Interview: Jacques Santer

Mr. Santer, was and is there really any alternative to Europe?

Jacques Santer: I think not. I, at least, am an enthusiastic European - and not only because I am active as a politician in Europe. I already thought that way long before I ever considered going into politics.

That must have been in the 1950s. Was the general mood really so pro-European at that time? After all, the people in the founding Member States occasionally had great reservations about their European neighbours.

The vision of the EU's founding fathers, and particularly that of Robert Schumann, was above all to achieve reconciliation between France and Germany. The traditional enmity between those two countries was representative of the conflict in Europe that had led to two World Wars. The founding fathers achieved their goal by means of a highly original system - initially through the European Coal and Steel Community and then, following the period of crisis between 1954 and 1957, through the Treaty of Rome. That was highly ingenious.

Was the guiding principle at the time "peace", or was it "business"?

Peace through economic development - that was the great invention. Jean Monnet, the author of the declaration by Robert Schumann, was Secretary-General of the League of Nations after World War I. Its aim was already "no more war". Monnet experienced that that was not possible, because the states were only united in an international association. That gave rise to the idea of contractually tying states to each other more closely: the European Coal and Steel Community was the answer. Coal and steel were still dominant in the 1950s - the Ruhr was affected at the time. Developing a peace project of that kind was a real challenge.

There have been a number of crises in the EU since then, and Jean Monnet was also frequently quoted on those occasions. He is repeatedly claimed to have said that things would have to start with culture in the event of European unification being restarted.

Jean Monnet never actually said that. At that time, culture would in fact never have managed to achieve what business brought together. The countries involved in World war II, such as France, Italy and Germany, would never have come together through culture.

In the current debate, great emphasis is being put on the importance of an overriding, European cultural identity. So, to your mind, this cultural tie would not have been strong enough to get the EU under way in the early days.

Definitely not. Given the consequences of World War II, culture alone would never have succeeded in achieving that. At that time, the cultural link was too weak, although it already united us then, of course. Things are different today. It would be appropriate to incorporate culture to a greater degree - through education programmes, for example. We have the Internal Market, we have the euro, but both need a foundation. And culture is the foundation. Today, greater importance would have to be attached to culture, also in the European Constitutional Treaty.

Yes, but one thing after the other. Today, there is also much talk of the knowledge society and, in this connection, of the Lisbon Process. There, a different priority is assigned to culture and creative or cultural qualifications - very much in contrast to the coal-and-steel era. Is not the growing importance of "culture" also associated with this?

Yes, in part. We are heading into the post-industrial society. Scientific development is the main basis of this society, so culture and education play a greater role than in the past.

You just mentioned the role of culture in a future European Constitution. What role could "culture" play there?

I personally would welcome it if culture were to be shifted more into the responsibility of the European institutions. So far, this kind of move has failed due to the resistance of various Member States that insist on their cultural identity. Particularly in Germany, the Federal States very jealously guard over retaining their responsibility for culture. That is one of the problems that Germany's Federalism Commission is tackling. And if it's already difficult to reach an agreement at the national level, how much harder is it going to be in a European framework? But it goes without saying that we're not aiming for harmonisation of national cultures.

That's the political pragmatist talking. The EU isn't a state, but an entity sui generis. On the other hand, people insist that there is something like a common European culture, meaning a feeling of solidarity, a jointly created history, etc. So, beyond the contractual quarrels, is Europe a "cultural nation"?

Europe hasn't yet reached the stage of being a cultural nation. I'd prefer to say there's a European civilisation based on common values. This civilisation is borne by the cultures of the European Member States - be it French, Italian or German culture. I'm not of the opinion that this civilisation can be called Western, as some people do. That gives it an air that doesn't fit.

Jacques Santer, born in 1937, was President of the EU Commission from 1994 to 1999. Key decisions were taken during his term of office, e.g. regarding the currency union and eastern enlargement. Having received a doctorate in Law, he initially worked as a solicitor before going into politics in Luxemburg, his home country, where he held various positions. Among other things, he was Chairman of the Christian Social Party (CSV), State Secretary and Minister of Labour and Social Security, Minister of Finance, Minister for Cultural Affairs, and ultimately Prime Minister. He expressed his commitment to Europe as a Member of the European Parliament and in the EU Commission. He was also one of the members of the European Convention.