Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-07-Speech-4-146"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101007.21.4-146"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr de Maizière, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, Excellencies, Members of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, barely a year elapsed between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany.
This raised many questions, it should be said, within the European Community in light of this radically shifting political landscape. However, the European Community could ultimately only approve and support reunification of the two Germanies, which it did at the European Council meeting held on 24 April 1990 in Dublin. In acting in this way, and in taking note of the assurances given with regard to the lasting and fair nature of the arrangements made in the ’Two-plus-Four’ Process, the Community remained true to the values for which it stands: peace, mutual understanding between peoples, and solidarity, especially with all Germans in the East and in the West. Moreover, I cannot help but think that throughout the dark years, the Community’s very existence, and not just its material prosperity, always stood as a reference point and a beacon for the peoples living under the communist yoke.
Indeed, let me just remind you: the Community was moving in concert with these events. As early as July 1989 – as Mr Dumas will remember, as he was one of the people involved – even before the fall of the Wall, the Commission had persuaded the G7 to adopt a plan to help the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The spirit of openness and a favourable predisposition towards enlargement had already been formally confirmed. Nevertheless, after the fall of the Wall, the German question, it has to be said, was a major concern. What path would reunited Germany choose?
On 19 November 1989, on the initiative of Mr Mitterrand, an extraordinary European Council met to pave the way for regular consultations between the two Germanies and their partners. A long presentation by Chancellor Kohl summed up the situation which, of course, was still necessarily in flux. History had begun on its accelerated course.
The European Parliament was also very active and attentive during this time. Its debates reflected the questions being asked about the future of Germany and the risk, feared by many MEPs, of a slowdown in the European integration process, after the boost given by the Single European Act of 1987. On 28 November 1989, Parliament adopted a very important resolution affirming, and I quote: ‘All European peoples, including the Polish people, have, in accordance with the Helsinki Final Act, the right to live within secure borders as currently defined.’ In this way, the European Parliament referred to one of the most difficult debates, which was resolved by maintaining the Oder-Neisse border.
On 17 January 1990, I stood before the European Parliament as President of the European Commission and stated that, and I quote: ‘East Germany is a separate case. It belongs within the Community, if that is what it wants.’ This prospect led your Parliament to set up a temporary commission to study the impact of the German reunification process on the European Community. That commission, which was composed, I must stress, of highly experienced individuals including several ministers for foreign affairs, effectively dispelled doubts about the integration of the East German
and paved the way for it. This is a useful reminder for sceptics of all persuasions that, thanks to the European Parliament, the concept of a pluralist and living democracy is not a vain hope but a reality. The commission demonstrated it on that occasion.
All things considered, we should not underestimate the achievements and influence of European integration, regardless of the obstacles standing in its way. Of course, I will not attempt to single out the most important facts and ideas that were able to influence this great liberation movement.
Undoubtedly what comes first is the people’s ability to stand up to oppression, to express their thirst for freedom, and to quietly display their courage. However, it would be remiss of me not to recall the appeals made by John Paul II, and particularly his call made to the Polish people at a critical juncture: ‘Have no fear!’ Nor can I forget West Germany’s firm but open and generous policy towards the GDR during the years leading up to the fall of the Wall.
Freedom triumphed, but with freedom come obligations. The treaty on the reunification of Germany presented two challenges. The first was for the people of West and East Germany to understand each other. This was met with great presence of mind, understanding and generosity. The second was economic and social, and equally difficult to meet. It required a tremendous effort in the form of massive annual transfers, from the West to the East, of resources amounting to 4-5% of West Germany’s national product, or, ladies and gentlemen, EUR 1 400 billion over 20 years. This is without mentioning the other contributions in the form of technical assistance, which was required to restructure the East German economy.
A single figure illustrates the scale of this achievement: over a twenty-year period, per capita income in the GDR went from 40% to 73% of the West Germans’ income. The effort will continue over the years to come thanks to the ongoing payment of the solidarity tax – if I am not mistaken, it will continue until 2019. The Germans themselves agree to this. Work still needs to be done to change mindsets as much as economic and social structures.
During the whole of 1989, the peoples of Europe expressed themselves: in Poland, the events that had begun with the Gdańsk strikes in the summer of 1980 led to the Belvedere Agreements between February and April 1989, followed by the first free elections on 4 June 1989; in Czechoslovakia, the people commemorated Jan Palach’s sacrifice by fire; in Hungary, they marked the solemn funeral of Imre Nagy, at last rehabilitated; in Bulgaria, President Zhivkov was forced to stand down; and, of course, in East Germany, increasing numbers of people took part in peaceful demonstrations. The people’s demands were gaining strength and, on 2 May 1989, the opening of the border between Hungary and Austria enabled some East Germans to cross over to the West.
For its part, the European Community contributed by extending economic and social cohesion policy, which MEPs know well, to the Eastern
. While the sums pledged were not on a par with the efforts made by the Germans, the European contributions clearly indicated East Germany’s status as a fully fledged participant in the European adventure, the increased human and technical exchanges and the regular dialogue between the European Commission and the leaders of the new
. It had been my wish for the Community to do more, but the German leadership, worried about how its partners would react, asked me not to take the Structural Fund effort any further.
Ladies and gentlemen, 20 years later, at a time when, the financial crisis aside, many people are questioning European integration, the 27 Member States are faced with an historic responsibility: to deepen European integration, or to live day to day as a result of compromises that may well be necessary but that do not bode well for the future.
Today, as we joyfully celebrate German reunification, how can we fail to ask Germany what future it sees for Europe? Reunified Germany is the economic powerhouse of the 27 countries that make up the Union. To cite just one figure, Germany produces 25% of the total GDP of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). I refer to the EMU because, whether we like it or not, it is the strongest link between the European nations that share the same currency, with the rights, but also the obligations, that this entails. Many people in Europe perhaps tend to forget this.
In geopolitical terms, Germany is today poised between the European Union and the rest of the large European continent. This is a strong and, in many ways, attractive position, which raises many questions both within and outside of Germany. The Germans themselves agree with this view, as the White Paper on security in Germany clearly shows. I quote: ‘An important role in the future shaping of Europe, and beyond, falls to united Germany because of its size, population figures, economic power and geographical location at the heart of the continent.’
We are therefore no longer in the pre-1989 period, when Germany showed restraint and tact, for reasons that everybody could understand and even be thankful for. This very restraint caused successive German governments to take the lead in European integration, especially when it came to abandoning the mighty Deutschmark – and I say the mighty Deutschmark because it is 10 Marks and is the symbol of Germany’s rebirth – in exchange for the euro, for the single currency.
These remarks, far from being nostalgic, are an appeal by one of Europe’s activists, and are directed not only at Germany, whose reunification we are celebrating, but at all the Member States. Are the values handed down to us by the founding fathers of Europe still meaningful? Do they still prevail? The legacy we have been given has more to do with why we want to live alongside one another than with the treaties, which are merely necessary institutional agreements.
However, I would not wish to end on this slightly pessimistic note, with this question mark hanging over matters. No, emphatically not. What I retain in my memory and in my heart is that night of 3 October, when the President of the European Parliament, Mr Barón Crespo, and I had the pleasure and honour of being invited to that memorable evening gathering in the former Reichstag. The leaders of West and East Germany enthusiastically came together in an atmosphere marked by solemnity and joy. All Europeans would have shared that deep emotion.
After the ceremony I wanted to experience what a nation was feeling by going out on to the streets of Berlin. There, too, I saw only solemnity and joy; there was no fanfare or ostentatious demonstrations. It was a quiet night that everyone was savouring by reflecting on the separations of the past, on the anguish of families torn apart by an arbitrary act of history; a quiet night during which I thought of our Europe, freed from hatred and conflict, a Europe that I wanted to be at the same time united, strong and generous.
We therefore witnessed a moment in time when history accelerated, and we must admit that it took us all by surprise. Some of us knew intuitively that there were growing imbalances in the communist countries, but no one could have known that the lid would blow off so fast. 1989 was a year of profound change in many parts of the world, with, as I recall, the fall of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile and the Tiananmen uprising in China.
You will surely agree that so much remains to be done to consolidate our achievements and progress into the future.
To come back to Europe, the events of 1989 could, at any moment, have triggered brutal repression or resulted in bloody conflict, leading to a period of prolonged instability and threats to peace. This did not happen. This is the second lesson, after the one learned from the popular uprising. We, who have lived through these events, must bear witness to them.
Indeed, new generations must be taught about the events of that period, since they did not experience them first-hand. Today, they live in prosperity and peace, while seeing the tensions and revolts that are shaking the world from afar. Therefore, the only images of violence and hatred they see are through the prism of the media. Yet they must store in their memories the all-important fact that it was thanks to the wisdom of a number of world leaders in the years 1989 and 1990 that Europeans were able to live through a transition that was admittedly emotional, but free of any significant bloodshed and dangerous contamination.
I will not name all those leaders – Mr de Maizière has already done so – whose calm under pressure and whose wisdom I have just lauded, for fear of forgetting someone, offending sensibilities, or being misunderstood. Some of them, I should add, have unfortunately suffered the ingratitude of their peoples and their successors. History, I am sure, will correct these errors and omissions and will shine the light of truth on these events.
However, let us return for a moment to the shock of the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989. Even before politicians and diplomats had time to catch their breath, the European Community had to respond, if only in terms of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome to which Mr de Maizière has referred. On 11 November, having convened an urgent meeting of the members of the European Commission, I was interviewed on German television and I asserted that the East Germans were free to choose, and that there was a place for them in the European Community. I added, and I quote: ‘We are a great community within which we shall together build our destiny to better harness history in the interest of all.’
At the time, it was not possible to say more. It was my duty to send a message of welcome and hope to our East German friends. At the same time, I tried to allay the fears and anxieties felt by many people. From that moment on, many meetings were held between leaders across the world, between the United States and the Soviet Union, between the latter and the Europeans, and between East and West Germany and the four allied powers of World War Two, the ‘Two-plus-Four’ Process. Meanwhile, progress was being made in the negotiations between the Federal Republic of Germany and representatives of the German Democratic Republic, and primarily between Mr de Maizière and Chancellor Kohl."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples