We Will Never Have a Single European Nation
	Q&A with Romano Prodi President of the European Commission
	By JAMES GRAFF

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2003; 14.29BST
TIME's James Graff spoke to Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, about Europe's future development.

For many Europeans, 16 months of the Convention has seemed like a spat between the various Brussels institutions. Why should Europeans care, for instance, if the relative power of the Commission is weakened? They shouldn't. The Americans don't know about the technicalities of the Congress, either. I've never seen a constitutional debate where the population cares about technical aspects. But how interested is the European population when it realises the debate is about unanimous voting — which means paralysis — or majority voting. In the coming months, the European Commission will push onto further restrict the unanimity rule.

But didn't the nature of the debate further the old idea of the EU's democratic deficit? This idea is unacceptable. I've been proposed by 15 member state governments, which were democratically elected. I've been approved by the European Parliament, voted in by the European population. Don't confuse democracy with direct election; that may be the most impressive form of democracy, but it's not the only one. That will be impossible in Europe for a while because of the many languages; we'd need a campaign that everyone understands. Europe is a union of peoples and nations. What I'm trying to do is demonstrate to our american friends that Europe is different. It's not better or worse, just completely different.

Is America's overwhelming power a big factor in Europe's drive for integration? It's too soon to give you an answer. American policy has always helped the European Union until now; it's a new event, this sense of malaise or distance. We had controversy before, but that was normal. Also in the most delicate moment, when we built the euro, many American observers were very skeptical. I could quote a couple of Nobel prize winners who said it was scientifically impossible. But the U.S. administration supported us. They could have ruined the euro with one message, one well targeted speculation towards some weak country — I was prime minister of Italy at the time and I know. But they didn't do it. Now we have an unfortunate deviation from history, but I think our interests are still for common action. I'm going to Washington with concrete proposals to improve relations with the United States.

America fears that a common European policy will go in the direction of France's position, not of Britain's. Well, if you try to split Europe, the answer has to be chauvinistic. I think [America's approach] is a mistake. We share the same roots, the same interests, and we put should aside prejudice and understand that friendship must be accompanied by dignity. It's difficult now at a moment of American history where America was hit by tragedy of september 11 and also think they can be self-sufficient, but the new world will push us to a new agreement. It starts with NATO: the U.S. has an interest in having a united European army as the European pillar of NATO alongside the American pillar.

What do you think of Chirac's idea of Europe being a counterpole to the United States? We have to accept that right now U.S. military power is unbelievably superior to anything in the world. It's correct that U.S. accept that we are a huge economic entity, that we've created the euro, something no one else has ever done, Of course there are different opinions on basic problems — the Kyoto accord, the international criminal court, the role of the UN. But how much these differences reflect the present policy of this administration or are total changes in American history, well, we'll see. It's clear that trying to divide Europe on these issues only deepens the malaise. In the Iraqi war, was the most important push for before Iraq, nobody pushed me for a common foreign policy. Europeans simply didn't care. After the Iraqi war, people from right and left have said we need a common foreign policy, you have no opposition to something like sending troops to the Congo. This was done in one moment, and it's starting to become an army. I was surprised that nobody objected to that.

What are the specific European values that are different from the Americans? One that's difficult to delineate: certainly about solidarity and the quality of protection of the citizen, through public health systems, what we used to call the welfare state. Second, in Europe we believe in a market economy, but with some corrections that are not usual in American daily life. Protection is a word we love more in Europe than in the United States.

Why is such a bad idea to limit the Commission? I don't think the size is the big issue. In this historical moment, you need to have a link between all the countries and the Commission. This is a political problem, If we are to build Europe, each country has to have a person in the Commission, a visible symbol. When Giscard asked me how big the ideal commission would be, I answered 'one person: me.' It's clear that with 15 members it may be easier to manage the Commission, but the direct political representation is necessary. We will defend this policy strongly during the work of the intergovernmental conference.

You've been very disappointed in the Convention's proposed constitution. I expressed my great disappointment, and that got an enormous result. Now I have mixed feelings — you always do when you come to a compromise. But the main thing is that democracy is not a veto right! This is the main fault of this proposal. I'm in favor of abolishing in due time the veto right completely, except for things like accepting a new member. But I don't ask to do it immediately. Another goal in my mind, that I was typically too shy to put on the table a year ago: one day the president of the Commission and president of the Council will be the same person. That's a clear sign that I'm not just defending the Commission. In the end we'll arrive at a single European president.

Will that happen in 10 years, or 20? More 20 than 10; just like the European army. In Europe, everything is done through democratic process: so long, so long, so long?

In turning down Giscard's proposal to debate him in Stuttgart, you've characterized public debate as "simplifying and polarizing."? Isn't that better than what we've had? I didn't want a public debate as a theatrical event, but a serious discussion in front of the Convention. But he didn't accept that.

1 | 2 | Next

	Eu'ro'pho'bia [Jun. 9, 2003 ] n A strong fear, found chiefly among the British, that giving more power to The European Union spells doom New Europe, Old Economy [Jun. 2, 2003 ] Poland is America's new best friend. But the country is also in deep distress The Plan That Fell To Earth [May 5, 2003] Giscard unfurls a new E.U. blueprint, and the smaller states see red A Week in Hell [Mar. 24, 2003] At the precipice of war, facing mutiny at home, Tony Blair stays cool Search all issues of TIME Magazine