Iveta Sulca
Iveta Sulca
as an effective and competitive actor playing on the global scale and Latvia as a deeply integrated part of it. I am confident that Latvia's aspirations to become a member of the EU stem from the fundamental interests of our society and nation. We integrate into the EU in order to realize the interests of our society. The EU is something more than a purely economic concept.
The common values and ideals offer the most solid foundations for creating a family of stable, secure and prosperous nations. By pursuing this road we consolidate our national independence, democracy and advance towards public welfare and security. In this way, we make the influence of Latvia in the international arena stronger while preserving our cultural identity and the Latvian language.
It is with great interest that we follow the launched debate on Europe’s fu-ture and we would like to use Europe’s historical opportunity by actively contributing to this debate. The idea of Europe can only develop by making new contributions. The very process of discussions is assisting to crystalliz-ing the common vision of Europe.
As we know, the history of the European Union began with close economic cooperation in the middle of the twentieth century. It meant the triumph of integration over the system of balance of power in Europe and marked the end of threats of war. The speed and scale of the construction of a new Europe over decades surprises positively with dynamics. While in 1951 six countries initiated integration, in 1995 it already embraced 15 members and in the predictable future their number may grow to 30 member countries.
The period between each new EU treaty also becomes shorter and shorter.
While almost 30 years elapsed between the Rome Treaties and the amend-ments to these treaties by the 1986 Single European Act, Maastricht Treaty and Amsterdam Treaty were separated by six years and two years passed between Amsterdam and Nice. And whether also the political integration will be the future of the European Union, which implies a common foreign policy and defense, a European Government, a European Constitution, will become clear at the EU Intergovernmental Conference in 2004. The devel-opment of the EU is a continuous process.
44
The Case of Latvia
The existence and development of the EU has shown that cooperation is the most efficient method of protecting their national interests. But nobody can tell for sure, yet, what the EU will look like in 10-15 years. As the leaders of the EU member countries outline the vision of the future of Europe, they talk about a European Federation with a two-house parliament, a European government and constitution. Others on their turn insist that intergovern-mental cooperation should go on and representatives of national parlia-ments should take part in the EU councils. However, despite of these con-tradictory viewpoints, we have to strive for a common vision. The EU is not a frozen union. Until now the EU has already asserted its ability to cre-ate and implement its future vision – in 1986 member countries came to an agreement on the internal market as of 1992 and in 1991 they decided that a single currency would be in circulation as of 2002. The success of every project is primarily based on the ability to visualize the possible aspects of the future development.
The post-Nice process and EU enlargement are two very closely inter-linked issues. Both have apparent potential to play a great role in the form-ing of public opinion in the member countries and the candidate countries.
If we want to succeed we should send clear and strong political signals to our people. Therefore Latvia proposes that both member states and candi-date states could jointly elaborate on a "Declaration on the Political Future of Europe" before launching the next IGC. To my mind, common under-standing of our common future is the very basis for fortune – strength is in unity. The adoption of this declaration would contribute to a more foresee-able result at the IGC 2004. Not so long ago, the EU already experienced a situation when all the main decisions were taken in the last night. I would say that we need a process which is open and clear and no “last night shock” in the IGC 2004 is possible.
The citizens of Latvia will have to vote for the accession to the European Union. Therefore it is of crucial importance to explain to the public what, why and how the European Union is. Most members and candidates have already launched broad national debates. Active participation in the public debate is needed because we do not talk about an abstract future of an ab-stract Europe but a very concrete future of Latvia, Poland, the Czech
45
Iveta Sulca
public as well as all the other countries in Europe. The presidency initiative served as a stimulus for the Latvian government to initiate a debate on Europe’s future in broad society. We are convinced that a greater public involvement will foster greater support for both - the idea of a common Eu-rope and enlargement. The idea of integration is alive only if it enjoys public support. For us the public opinion in Latvia on everything that per-tains to the European Union is extremely important. We must talk all to-gether actively about what the EU is today and what Latvia wishes the fu-ture of the EU to be because wrong assumptions often spring from lack of knowledge. In the very beginning of May, an active discussion on the EU was launched on the Internet portal "Delfi". It turned out that the public debate on Europe’s future reflects the same fears which come up when people are asked if they would vote for accession to the EU. Surprisingly quite similar fears are expressed by the societies of member states. People claim that once the possibility to join a union arises, the logical question emerges whether one can leave it, too. The EU member countries have de-mocratic systems that irrespective of the nature of the existing government can replace it by peaceful means through the majority of people's vote in fair and transparent elections. A lot of concern might be eliminated by in-forming the society and fostering debate. People are concerned about the bureaucratization and lack of openness in the EU, about what will happen to our independence, what will happen to our national identity and culture.
This almost always stems from lack of information and fear of changes.
The declaration adopted in the EU Nice summit on the future of the Euro-pean Union mentions the main issues to be discussed: How to share compe-tence between the EU and member countries? Should the Charter on Fun-damental Rights have legal status? How to make the EU treaties understandable while not changing their essence? What to do with national parliaments?
We, being a future member country, have legitimate rights and duties to-gether with the governments of Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Spain and all other member countries to make decisions pertaining to our future in Europe. A need has emerged for a framework of discussion, such as a con-vention that would engage parliaments, NGOs and academic circles in a
46
The Case of Latvia
comprehensive and open discussion on the development of the European idea. It would present an opportunity to embrace the opinion of wide circles of public. Only those decisions that are made in this way will enjoy the necessary public support. However, the final decisions are to be made in the traditional Intergovernmental Conference. We welcome the decision of the General Affairs Council of October 8, 2001 about the representation of the candidate states in the convention. We hope that at the Laeken EU summit the candidates will be given the voting rights. Granting the candi-dates with voting rights the current member states would show genuine de-termination not only to treat the EU candidate states as equal partners but to have them as members of the club as soon as possible.
Here, I would like to reflect only on some issues that seems of importance to me.
Euro-skeptics maintain that the work and bureaucracy of the EU are not transparent. Indeed, the system of EU treaties is very complicated. Even lawyers of member countries admit it. A clear need has emerged to formu-late a logically structured text that the EU citizens would be able to under-stand. It is indeed not easy to accept what is difficult to underunder-stand. Few of us would buy a car that requires reading thousands of pages of instructions before driving, although it does not mean at all that it is a bad car. The EU legislation is 80.000 pages long. The simpler the treaties, the easier to un-derstand the principles of the operation of the EU.
One of our common goals is to make the EU more people-friendly which means making it more transparent, more efficient and more understandable to its citizens. These issues were touched also in the European Commis-sion’s White Paper on European Governance. The EU is not a Union of lawyers. Instead, it is a Union of citizens. We should search for the possi-bilities how to make the link between the EU and the citizens much stronger. Perhaps, replacing the “top-down“ approach with a “bottom-up“
approach would be the possible solution.
The replacement of the founding treaties by a "European Constitution" has been discussed more and more seriously over the recent years. I regard the elaboration of a constitutional treaty of the European Union that would
47
Iveta Sulca
scribe such fields as the rights of the EU citizens and the institutional struc-ture of the EU as a logical step over the long period within the European integration process.
The opponents of European integration claim that it would not be possible for people to directly influence the decision-making process of the EU.
There are indications that European citizens do not feel attached to the EU.
Despite electing the European Parliament they somehow do not feel that special link between them and the Union. We remember the low turnout of the last elections of the European Parliament. In my opinion, the feeling that citizens cannot directly influence decision-making results from the in-sufficient role of national parliaments in the EU. By taking part in national parliamentary elections, each citizen realizes his or her opportunity to in-fluence the development of his or her nation. I believe that the issue of greater involvement of citizens in the EU processes can be reasonably ad-dressed by strengthening the role of national parliaments. It would assure citizens that their national interests are taken into account in EU decision-making. This we consider an issue of national importance. We are prepared to actively contribute to seek the institutional arrangements to make it come true.
The euroskeptics are keen on pointing out that Brussels will decide every-thing for us and that it has excessive authority, that upon accession we shall be forced to eat sauerkraut and Brussels sprouts with our goose on Martin's Day. It is not like this at all. The European Union is not a centralized state.
It is "only" a transnational organization to which its member countries have delegated a part of their competence. The elaboration and implementation of the entire national policy is and will remain our business except for fields that we shall delegate to the EU. And even then we shall determine the way these common policies will be implemented in our country. For example, in education: while the EU provides guidelines for mutual recog-nition of university degrees we shall always decide ourselves for how long and what subjects shall be taught in our schools and universities. Also after the accession to the EU, Latvia will decide whether to transfer specific policies to the EU. Such decisions require the unanimous vote of all
mem-48
The Case of Latvia
ber countries. It precludes making decisions that essentially influence our life without our participation.
The current debate on the future outlook of the EU shows that there is no single understanding of the meaning of the term federalism. “There are as many viewpoints as there are men.” This also applies to the use of the term
‘federalism’ in the EU context. Everybody attaches his own meaning to this term. In our opinion, the term ‘federalism’ means decentralization, subsidi-arity and multi-level governance and not centralization of powers. When we use the term European Federation, it must not be understood as Euro-pean supranational state. We can wholly agree with the concept of the European Union as a federation of national states. Latvia understands the European Federation as a federation of independent national states. You must agree that the strength of the EU lies in its diversity. National states join forces for a common good. When speaking about the term federation and federal Europe, we should remember that the EU already now looks and acts like a federation. When we take the definition of the term federa-tion, the following conclusions can be made – firstly, already now the citi-zens of the EU have a double citiciti-zenship – that of each member state and that of the Union, which at the same time is a single citizenship; secondly, each member state has its national constitution and at the same time the EU also is moving towards a constitution or, to be more precise, the Constitu-tional Treaty; thirdly, from the next year the citizens of member states will have the single currency - Euro – in their hands; fourthly, every member state can make legislation that only works within a particular state and at the same time the EU can make legislation that is binding for all member states. So we can conclude that the EU is neither a pure international or-ganization, or a community of totally independent states, nor a suprana-tional state. The EU is a fusion both with supranasuprana-tional and intergovern-mental elements.
From the very beginnings the history of the European Union has been a history of development, a history of integration development. Could the development have a finality? Definitely not. The integration of the Euro-pean Union is the answer to challenges of globalization and to changes it brings. The development and integration are never-ending ones. And the
49
Iveta Sulca
more we reflect, the more ideas we provide for a fruitful further debate on the development of European idea. As Sir Winston Churchill once said:
“The empires of the future are the empires of the mind.”
50
ZEI DISCUSSION PAPER: Bisher erschienen / Already published:
C 1 (1998) Frank Ronge (Hrsg.)
Die baltischen Staaten auf dem Weg in die Europäische Union C 2 (1998) Gabor Erdödy
Die Problematik der europäischen Orientierung Ungarns C 3 (1998) Stephan Kux
Zwischen Isolation und autonomer Anpassung: Die Schweiz im integrationspolitischen Abseits?
C 4 (1998) Guido Lenzi
The WEU between NATO and EU C 5 (1998) Andreas Beierwaltes
Sprachenvielfalt in der EU – Grenze einer Demokratisierung Europas?
C 6 (1998) Jerzy Buzek
Poland’s Future in a United Europe C 7 (1998) Doug Henderson
The British Presidency of the EU and British European Policy C 8 (1998) Simon Upton
Europe and Globalisation on the Threshold of the 21st Century.
A New Zealand Perspective C 9 (1998) Thanos Veremis
Greece, the Balkans and the European Union C 10 (1998) Zoran Djindjic
Serbiens Zukunft in Europa C 11 (1998) Marcus Höreth
The Trilemma of Legitimacy. Multilevel Governance in the EU and the Problem of Democracy
C 12 (1998) Saadollah Ghaussy
Japan and the European Union C 13 (1998) Walter Schweidler
Bioethische Konflikte und ihre politische Regelung in Europa C 14 (1998) Wolfgang Ischinger
Die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik nach Amsterdam C 15 (1998) Kant K. Bhargava
EU – SAARC: Comparisons and Prospects of Cooperation C 16 (1998) Anthony J. Nicholls
Die deutsch-britischen Beziehungen: Ein hoffnungsloser Fall?
C 17 (1998) Nikolaj Petersen
The Danish Referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam C 18 (1998) Aschot L. Manutscharjan
Der Konflikt um Berg-Karabach: Grundproblematik und Lösungsperspektiven C 19 (1998) Stefan Fröhlich
Der Ausbau der europäischen Verteidigungsidentität zwischen WEU und NATO C 20 (1998) Tönis Lukas
Estland auf dem Weg aus der totalitären Vergangenheit zurück nach Europa C 21 (1998) Wim F. van Eekelen
Perspektiven der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der EU C 22 (1998) Ludger Kühnhardt
Europa in den Kräftefeldern des 21. Jahrhunderts.
C 23 (1998) Marco Bifulco
In Search of an Identity for Europe C 24 (1998) Zbigniew Czachór
Ist Polen reif für die Europäische Union?
C 25 (1998) Avi Primor
Der Friedensprozeß im Nahen Osten und die Rolle der Europäischen Union C 26 (1998) Igor Leshoukov
Beyond Satisfaction: Russia’s Perspectives on European Integration C 27 (1998) Dirk Rochtus
Die belgische „Nationalitätenfrage“ als Herausforderung für Europa
C 28 (1998) Jürgen Rüttgers
Europa – Erbe und Auftrag C 29 (1999) Murat T. Laumulin
Die EU als Modell für die zentralasiatische Integration?
C 30 (1999) Valdas Adamkus
Europe as Unfinished Business: The Role of Lithuania in the 21st Century‘s Continent
C 31 (1999) Ivo Samson
Der widerspruchsvolle Weg der Slowakei in die EU.
C 32 (1999) Rudolf Hrbek / Jean-Paul Picaper / Arto Mansala
Deutschland und Europa. Positionen, Perzeptionen, Perspektiven C 33 (1999) Dietrich von Kyaw
Prioritäten der deutschen EU-Präsidentschaft unter Berücksichtigung des Europäischen Rates in Wien
C 34 (1999) Hagen Schulze
Die Identität Europas und die Wiederkehr der Antike C 35 (1999) Günter Verheugen
Germany and the EU Council Presidency C 36 (1999) Friedbert Pflüger
Europas globale Verantwortung – Die Selbstbehauptung der alten Welt C 37 (1999) José María Gil-Robles
Der Vertrag von Amsterdam: Herausforderung für die Europäische Union C 38 (1999) Peter Wittschorek
Präsidentenwahlen in Kasachstan 1999 C 39 (1999) Anatolij Ponomarenko
Die europäische Orientierung der Ukraine C 40 (1999) Eduard Kukan
The Slovak Republic on its Way into the European Union C 41 (1999) Ludger Kühnhardt
Europa auf der Suche nach einer neuen geistigen Gestalt C 42 (1999) Simon Green
Ausländer, Einbürgerung und Integration: Zukunftsperspektive der europäischen Unionsbürgerschaft?
C 43 (1999) Ljerka Mintas Hodak
Activities of the Government of the Republic of Croatia in the Process of European Integration
C 44 (1999) Wolfgang Schäuble
Unsere Verantwortung für Europa C 45 (1999) Eric Richard Staal
European Monetary Union: The German Political-Economic Trilemma C 46 (1999) Marek J. Siemek
Demokratie und Philosophie C 47 (1999) Ioannis Kasoulides
Cyprus and its Accession to the European Union C 48 (1999) Wolfgang Clement
Perspektiven nordrhein-westfälischer Europapolitik C 49 (1999) Volker Steinkamp
Die Europa-Debatte deutscher und französischer Intellektueller nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg
C 50 (1999) Daniel Tarschys 50 Jahre Europarat C 51 (1999) Marcin Zaborowski
Poland, Germany and EU Enlargement C 52 (1999) Romain Kirt
Kleinstaat und Nationalstaat im Zeitalter der Globalisierung C 53 (1999) Ludger Kühnhardt
Die Zukunft des europäischen Einigungsgedankens
C 54 (1999) Lothar Rühl
Conditions and options for an autonomous „Common European Policy on Security and Defence“ in and by the European Union in the post-Amsterdam perspective opened at Cologne in June 1999
C 55 (1999) Marcus Wenig (Hrsg.)
Möglichkeiten einer engeren Zusammenarbeit in Europa am Beispiel Deutschland - Slowakei
C 56 (1999) Rafael Biermann
The Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe - potential, problems and perspectives
C 57 (1999) Eva Slivková
Slovakia’s Response on the Regular Report from the European Commission on Progress towards Accession
C 58 (1999) Marcus Wenig (Ed.)
A Pledge for an Early Opening of EU-Accession Negotiations C 59 (1999) Ivo Sanader
Croatia´s Course of Action to Achieve EU Membership C 60 (2000) Ludger Kühnhardt
Europas Identität und die Kraft des Christentums C 61 (2000) Kai Hafez
The West and Islam in the Mass Media C 62 (2000) Sylvie Goulard
Französische Europapolitik und öffentliche Debatte in Frankreich C 63 (2000) Elizabeth Meehan
Citizenship and the European Union C 64 (2000) Günter Joetze
The European Security Landscape after Kosovo C 65 (2000) Lutz Rathenow
Vom DDR-Bürger zum EU-Bürger C 66 (2000) Panos Kazakos
Stabilisierung ohne Reform C 67 (2000) Marten van Heuven
Where will NATO be ten years from now ? C 68 (2000) Carlo Masala
Die Euro-Mediterrane Partnerschaft
C 69 (2000) Weltachsen 2000/World Axes 2000. A documentation C 70 (2000) Gert Maichel
Mittel-/Osteuropa: Warum engagieren sich deutsche Unternehmen?
C 71 (2000) Marcus Wenig (Hrsg.)
Die Bürgergesellschaft als ein Motor der europäischen Integration C 72 (2000) Ludger Kühnhardt/Henri Ménudier/Janusz Reiter
Das Weimarer Dreieck C 73 (2000) Ramiro Xavier Vera-Fluixa
Regionalbildungsansätze in Lateinamerika und ihr Vergleich mit der Europäischen Union
C 74 (2000) Xuewu Gu (Hrsg.)
Europa und Asien: Chancen für einen interkulturellen Dialog?
C 75 (2000) Stephen C. Calleya
Is the Barcelona Process working?
C 76 (2000) Àkos Kengyel
The EU´s Regional Policy and its extension to the new members C 77 (2000) Gudmundur H. Frìmannsson
Civic Education in Europe: Some General Principles C 78 (2000) Marcus Höreth
Stille Revolution im Namen des Rechts?
C 79 (2000) Franz-Joseph Meiers
Europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungsidentität (ESVI) oder Gemeinsame Europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik (GESVP)?