his declaration on the 9th of May 1950, Schuman was very clear about the objectives of his plan. He said “By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, (…), this proposal will lead to the realisation of the first concrete foundation of a European Federation indispensable to the preservation of peace.” One can see clearly that the pooling of industry was not a goal in itself. The objective was to guarantee peace through co-operation, and the method was to integrate Europe step by step, according to the so-called “Jean Monnet-method”. The first step was a community avant-garde, based on the co-operation in the field of Coal and Steel between the Benelux countries, the German-French axis and Italy. But other steps should follow, and so they did. The history of European integration has been a real success-story. It is true, there were times of slowdown, notably during the Sixties, early Seventies and early Eighties. And yet, the direction was clear: it led, as intended, to an ever closer Union of the peoples of Europe. For two decades now, the speed of integration has been increasing: while the Treaty, the constitution of the European Union, was left unchanged for thirty years, five changes of the Treaty took place in the past 15 years. And with each Treaty Reform, Europe became more unified and democratic. As a result, Europe is more than just an Economic avant-garde community. Let me name some of the milestones over the last twenty years: − Since 1979, we have a directly elected European Parliament. − Since 1993, we have a single market within the EU, with free movement of people, goods, capital and services. − Since 1st of January 1999, we have a common currency in twelve member states. In only eight months from now, this currency that we have already now will become touchable in form of coins and banknotes. − A Common European Security and Defence Policy is in the making. All these achievements have made the European Union obviously more attractive: While the avant-garde that has laid the foundations in 1951 consisted of only six states, four enlargements have increased EU membership to fifteen. And 13 more states knocking at our door are scheduled to join in the next few years. It is interesting to see what the European citizens think about the different candidate countries. In the latest opinion survey, which the European Union carries out twice a year, citizens of all member states were asked which countries they would like to see as new members. It was possible to name also countries that have not applied for membership, and guess who was the most welcome? Norway, with 70% approval. But as you know, the EU does not intrude itself, it is simply ready to accept every country willing and able to comply with its rules and values. Norway is clearly able but a majority of Norwegians have said ‘No’ twice. 3 However, Norway did participate in the creation of the European Economic Area in 1992. Due to this treaty, Norway can participate in most sectors of the internal market, except agriculture and fisheries. It therefore enjoys the same conditions of competition as the EU member states. However, it cannot participate in the decision-making when these conditions are decided. It may well take part in the preparatory work for new legislation that affects the EEA, but it does not have a voting right. At the same time, I wish to underline that the bilateral co-operation between Norway and the European Union is excellent. Let me give you two examples from my own area of responsibilities: agriculture and fisheries. Both agriculture and fisheries are not included in the EEA agreement. This means that we have to deal with these issues on a bilateral basis. As for the negotiations on agriculture in the WTO, I am glad to say that Norway and the EU are looking eye-to-eye. − We both agree that agriculture is special, because farmers in Europe do much more than just producing food. Farmers also provide other services that our society wants, such as the maintenance of landscapes or the protection of our environment. The free market can hardly provide these services, therefore the public sector has to guarantee that farmers are rewarded for their services. − Moreover, both Norway and the EU are willing to shift our support from production subsidies to the support for the multifunctional role of agriculture. − And finally, we both belong to the group of the ‘friends of multifunctionality’ which was founded in order to defend the multifunctional role of agriculture in the WTO. Last year, your government has organised a conference on multifunctionality in Ullensvang. The aim of this conference was to discuss the multifunctional role of agriculture together with representatives from developing countries, and we found out many points which we have in common. I am confident that together we will be able to defend our common concerns within the WTO. As to fisheries, media seem only to report bad news, although the good news predominate. The good news is that our overall fisheries relationship is consistently good. There is only a very small number of bilateral problems, such as the question of fishing restrictions around Svalbard and the question of blue whiting catches.