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