On 5 October 2006, the European Academy, Forum Carolus, the Rhine-Volga Association and la Lettre Sentinel held a seminar at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg to examine the instruments necessary for Europe’s independence. In recent years there has been an increase in those taking a stand for Europe as a power that counts. This has been most forcefully addressed in France and, in a more general way, by the Union’s six founder members, whether from the left or the right. The debate on the big questions that concern the future of Europe, which can be summed up as being either Europe as a power or Europe as a market, transcend the traditional, major political divides. However, the ideas of Europe as a power have not been followed up by studies on the means of developing a Europe that is capable of mastering the technologies of sovereignty. The aids or tools needed by an independent Europe, or the operational means of making Europe a true power, were the subject of this seminar. To those who are still put off by the term power, Hajnalka Vincze, a Hungarian specialist on questions of European defence and security, and previously an adviser at the Hungarian Ministry of Defence, as well as a contributor to la Lettre Sentinel, brought out several important facts, suggesting that ‘rejection of power leads to impotence, and rejection of independence leads to dependence’. Perhaps inspired by the recent history of her own country, she also stated that ‘power and independence are essential for a true democracy’, since ‘it is the autonomy of the State in both decision-making and action that gives meaning to the citizens’ votes, by offering them the possibility of real choice, and through that, control of their own destiny.’ The seminar’s four principal workshops were devoted to: (1) the demands of a sovereign Europe; (2) Europe’s defence technological and industrial base; (3) a European-Russian energy partnership; and lastly (4) the possibility of financing Europe’s major projects through a European Savings Account, a subject on which the European Academy has been working for several years with the advice of financial experts.

In his introduction, Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, President of the European Academy and principal organiser of the seminar with Forum Carolus, outlined the problem: ‘Since the failure of the draft European constitution, it has become customary to say that Europe has broken down. However, we must be careful in what we read into this setback. As we saw at the time of the Iraq crisis, Europeans, including those from the new member countries, are massively in favour of an independent Europe, stamping its individuality on the international scene. They want Europe to have its rightful place in history and to influence global events. Therefore we have the feeling that the rejection of the European constitution showed above all that there was little interest in a Europe reduced simply to a large economic market, and what is more, lacking direction in the absence of European preferences for major, strategic purchases. While acknowledging the ambitions of China, India and the United States, we are convinced that the European Union must seek power and influence with determination and that, in displaying this intent, Europe will regain the support of Europeans.’ Henri de Grossouvre, the Director of Forum Carolus, the Strasbourg-based European think tank, further underlined the specifics of Strasbourg’s European role, pointing out that the city was one of the natural capitals of the Union. ‘But Strasbourg also houses institutions such as the Council of Europe and the Assembly of European Regions, which play host to the countries of the wider Continent, from Central Europe to Russia.’ Strasbourg’s specific, European role is thus, continental, democratic and above all political, and thus was absolutely central to the thoughts of the participants attending the seminar on 5 December, who found themselves in that city. His Excellency Alexander Orlov, Permanent Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe, regretted the fact that relations between Russia and the rest of Europe had been marked by a succession of wasted meetings: ‘Since 6 July 1989, when Mikhail Gorbachev, here at the Council of Europe, launched the idea of building a “common European home”, little progress has been made.’ Without understating the complexity of the reasons for the persistent distrust between the countries of the European Union, he believed that the fundamental reason was ‘a lack of political ambition on the part of the Europeans’. Arguing for a ‘variable-geometry Europe’, a Europe that looks a bit like Russian nesting dolls, he nevertheless expressed the wish that, through the interplay of conventions, Russia and the European Union could form ‘a major power base, capable of defending our common civilisation’. He further stated that this Continental alliance’s vocation was ‘not to battle with enemies, but to meet challenges’.

The President of the Assembly of the Western European Union, Jean-Pierre Masseret, also stressed that ‘Europe’s task is to be one of the political players in tomorrow’s world’. M. Masseret, who is also Socialist President of the Lorraine Regional Council, believed that the failure of the European constitution was due to its lack of a political dimension: ‘Europe as a political entity was not in the constitutional treaty. It dealt with the institutionalisation of a Europe of merchants. We were sold something which didn’t exist’. Nor, however, was he unaware of the problems posed by the idea of an independent Europe. He mentioned that the project needed to answer a number of questions: Europe–independent of what and of whom? In order to defend what? And with what partners? He therefore suggested that this European debate should be launched, and even proposed that it could lead to a new body, which could take over from the Assembly of the Western European Union. Bringing together the European and national parliaments, this forum would allow the development of a common strategic vision. He stated with great conviction that, for him: ‘Europe must not be like a little child who is led by the hand of America: firstly, because as the Iraq affair has demonstrated, we do not necessarily have the same interests as the United States, and secondly because the day may come when the Americans want to let go of our hand.’