the sound of · pdf filemr rob riemen, director of the nexus institute, introduced the panel...
Post on 13-Feb-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ENEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeFor further information, please contact:publications@eesc.europa.euTel.+(32 –2) 546 96 04 - Fax +(32-2) 546 97 66
99 rue Belliard • B – 1040 Bruxelleshttp://www.eesc.europa.euCatalogue number: EESC –C –2006-05-ENQE-X1-06-004-EN-C
The Sound ofEurope
Salzburg, 27 and 28 January 2006
Volume II: A Summary of the Event
EESC Special Reviews
European Economic and Social Committee EUROPEAN COMMISSION
“The Sound of Europe” Conference
27 and 28 January 2006
Salzburg
Volume II: A Summary of the Event Marie-Hélène Cussac and Jon Worth
The conference was co-organised by the Federal Chancellery of Austria, the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee
- 3 -
Introduction
"The Sound of Europe" Salzburg, 27-28 January 2006
On 27-28 January 2006 a major conference on the future of Europe was held in Salzburg, the city where Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart had been born exactly 250 years before. Entitled “The Sound of Europe”, the conference was organised by the Austrian Presidency of the European Union, in cooperation with the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee. The conference participants discussed fundamental questions about the future of Europe, European values, identity and culture. “The Sound of Europe” followed on from a series of events held in 2004 under the Dutch EU Presidency. At the same time, the conference gave the starting signal for as wide-ranging a debate as possible on the future development of Europe, in keeping with the reflection and discussion phase decided by the European Council in June 2005. More than 300 personalities from the world of politics, science, arts and the media deliberated on prospects and proposals for making progress on the European project in view of global challenges. The unease and scepticism people express about Europe was also addressed, and the underlying causes analysed. This volume provides a summary and pictorial record of the event. A first volume, already published (ISBN 92-830-0611-9), provides a verbatim report of the proceedings. Marie-Hélène Cussac is Project Manager at the Development Office of the College of Europe. She has worked as a French and music teacher in the United States and France and more recently in and around the European Institutions for the past four years, from the European Commission to interest representation and public relations. She is also involved in the European Forum Alpbach, Austria, and runs the French and international Brussels-based Alpbach initiative groups providing scholarships to young graduates and professionals. Marie-Hélène is particularly interested in educational and cultural policies, while also focusing on energy markets and foreign policy in the Southern Caucasus. Besides graduating in musical theory and piano from a French National Conservatory, she studied literature and languages at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, France and Durham, UK, intercultural communication in Boca Raton, US, ethnomusicology in Belfast, UK and European politics at the College of Europe, Belgium. Jon Worth is Assistant Lecturer at the National School of Government, London. He has previously worked in the European Parliament and for non-governmental organisations in the EU politics arena. He is also a former President of JEF-Europe, the Young European Federalists. His particular areas of interest are EU environmental, transport and energy policies, the future of the European Constitution, and workings of the European Parliament. He speaks French and German and has degrees from the College of Europe, Bruges, and Merton College, University of Oxford.
- 5 -
Table of Contents
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Turning on The Sound of Europe ……………………………………………………… 7
The European Crisis. A Sad Sound? …………………………………………………… 9
What Next? A New Sound? …………………………………………………………… 13
Muses and Sirens …………………………………………………………………………… 17
Conducting Europe –The Final Debate …………………………………………………… 21
Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………… 25
- 7 -
“ Democracy is not a spectator sport
Margot Wallström”
“ This Europe must not become a purely economic idea
Wolfgang Schüssel
”
“ Incompletion is one of Europe’s main characteristics
Dominique de Villepin”
Turning on The Sound of Europe
27 January 2006. 250 years ago Mozart was born; 61 years ago the Red Army liberated Auschwitz. That is how
Federal Chancellor of Austria, Dr. Wolfgang Schüssel, welcomed Europe’s leaders and policy-makers to The
Sound of Europe Conference, reminding them that Europe has historically been capable of the best as well as of
the worst. From giving birth to a genius of classical music to building concentration camps, Europe has faced
conflicting expectations; dreams and visions but also the reality of failure and evil. According to Schüssel,
Mozart could provide answers to our 21st century questions or help us find some, as he lived in a time of
dramatic changes. Europe should not fear “the wind of change”.
In her opening statement, Commission Vice-President, Margot
Wallström, sketched out a picture of what Europe has achieved and
where the European Union stands today. Indeed the traveller and cross-
border worker Mozart would certainly applaud the Erasmus programme
and current initiatives facilitating workers’ mobility! With the renewed Growth and Jobs Strategy,
Commissioner Wallström emphasized that one must avoid the vicious circle of reforms that are well designed
but seldom fully implemented.
Yet what is The Sound of Europe? What do Europeans want and how do they feel? Some interviews with
European citizens were presented, and the requests of the citizens were
prosperity, security, solidarity, freedom, democracy, and respect for human
rights. But what about democracy? The two ‘no’ votes in the French and
Dutch referendums were a wake-up call for politicians, according to Wallström. The important lesson to learn is
that leaders and politicians must truly be honest and fair about European issues. In her opinion, Europe bashing
for short-term political point scoring is damaging and prevents a true European public sphere emerging.
She was positive about the future: now Plan D for Democracy, Debate and Dialogue is being implemented, and
the White Paper on Communication is on its way. However, communication is a two way street and she urged
the widest possible participation in the debate. Europe was the birthplace of democracy, yet its values must be
defended and all Europeans need to get involved; Europe needs action.
French Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin gave the keynote lecture. He brought food for thought to the
audience before the panel discussions. Expressing his sincere thanks to the Austrian presidency for its efforts to
address Europe’s challenges, he reminded the audience that Austria was a fine example of a country that had
successfully managed to adapt throughout European history.
- 8 -
Without further ado, De Villepin recognized that yes, Europe is in crisis; from a crisis of decision-making to a
crisis of identity. He nonetheless insisted that each crisis in Europe has been a springboard for a new leap
forward.
The identity crisis in Europe questions the purpose of European integration in his opinion. Echoing Federal
Chancellor Schüssel, Mr De Villepin first addressed the question of borders. Where are they, what should the
future strategy for enlargement be? The consequences of the latest enlargement had not been sufficiently
prepared; this highlighted the gap between Europe’s goal and its actual capacities.
He then turned to the issue of Europe’s goal. As Europe had been built in reverse according to him, it was now
time for debate with people, with European people. He argued that the sui generis nature of the European
project, despite showing European creativity and taste for exploring new models, constituted a source of some
difficulty. There is no political model to follow, “we invent as we go along”. Mr De Villepin thought that all this
is more challenging and worrying to Europeans, who find it difficult to defend their values in the face of swift
globalization.
Mr. De Villepin however acknowledged that each crisis in the past had opened a new chapter of European
history; Europe genuinely is an adventure. His opinion was that Europeans are open to others, recognizing that
they come from elsewhere, and need others to help understand themselves. Further, having understood the limits
of power and the spirit of conquest, Mr De Villepin claimed that Europeans are capable of liberating themselves
from the fatality of history. Europe’s strength indeed is its capability to overcome crises, European thought
having been forged through doubt and questioning, never quite satisfied. These are, according to Mr De Villepin,
the virtues that should guide us out of the crisis today.
Echoing Mrs Margot Wallström, Mr De Villepin claimed that the new chapter in European history is that of its
people. He stated that we are facing the challenge of needing a common consciousness to emerge, as that is
essential to the vitality of the European project. From security, research, health, energy, the economy, to more
democratic and legitimate institutions, Europe needs concrete projects in order to achieve this common
consciousness. Politicians and leaders must now talk clearly and frankly about Europe’s ambitions according to
Mr De Villepin. Europe is not only about being prosperous; it is about conveying our message beyond our
borders.
- 9 -
“ When a political elite has to take decisions and there is no intellectual compass, how useful can those decisions be?
Rob Riemen
”
“ The Europe of today is the consumer in panic
Paul Michael Luetzeler”
The European Crisis. A Sad Sound?
Mr Rob Riemen, director of the Nexus Institute, introduced the
panel by emphasising how The Sound of Europe conference was
a follow up to the political-philosophical conferences organised
under the Dutch Presidency in 2004. He pointed to the high
quality of the participants in Salzburg, and underlined how this
showed a wider acceptance of the need for such a debate about
the future of Europe. He suggested that the panelists should focus on two issues: what European identity means
today, and whether the EU finds itself in a political crisis.
Mr David Cesarani (University of London) was asked about his opinion on the link between Europe’s identity
crisis and Auschwitz. In Mr Cesarani’s opinion, the wound inflicted by Auschwitz is still raw; the images of the
cosmopolitan, humanist idea of Europe dating from the enlightenment, and of a Europe that celebrated the best
of culture were both greatly damaged. He feared that many intellectuals continued to claim that what happened
in Auschwitz drew directly on the values of the enlightenment, and that any effort to look to the enlightenment
for inspiration today must be aware of the dangers of doing so.
In response to Mr Cesarani, Prof. Paul Michael Luetzeler, from Washington University in St. Louis was keen
to quote Hermann Broch who he believed had a more far-sighted analysis of the problems of European identity
even when he was writing in the first half of the 20th Century. Broch’s argument was that Europe was a society
without a centre, and that the problem dated from the start of modernity. Instead a system of partial value
systems has been developed, with the Church being only one
of many. Faced with this situation, citizens were unsure and
additionally feared the dominance of a commercial value
system over everything else. This challenge – in Mr
Luetzeler’s opinion – is as true today as it was then. Mr Luetzeler additionally emphasised how Broch had
always prioritised the value of human rights, and how an adherence to respect for citizens rights might be the
way for Europe to recover from the wound inflicted by Auschwitz.
Mrs Benita Ferrero Waldner, European Commissioner for External Relations, responded by talking about
Europe and European identity from a very personal point of view, underlining how she felt a ‘Salzburger’, an
Austrian and a European and that there was no contradiction between these three. For her, feeling European
meant an adherence to the values of human rights, liberty, democracy and the rule of law.
- 10 -
“ We are able to put mosques next to cathedrals
Josep Borrell”
“ The last thing we need at the moment is talk about a crisis
Jan Peter Balkenende
”
“ I remember asking my Hungarian grandmother where the centre of the world was: ‘Staatsoper, 10. Reihe, Sie spielen Mozart’
Andrew Moravcsik
”
This was a theme taken up by European Parliament President,
Josep Borrell, who reminded the audience how, in 1985 when
Spain joined the European Union, the feeling among the
population was that finally they were somehow accepted as Europeans. He then keenly argued that a sense of
tolerance and respect was something that was uniquely European, and that this had required a long period of
time and hard work to achieve.
Mr Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, also
took up the theme of feeling European. However, the main point that
Mr Balkenende wished to stress – in stark contrast to the other
speakers at the conference – was his position that Europe is not in a
crisis. While he acknowledged that Europe had plenty of challenges
that it needed to face, his message was one of optimism that Europe could find ways to move forward, and that
the science, literature and music produced in Europe would stand the continent in good stead.
Prof. Andrew Moravcsik, from Princeton University was asked about why young people in Europe often felt
great affinity for the United States, rather than for their own countries or Europe in general. The professor from
Princeton felt he was perhaps not the best person to answer that
issue, citing his grandmother’s Hungarian background, and
stating that Europe embodied two major contemporary political
processes: the advancement of social democracy, and the idea of
political integration. Mr Moravcsik cited Europe’s unity in
diversity as its enduring strength, and saw managing such a
complex series of multi-lateral relationships as a great success.
The focus of the debate then shifted, becoming a general exchange of views about how Europe was perceived
from elsewhere in the world and what means could be used to protect European values. Mrs Benita Ferrero
Waldner bemoaned the fact that Europe today seemed to lack the will to achieve things collectively, and that
society has become more fragmented and individualistic. Mr Jan Peter Balkenende cautioned against too much
concentration on technical or financial issues like the Common Agricultural Policy, emphasising instead how we
should look at the values that European societies share in common. These common values were for him the
essence of unity.
Mr Josep Borrell contradicted Mr Balkenende’s positive note, stating clearly that he felt Europe had three
crises: a crisis of legitimacy, a political crisis and a democratic crisis. He cited young people to illustrate the
point: while the young people were more likely to identify themselves as European, their motivations for
believing in European integration were very different to older generations.
- 11 -
In response to the other interventions, Mr David Cesarani cast a note of caution. He asked the other speakers
why Europe needed to be responsible for delivering concrete policies for its citizens. Why were the Member
States not capable of this? He appealed for Europe to focus on the added value it could bring, both in terms of
concrete policies and the issues of identity and belonging.
The very reason for The Sound of Europe conference taking place was to deal with the wider cultural and
philosophical issues, Mr Jan Peter Balkenende replied. He, however, then pointed to the pros and cons of the
budget contributions of the Netherlands and the impact that this subject had had in the referendum campaign.
He was also critical of Europe’s lack of entrepreneurial spirit.
Andrew Moravcsik tied these practical issues to the reasons why the Constitutional Treaty had not been
successfully ratified. For him, this showed how Europeans still thought about politics as a primarily national
pursuit and that the people were presently unable to grasp abstract political concepts at European level. He
referred to the constitutional process as a debate about illusions, and pleaded for a more concrete approach to the
issues that mattered to citizens.
This point was developed by Mrs Benita Ferrero Waldner who spoke of repatriation of powers to national
governments and how the principle of subsidiarity needed to be respected. Concluding the panel, Mr Jan Peter
Balkenende continued the theme, arguing that while Europeans certainly needed more to identify with Europe
and feel European, it was nevertheless more important that Europe was seen to deliver concrete results in the
eyes of its populations.
- 13 -
“ I am attracted to the notion of legitimacy through action
Javier Solana
”
“ If you want a Europe that delivers, you should want the Constitution
Javier Solana
”
What Next? A New Sound?
The second panel discussion, entitled “What Next? A New Sound?” aimed to come up with new ideas about how
the European Union could advance in the future. The panel opened with a keynote speech from Mr Javier
Solana, the EU’s High Representative in Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Mr Solana opened his speech by stating the need for Europe to
think positively, and how such an approach matched his own
way of doing politics. He reminded the delegates how
successful Europe has indeed been over the last decade –
enlargement, the Euro, the success of the Schengen area, and
liberalisation of airlines, to cite just a few – and feared that it was too easy to forget these successes while
engaged in tough negotiations about the budget.
Closely linked to this need for a positive approach was Mr Solana’s opinion that the European Union could gain
legitimacy through action, and that this needed to be relevant for all citizens, not just for select groups such as
big business or the farming industry. No longer was the peace argument sufficient to justify European
integration, and this needed to be acknowledged.
One of the major themes that Mr Solana developed was how
Europe playing a greater role in the world could become one of
the main areas where citizens could understand what the
purpose of the European Union is today. In his opinion the
European Union should do much more than deal with problems
in its immediate neighbourhood; its reach should be global. Additionally, enlargement had positively contributed
to this ability for Europe to play a role in the world.
Mr Solana concluded by bringing up the question of the Constitutional Treaty. All of those who wanted a
results-orientated Europe should be in favour of the Constitution, was his unequivocal message, as its
implementation would undoubtedly facilitate decision making in the EU.
Following Mr Solana, the Mayor of Athens, Dora Bakoyannis, opened the panel by highlighting how
politicians thought of Europe and how this was often a more positive impression than the citizens themselves
had of the EU. She complained that Europe has been speaking for years about dealing with the democratic
deficit, yet had not demonstrated it was keen to do something about it. The same, she said, was how citizens
thought of the EU’s approach to terrorism. They feared it was about snooping on their cell phones rather than an
- 14 -
“ Mozart is what we want, Wagner is what we’ve got
Bronisław Geremek
”
“ No-one can love a market, even if it is important
Dr. Anne Marie Sigmund
”
effort to protect them. Mrs Bakoyannis’s main proposal to bridge the gap was to better involve cities and regions
in decision making in Europe.
The rising levels of euroscepticism in Europe concerned MEP and academic Bronisław Geremek; he linked this
with the perception of a crisis that was a common theme for many of the speakers. He chose two areas to focus
on: the problem of legitimacy, where citizens would not let the European Union speak in their names, and the
current lack of solidarity in Europe between rich and poor
Member States. In contrast to Mr Villepin’s earlier speech, Mr
Geremek robustly defended enlargement and felt it was in no
way the cause of the problems Europe is facing, claiming that
enlargement was a positive and courageous step.
Prof. Gilles Kepel (Institut d’Étudies Politiques de Paris) focussed his speech on the cultural and religious
matters that are at stake in Europe today. According to him, 2005 had shown the degree of divergence between
European countries when it came to dealing with the integration of ethnic minorities and the threat of terrorism.
The attacks in London and the riots in France demonstrated the degree of divergence, while the European Union
stood by and watched on. Mr Kepel hence called for a common EU approach to these issues.
In his intervention Dr. Mark Leonard from the Centre for European Reform gave a brief précis of his book Why
Europe Will Run the 21st Century, and applied this to the era post French and Dutch ‘no’ votes. Mr Leonard
argued that there should be a five year moratorium on any new treaties, as Europe instead needed to focus on
doing what it could with the current institutional setup, including differentiated integration and pioneer groups
where necessary. He thought it hypocritical to continue with debates about the Constitutional Treaty, stating that
80% of citizens thought ratification should stop. Mr Leonard’s preferred project for the future would be the EU’s
transformative power, i.e. the positive role that the EU can play in the rest of the world. He felt that it was in this
area that the European Union could really add value.
Dominique Moїsi from the French Institute of International Relations returned to the issue of cultural identity
that had been raised by Gilles Kepel, although Mr Moїsi’s references were specifically musical as he invoked the
influence of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. Speaking on the day of the commemoration of Auschwitz was
especially poignant for Moїsi as his father had survived the concentration camp.
For Dr. Ursula Plassnik, Foreign Minister of Austria, the fact that Europe was able to fail in some of what it
did, was not a problem in itself, providing lessons were learnt. Dr. Plassnik – like Mr Balkenende before her –
rejected that Europe was in crisis, terming the challenges faced by the EU ‘turbulences’, although she, like a
number of other speakers, acknowledged that, viewed from outside Europe, the EU was perceived more
positively than it was by its own citizens. She also rejected
- 15 -
“ We want a future for our children, we want them to be able to have hopes for Europe
Margot Wallström
”
Bronisław Geremek’s criticism that Europe lacked solidarity, pointing to the recent deal over the EU's financial
perspectives as a sign of this, and appealed to politicians to use clearer language when talking about the EU in
order to enable citizens to better understand what the EU was doing, and to stop blaming each other for the
problems Europe faces.
Dr. Anne Marie Sigmund, President of the Economic and Social Committee, stated in her core message that
Europe could not advance without improving the role for civil society. Citizens will have no liking for Europe if
it is simply a market, and hence change is needed. She stressed the importance of culture, and cultural identity,
together with the participation of civil society, as the means to promote citizens’ understanding and appreciation
of the European Union. Further, Europe must not be shy to talk about power. Mrs Sigmund returned to this
theme in her conclusions, urging all Member States to boost funding for civil society and to exploit better the
potential of organised civil society, particularly, at the European level, through the European Economic and
Social Committee.
European Commission Vice President, Margot Wallström, fearing that the initial passion for integration had
diminished over the years, likened Europe to an old
marriage. Using words similar in tone to those of Ursula
Plassnik, she stressed how good Europe was perceived to be
by those outside it, and how Europeans tended to be too
negative about their own continent. From the need to
create jobs to the drive for sustainable development and
environmental protection, the EU needed to show how it was improving citizens’ lives. According to Mrs
Wallström perceptions would improve once this was achieved.
Following the initial round of contributions from the panelists, additional comments were invited. Dora
Bakoyannis added that politicians should not underestimate the degree of fear felt by European populations,
especially towards globalisation. Dominique Moїsi generally agreed, although he was keen to stress that
positive visions for the future were needed to overcome these fears. Javier Solana did not deny that the fears
were real, but he pointed out that the situation was nothing new, as after all the French voters had only approved
the Maastricht Treaty by 51-49% more than a decade ago.
In comments that were invited from the audience, Riccardo Illy, President of the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region,
argued that Europe was lacking a major project which its citizens could identify with. Elmar Brok, Chairman
of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, referred to the Constitutional Treaty, stating that the
need for the Constitution was as clear as ever and the EU would be better to concern itself with that than it would
with the Lisbon Strategy that he feared involved too many grand statements and insufficient delivery, a point that
Margot Wallström disagreed with in her concluding remarks. Dr. Erhard Busek, special coordinator for the
- 16 -
Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, stressed the need for improved education, an appeal that was taken up
by Gilles Kepel and Javier Solana in their conclusions. In his very final words, Mr Javier Solana proposed that
the EU should considerably increase its funding for the Erasmus programme as a concrete step that could be
taken to address the fears to which various speakers had alluded.
- 17 -
“ Europe is an idea with a long history, it is a rational idea, and it is a necessary idea
Dr. Heinz Fischer
”
“ Let’s ask our leaders at all levels to commit themselves to this cooperative idea of Europe; a lot more can be done if we have this sense of European responsibility
José Manuel Barroso
”
Muses and Sirens
President of Austria, Dr. Heinz Fischer, opened the second day of the conference. Starting with a look back to
the origins of Europe, he narrated the myth of the romance between the young princess Europa and Zeus to show
that some sources of inspiration for European culture and sciences are not located in Europe as it is defined
today. It was the sum of schools of thought of Asia Minor, Judaism and Christianity, the migration of people,
Indo-Germanic and Slavic influences, Humanism and Enlightenment, which gave rise to European culture, its
model of thought and way of life.
President Fischer was reluctant to believe that people question the European project itself. In his opinion,
cautiousness and doubts have to do more with certain difficulties such as the distance between people and the
European institutions, a loss of confidence in the democratic model, the fear of future enlargements, and the
blame game played at the national level. For Fischer European consciousness must be open to new sounds, to
curiosity. As Sigmund Freud had put it, a cultural project is a project against war. In building this peaceful and
safe European house, the President stressed the importance of European values to allow a good household based
on solidarity to develop.
With regard to the so-called democratic deficit, Mr Fischer
insisted that the EU was indeed an association of democratic
states, but that the idea of a pan-European democracy was still in
its infancy. Concerning the Constitutional Treaty he urged
leaders to pose the question differently and ask instead ‘what do
we want?’ He also underlined his support for a pan-European referendum, something he described as a positive
contribution to the concept of democracy in Europe. Finishing on a positive note, he insisted that the European
model was a model for the future, and that the European Union deserved Europeans’ confidence.
Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, started his
address by recalling that the driving force behind the
conference was the cultural diversity and wealth of the
European continent. However he echoed Dominique de
Villepin’s words of the previous day in acknowledging that
Europe did indeed have problems of an economic, social
and demographic nature that it needed to face. However,
above all he felt Europe essentially had a problem of confidence deriving from culture, yet he was convinced
that Europe had the resources to overcome these challenges. Mr Barroso said there is a fundamental paradox at
- 18 -
“ Is it possible to make a project not based on love?
Oliviero Toscani”
the heart of perceptions about Europe: most of what is perceived to be problematic is actually successful, such as
the internal market and enlargement, for example.
When addressing the current challenge of globalization, the Commission President argued that our reaction to it
is a cultural decision. In his opinion, we need to shape globalization with our values. He appealed for more
responsible leadership, both at European level and also at national level, urging national leaders to take their
responsibilities towards Europe seriously.
According to Mr Barroso, the dynamic of European integration has been reversed; these days it is the political
consensus that will create the institutional dynamics and no longer the opposite. Therefore he and his
Commission wished to deliver a Europe of results, urging the European Union to move up a gear through the
renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs.
In his keynote speech, conductor Franz Welser-Möst stated that classical music is a product of Western culture,
whose two pillars are Christianity and Hellenism. For him, Mozart manages to reconcile the contradictions
between the two: the liberal and Western ideology that everything is possible, rooted in Hellenist thinking and its
opposite view fundamental to Christianity. For Mr Welser-Möst, this is why Mozart was a European, building
bridges between the pillars of Western culture.
Mr Welser-Möst stressed that thereneed to be an equilibrium between the natural sciences, humanities, religion,
art and politics, an equilibrium that is lacking today. After the century of Enlightenment and that of the Industrial
Age, the 20th Century is the century of politics. For him, this has disrupted the balance; politics made its way into
many fields and today touches upon moral and ethical questions, as does the media. In Mr Welser-Möst’s
opinion there is now a crucial need to depoliticize, especially in the arts. He underlined that the unique
characteristic of Europe is the equilibrium of disciplines and this equilibrium requires innovation, especially in
terms of creativity and individuality, supported throughout by an important role for education.
The first panelist to take the floor, photographer Mr Oliviero Toscani, urged the audience to think about the
simple yet crucial question: do we love each other? Mr Toscani denounced Europeans as being over critical
about each other, and was concerned by the genuine negativism
and pessimism across the continent. His main message was that
Europeans and Europe need creativity; politics may no longer be
sufficient to explain the world and the fast evolving Europe to
the citizens. Art, on the other hand, speaks to people and does not require translation. He additionally had a stark
message for the politicians present: beware that the obsessive search for compromise does not create mediocrity.
Indeed, as director Martin Kusej underlined, art is a platform for a crisis of identity but also a place where
identity can be discovered.
- 19 -
“ Globalisation is an additional reason for more intensive European cooperation
Ján Figel’
”
“ The 20th Century was the century of war, dictatorship, but also of democratic socialism when the welfare state was born
Paavo Lipponen
”
The debate further developed from art and the diversity of cultures to the dangers of nationalism. Born of an
Armenian father and a Greek mother in Istanbul, the writer Petros Markaris, discussed how cosmopolitan
Istanbul had been. To him, each culture was presently too nationalistic and refused to integrate, living next to
each other rather than with each other and paving the way for nationalism. For him, the only way to combat
nationalism on a daily basis is through culture.
Culture and education portfolios still face difficulties in being granted the necessary budget at the European
level, acknowledged European Commissioner for Education
and Culture Ján Figel’. Cultural cooperation was made
possible with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, yet he
described the policy area as still akin to a teenager agenda.
He was however very positive about the fact that in 2005, 25
countries signed the UNESCO convention on the protection
and promotion of cultural diversity, demonstrating that unity in diversity is indeed Europe’s narrative. According
to Commissioner Figel’, culture provides space for dialogue, tolerance, and mutual respect; culture is about the
ethics of responsibilities, and the ethics of duties together with rights. In his opinion, after a century of
nationalization, the various European programmes in the education and culture fields may be Europeanizing
once again.
From the opposition of muses and sirens, from creative art to temptation, Prof. Sonja Puntscher-Riekmann
(University of Salzburg) referred to Mozart’s operas and underlined how harmony may only be temporary. She
referred to Hanah Arendt’s work to underline the importance of Enlightenment ideals; in modern republican
democracies, freedom is incompatible with ignorance. Sirens should no longer be able to seduce with empty
phrases. Europe needs action and, for Mrs Puntscher-Riekmann, this is a political concept. On this point her
views stand opposed to those of Mr Welser-Möst, and hence this is why the constitutional debate is crucial. In
her opinion, it is the context but not the text itself that needs to be changed. Constitutional processes are always
difficult but two ‘no’ votes in referenda should not be cause for unnecessary concern because conflict is the basis
of politics.
In contrast to the technical and political language used by the majority of speakers, former President of the
European Parliament, Pat Cox, expressed the complexity of what Europeans are in a very poetic address. From
Umberto Eco to contemporary Irish Nobel Prize winner, Seamus Heaney, via Bertold Brecht, Pat Cox was all of
them when addressing the various yet complementary parts of European identity.
Dr. András Bozóki, Hungarian Minister of Culture, further
developed the ambiguous and intricate link between culture and
politics. He recalled the role culture played behind the Iron
- 20 -
Curtain, where it often substituted democracy but also served to legitimise the communist regime. Now culture
and cultural policy have to find their place, for culture is indeed not only about institutions or traditions but is
rooted in a broader concept of culture and diversity. Mr Bozóki was also keen to distinguish between
multiculturalism, which in itself is not enough, and intercultural dialogue, the ‘sine qua non’ condition for
tolerance in societies in Europe today.
Former Finnish Prime Minister, Paavo Lipponen, welcomed the initiative of the Austrian Presidency to debate
the major issues facing Europe, and wondered what new aspects Finland could bring to the debate in the second
half of 2006. As one of Europe’s oldest democracies, and with a commitment to innovation with firms such as
Nokia, he was certain Finland could follow Austria’s lead.
- 21 -
“ Reason alone has no purpose without imagination
Nikolaus Harnoncourt
”
“ We need to make sure that people think with their hearts and feel with their brains
Jürgen Flimm
”
Conducting Europe – The Final Debate
Prime Minister of Finland, Matti Vanhanen, declared that he shared José Manuel Barroso’s Euro-optimism.
Europe may indeed be facing problems yet not a crisis as far as Mr Vanhanen was concerned. Problems can be
solved and Europe needs political will to do that. Concerning the Lisbon Strategy and its goals in R&D and
education, Mr Vanhanen recalled that this was the responsibility of Member States. He also declared that the
Finnish presidency in the second half of 2006 would carry on the debate Austria launched, with a particular
focus on the question of legitimacy in the hope that citizens could feel more confident about the European
Union.
Conductor, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, then called into question what
politicians do in Brussels. He felt that the primary concern of "Brussels"
– economics – meant that that crucial question of education was
neglected. He also feared that young people are not introduced to art
early enough and insisted that art is not about high culture only.
Prime Minister of The Netherlands, Jan Peter Balkenende, agreed that the cultural dimension needed to be
better taken into account, especially during the ‘period of reflection’ on the Constitutional Treaty. France and
The Netherlands may have given a ‘no’ response to the EU Constitution referendum and hence the question of
distance between the institutions and the people remained to be addressed. According to Mr Balkenende, this has
to do with education once again. Categorically refusing to talk about a European crisis, he argued that the
European model was a model for the future; all it needs is a new impetus. Recalling a piece that Mozart
composed in The Hague, his message was ‘conservati fideli’: keep faith in Europe!
As President of Latvia, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, expressed, what is missing are feelings for Europe. Giving an
overview of European history, the Latvian Federal President explained that all Europeans were once before part
of the same family until the Iron Curtain split them. Finally reunited, Europeans are building a new house,
enabling them to work together.
The part of the brain connected with art and feelings needs to be involved in discussions about Europe for theatre
director, Jürgen Flimm. In his opinion, all that has so far been achieved with the EU’s Institutions is on an
unstable footing, if there is too little consciousness of Europe’s immense cultural heritage. This consciousness
needs to be developed in candidate countries, yet most
importantly this must be passed on to younger generations, and
that means education programmes. Echoing Mr Toscani and Mr
Harnoncourt, Flimm called for greater creative training to
develop the imagination.
- 22 -
“ Globalisation is a reality; let’s make it an opportunity
José Manuel Barroso
”
People have to be inspired by culture was the view of Federal Chancellor of Austria Wolfgang Schüssel. He was
keen to stress that stories and narratives must not only be about politics, and that democracy is more than just
politicians. Yet even success stories such as the European Union have their share of difficulties; and at the
moment, people are cautious. It is their democratic right to say what they feel, even though that may be
challenging.
In the debate that followed, Jan Peter Balkenende warned that euroscepticism was not a positive attitude. Mr
Vanhanen however cautioned that people may feel Europe is moving too fast, or that their national governments
cannot protect them against globalization, and hence this is why politicians must explain to them why they need
Europe. The EU also has to be realistic according to the Finnish Prime Minister; the EU has no competence in
social security and the impression should not be given that the EU can deal with that..
Latvian President, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, saw no lack of democracy in Europe but bemoaned the lack of feeling
that everyone could participate. Commission President, Mr Barroso considered something could be done about
this issue through more democracy via subsidiarity. In his opinion the hierarchical view of Brussels dominating
Member States and, even more, regional and local authorities is detrimental and it is not the case in practice.
Working at making Europe more accountable is indeed necessary, yet the current trend of easily blaming Europe
for national issues needs to be countered, according to the Commission President. In a time of globalization we
need more than ever a European dimension, especially in education and research, for which Mr Barroso pleaded
to European leaders for more investment.
Wolfgang Schüssel was convinced that the European way of life should be protected and defended. Mentioning
Benedict XVI’s encyclical about love, he considered the motive of freedom on the one hand, and of justice on
the other, as quintessentially European. Justice is indeed what Europe is working at to protect its citizens, he
argued.
The debate then moved to the question of whether the new Member States were today examples of excessive
capitalism. After the breakdown of National Socialism, argued Vaira Vike-Freiberga, a choice for a new
ideology between Marxism and capitalism was simply inconceivable; secondly, capitalism has not harmed
Europe but made it wealthy and prosperous. In addition, Europe exported its economic model, a point taken up
by Jürgen Flimm who stated that one should not be surprised today to see India and China on the rise as Europe
had initiated the process.
José Manuel Barroso then argued against the claim that the present
Commission is predominantly neo-liberal. He assured the audience that he
- 23 -
“ Hopefully we will have a Common Cultural Policy and not just a Common Foreign & Security Policy and a Common Agricultural Policy
Dr. Erhard Busek
”
and his team were strongly in favour of a social market Europe. A market is important, but Europe is much more
than a market and has a social dimension and the Commission President additionally pointed to the EU’s
regional funding programmes.
Chancellor Schüssel supported Mr Barroso’s analysis and called on Europeans to be more self- confident.
Europe is for instance the number one world exporter and this must not be forgotten. What is important is
nurturing talent and innovation through education.
The debate continued with the audience. Former
European Commissioner Franz Fischler raised the
issue that European citizens needed to see concrete
projects if they were to grasp the debate on the
European social model and to understand what is
actually happening in practice. Prof. Margarita
Mathiopoulos from the University of Potsdam raised the issue of transatlantic cooperation, while Dr. Erhard
Busek, special coordinator for the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, asked why the European budget did
not reflect the priorities that all the speakers had raised. Prof. Bassam Tibi of Göttingen University pointed to
the absence of Muslims on the conference podium, although there are 20 million Muslims in Europe.
Answering to the transatlantic link question, Vaira Vike-Freiberga reminded the audience how much the
transatlantic link is intrinsic to Europe, from the time when we exported our ideas and ideals, to the fact that
Europe owes its freedom to America. On the Muslim question, Jürgen Flimm reflected that a future task should
be how to make Christianity work together with Islamic culture and build bridges. In his opinion, launching a
real dialogue between these two cultures could be the great task of future presidencies, while Jan Peter
Balkenende agreed that one cannot talk about multiculturalism today without addressing the question of Islam.
Before putting down his baton, the conductor of the Sound of Europe, Chancellor Schüssel, thanked all
participants to the conference for their energy, imagination and willingness to debate. He argued that Europe
needs to fashion instruments and allocate them the necessary resources to allow stability to be exported rather
than instability and insecurity to be imported. Finally, he called for a move away from the crisis narrative and its
inherent pessimism, urging action and the need for practical solutions.
- 25 -
Conclusions
The Sound of Europe conference should be seen in large part as an ongoing debate rather than a one-off event
that aimed to reach specific conclusions. However, Mozart’s birthday and the commemoration of the liberation
of Auschwitz imbued the event special poignancy, and the wholehearted efforts of the Austrian Presidency to get
the debate re-started on the future of Europe gave the event added importance.
A number of common themes emerged from the conference. Foremost among these was the need for a renewed
commitment to education and culture as vital components in the process of European integration. Javier Solana’s
call to increase funding for the Erasmus programme was the most concrete expression of this sentiment.
Much common ground existed between the speakers concerning the Constitutional Treaty. From Dr. Mark
Leonard to Dr. Heinz Fischer there was a wide consensus that the content of the Constitution was valid, and that
the European Union would function better with the text in place. Viable plans for how to escape the
constitutional impasse were however scarce.
One of the principal areas of discord was the discussion about whether Europe was indeed in crisis or not. On the
one hand Jan Peter Balkenende insisted that Europe must think positively and that talk of a crisis was not
required. This view was opposed to that of speakers such as Dominique de Villepin or Josep Borrell who went as
far as to categorize the crises that Europe was facing.
Points of divergence equally emerged when it came to the issue of enlargement. For many, such as Bronisław
Geremek and Javier Solana, enlargement should be considered a major success. Dominique de Villepin took a
measured approach.
On a more fundamental level, the very means to conduct politics, and even the extent of the role of politics in
society were called into question. The unequivocal message from some speakers that politicians were doing too
much, and that culture required space to flourish did not always sit easily beside the sometimes technical
language used by some to address the questions of the Constitutional Treaty or contributions to the European
budget.
The debate on the issues raised at the Sound of Europe conference is very much still open, and Matti Vanhanen
announced his commitment to continue the "conversation" during the Finnish Presidency.
European Economic and Social Committee Visits and Publications Unit For further information, please contact: publications@esc.eu.int (as of 9 May 2006: publications@eesc.europa.eu) Tel.+(32 –2) 546 96 04 - Fax +(32-2) 546 97 66 99 rue Belliard • B – 1040 Bruxelles Internet: http://www.esc.eu.int (as of 9 May 2006: http://www.eesc.europa.eu) Catalogue number: EESC – C-2006-05-EN
ENEuropean Economic and Social CommitteeFor further information, please contact:publications@eesc.europa.euTel.+(32 –2) 546 96 04 - Fax +(32-2) 546 97 66
99 rue Belliard • B – 1040 Bruxelleshttp://www.eesc.europa.euCatalogue number: EESC –C –2006-05-ENQE-X1-06-004-EN-C
The Sound ofEurope
Salzburg, 27 and 28 January 2006
Volume II: A Summary of the Event
EESC Special Reviews
European Economic and Social Committee EUROPEAN COMMISSION
top related