First, let me thank Mr Buysse for his kind words. I am most grateful to the Antwerp Business School Organizing Committee for this opportunity to discuss with you Europe's changing role in world affairs. There could be no better place than Antwerp to address this issue. To quote the great economic historian Fernand Braudel, "the history of Antwerp faithfully reflects the fortunes of Europe as a whole". Indeed, this great city and port has for centuries played a key role in European trade. Thanks to Antwerp's merchants and craftsmen, and also to its excellent location, the city's prosperity grew and spread its benefits far and wide. As a hub of transport and communications, industry and services, the Antwerp of today is a symbol of Europe's new dynamism. Goods from all over the continent are shipped through Antwerp to the four corners of the Earth, although I hope to goodness there are no Rotterdammers here to hear me say it! The people of Antwerp, be they from business, politics, or any other walk of life, are renowned for their open-mindedness, as its artists are renowned for their creativity. Rubens' and Van Dijk's home town is a lively, cheerful place, and a natural choice for European City of Culture in this, the year in which national frontiers have been dismantled. The city's outstanding qualities are reflected in the many illustrious alumni of the Antwerp Business School. I was therefore delighted to accept the invitation to be here this evening from my good friend and former colleague Leo Tindemans, who is undoubtedly one of the founding fathers of the European Union set out in the Maastricht Treaty. The 1976 report that bears his name was obviously way ahead of its time, but these days its recommendations on economic, monetary and political union crop up almost daily in newspaper headlines and on our television screens. And today, as the highly respected leader of the Christian Democrat grouping in the European Parliament, Mr Tindemans continues to make his unique contribution to the furtherance of our European ideals. Such contributions are sorely needed, for a solid European structure is more vitally necessary than ever in these changing times. We are confronted by delicate and difficult issues. The new political situation in Europe, although undeniably positive in essence, has nevertheless thrown up a new challenge that in its way is quite as pressing as anything that went before. Europe needs to respond convincingly to this challenge. Failure to do so could well undermine the achievements of the last three or four decades. The Community can ill afford another bout of Euro-sclerosis. Bold political and moral choices have to be made. Will the Community and its Member States honour the basic commitments set out in the Treaty of Rome and subsequent texts, even if this involves a degree of sacrifice? Let me give some examples of what I mean. Having learned the lessons of a difficult charged past, Europe has committed itself to political and economic freedom: through the United Nations, NATO, the OECD and GATT at global level; through the Community, the future European Union, the Council of Europe and the CSCE at regional level; and, at national level, through a framework of laws and institutions that together guarantee citizens their basic rights. But these commitments are now being sorely tested. For our part, we will need not only a great deal of solidarity, but also recognition of our own interests if we are to secure a safer future for Europe as a whole. The long hoped-for reunification of Europe lacks the necessary economic and social equilibrium, with all the dangers of instability and conflict that this entails. Are we ready to provide the assistance, and the markets, that our East European neighbours need if they are to succeed in throwing off the nightmare of a totalitarianism that we have for decades been condemning with such vigour from public platforms? Are we ready to defend the human rights of our fellow Europeans whenever and wherever they are threatened? Are we ready to tackle regional conflict not just by issuing declarations of intent, but also by making the resources available to ensure that these intentions are carried out? Are we genuinely resolved to strengthen the open international system, epitomized by the GATT, that has enabled us to weather so many storms, ignoring the protests of those who prefer the illusory short-term benefits of protectionism? I do not pretend to have pat answers to all these questions. However, allow me to make a few comments from the vantage point of a Commissioner for external political relations of two months' standing. Central and Eastern Europe Our solidarity with the Central and Eastern European countries that have recently regained their freedom cannot alter the fact that they are primarily responsible for shaping their own destiny, as they are the first to recognize. Without a firm commitment on their part to adapt to the new conditions, and to accept the attendant sacrifices, little can be achieved. This will not be easy: structures have to be modernized, the workforce retrained, unprofitable businesses shut down. The attitudes and habits that have marked an entire generation must change. People who have come to expect state protection from the cradle to the grave must learn to stand on their own two feet in an increasingly competitive environment. The Community has not hesitated to support this process. It is by far the largest donor to the Central and Eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union, accounting for more than 60% of the assistance provided by the G-24 countries, which is coordinated by the Commission. This aid is designed primarily to strengthen democracy and the market economy. We are endeavouring to forge close political and economic ties with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe through the "Europe agreements" that have already been signed by Poland, Hungary, former Czechoslovakia and Romania, with Bulgaria soon to follow suit. These agreements offer the prospect of eventual Community membership to countries which are firmly committed to democracy and a market economy, thus encouraging them to push ahead with the implementation of these far-reaching and often painful reforms. The Commission will report to the Copenhagen Council in June on practical ways to eliminate the existing barriers between the Community and our associates in Central and Eastern Europe. Increased trade with the Community will gradually replace direct support. At the same time, this large neighbouring market will also offer enormous opportunities to Community exporters, among them Belgian companies, which are playing a leading role in the promotion of economic reform through trade and investment. This is not a question of charity, but of the business sector making a rational decision to target markets with growing potential. Overlapping activities forming part of Community programmes in such fields as science and research, energy and the environment and transport and telecommunications will pave the way for closer cooperation and the transfer of know-how. At the same time we want to push for closer political ties by setting up what I would call a European Political Area. In this way our Central and Eastern European associates will gradually become more closely involved in the debate within the Community institutions on issues of common interest. The Commission will also be making proposals along these lines. As part of this process, our partners will continually be on their mettle to demonstrate their ongoing commitment to the principles of democracy and the rule of law, as enshrined in the Helsinki Process and the Charter of Paris. This means that if we are to build a lasting and fruitful relationship with the countries concerned, certain conditions as regards the rule of law, protection of human rights and the holding of free and fair elections will have to be met. These conditions entitle the European Parliament, the Member States and non-governmental organizations to send observers to monitor elections and if necessary to ask difficult questions. Over the next few years the Commission will use all the instruments at its disposal, including the PHARE programme, to promote and support these goals. Common foreign and security policy I was delighted to take up my post in Brussels as Commissioner responsible for external political relations at a time when the Community is developing the means to build a common foreign and security policy, as one of the main objectives of the Maastricht Treaty. When this Treaty has been ratified, the European Union will provide us with the means to play a more coherent, consistent and therefore more convincing role in promoting our external interests and helping build stability, first and foremost in Europe, but also elsewhere. The goals of the common foreign and security policy are as follows: - consolidation of democracy and respect for human rights; - promotion of regional stability and integration; - conflict prevention and management; - greater coordination in emergencies; - improved cooperation to prevent the proliferation of weapons, and the spread of terrorism and illegal drugs trafficking. On the security front, the Lisbon European Council identified a number of areas suitable for joint action: disarmament and arms control; non- proliferation of nuclear weapons; monitoring arms and military technology exports; and CSCE position-taking. In addition we are gradually working towards a common defence policy within the framework of the Western European Union and NATO. In short, Political Union's aspirations are far-reaching, and will demand leadership, a large measure of political will - not to say political courage - and self-sacrifice. In times of recession and instability, such as the present, there are great pressures to "renationalize" policy. Even in our own countries, nationalism and xenophobia, even racism, are making a reappearance. I am deeply convinced that these problems, posing a serious ideological and physical threat to so many in Europe, can only be combated by working together as a Union. I can understand that some are sceptical about our ability to overcome such problems, particularly in relation to the Community's position vis- à-vis the former Yugoslavia. There is a wide gap between our ambitious goals and the effectiveness of the resources which the Member States have so far made available to achieve the goals set via joint action. The Community has certainly made great political, diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. It supplies half of all humanitarian aid, and is responsible for 70% of the flights into Sarajevo. We have sent monitoring missions, and Lord Carrington, Lord Owen and Mr Vance have negotiated ceaselessly with the various parties. We have sheltered thousands of refugees and we gave the lead in setting up an international tribunal. But if political and diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions cannot end the aggression and atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, military intervention may also be necessary. That is why, last year, it was first decided to station a UN peacekeeping force in Croatia, and then to give military protection to the humanitarian aid convoys in Bosnia, and ships were sent to enforce the trade embargo against Serbia and Montenegro. But this could not and cannot stop the unbounded human suffering. Our image of Yugoslavia is still dominated by plunder, rape, ethnic cleansing and concentration camps. We cannot plead ignorance. We have now entered a crucial phase. If no breakthrough is achieved on the basis of the Vance-Owen plan, the crisis will intensify. If an agreement is indeed reached, it may have to be upheld by force. In both scenarios, Europe will face painful choices as to its military involvement. We cannot act rashly. We will have to weigh not only the humanitarian considerations but, just as importantly, the broader implications for security and stability. Toleration of violent border changes and ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia are spreading an ominous shadow before them, even across other parts of our continent, where violence threatens to become the unpunished hallmark of extreme nationalist aspirations. So Europe faces painful choices, both from a political and from a humanitarian perspective. In this connection, I welcome President Bill Clinton's commitment to making a practical humanitarian and military contribution, and Russia's cooperation should also be mentioned. I believe that at this stage only a united front by the US, the Community and Russia offers a chance of - if necessary - forcing the parties to the conflict to make peace. The transatlantic dimension Close transatlantic ties are needed to provide stability and continuity in a fast changing world. Closer cooperation on defence in Europe and a strong Alliance go hand in hand. A more coherent European security and defence identity will ultimately provide the European pillar of the Alliance which we have so far sought in vain to construct. Such new ties will come about through close cooperation between the Community and the US. The Community and the US bear a heavy responsibility for solving crises and contributing to world peace, as befits their political and economic stature and their concern for respect for human rights and the promotion of democratic values. The Transatlantic Declaration of 1990 forms a good basis for this. GATT This brings me to one of my final questions, namely: What can we do to achieve an open international economy as one of the foundations of our economic security, and to expand it? With so many changes in the world and the course of events so unpredictable, this is not the time to lose our way in sectoral disputes which could undermine the GATT talks and jeopardize the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round. If we should do so, the world economy would split into competing trade blocs. This would be an economic disaster and a significant blow to us and to our partners in the former communist countries and the third world, who need genuine economic freedom and sustainable growth more than ever. It is all the more vital, therefore, to settle our remaining differences with the US as soon as possible. A successful Uruguay Round, so long awaited by the 108 participating countries, is the best way of helping the world economy out of recession. It would give Europe and the US an extra incentive to deepen cooperation in many areas and would provide the foundations for more stable formal relations in the future. Conclusion I have addressed only a few burning issues today: I have not touched upon the eminent importance of the single market, or EMU, or the third pillar of the Maastricht Treaty, namely cooperation on justice and home affairs. The Community is clearly at a crossroads, after 35 years of sustained integration, increasing prosperity and, let us not forget, post-war reconciliation and peace. It is vital that we hold on to these achievements. But holding on to what we have will not be enough, certainly if the Community wants to expand northwards, southwards and eastwards. The move to Economic and Monetary Union is badly needed if we are to be a pool of stability and prosperity, not only for ourselves but for others. I am confident that this view will be shared in the UK and Denmark. In Belgium - and in Antwerp - I am, I think, preaching to the converted. In this, as in many other matters, the Community has nothing to fear, but a great deal to expect, from the forthcoming Belgian Presidency. * * *
