Q & A: Former President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso

Former President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso joined the faculty of the Wilson School on Feb. 1. The Daily Princetonian had the opportunity to talk to him about his career and thoughts on European policy.

The Daily Princetonian: In a reflection on your 10 years at the helm of the European Commission, at the Chatham House in October, you stated, “Had Greece left the euro, the economic and financial damage would have spilled over throughout the single market. Politically, the euro and the European Union would have been shaken to their very foundations.” Could you talk a bit more about the EU handling of the eurozone debt crisis?

José Manuel Barroso: It was in fact a crisis of great magnitude because it started as a financial crisis, but it also became a sovereign debt crisis and an economic crisis, and in some countries a social and political crisis. There was a problem of confidence, so it required a great effort both from the European institutions and from the governments of our member states to respond to that crisis. But I believe that the European Union, having gone through this stress test, the biggest test since the integration process that started in the ’50s of last century, has proven its resilience. We were able to put behind the existential threat to the euro. We created complete new instruments, like the European stability mechanism. We have come forward with new regulation for the financial sector and new rules for the economic governance of the euro area, and in fact it’s also interesting to note that the way forward was always for more and not less integration, namely for the euro area.

DP: Were you met with resistance for these new, different economic developments?

JMB: There were many resistants, first of all because the positions of the different countries were not the same, and so our task in the European Commission and my own task as president of the Commission was always trying to push for what I believe is a common European interest. Let’s say that from Finland to Greece the economic perspectives are quite diverse. Sometimes even between France and Germany they are diverse. So, you can imagine that it was not easy to unite all those governments from different countries, sometimes different political backgrounds, around the current plan. But in the end, I think it has worked — not as quick and not in such, let’s say, a bold way as myself and the European Commission would have desired. But you have to understand that the European Union and the euro area are by definition complex. Just to give a figure, the year I became president of the Commission in 2004, we were 15 member states. Now, we are 28. It means that we have almost doubled membership through this crisis. Today, we have, in the euro area, we have 19 countries, so more than there were in 2004 in all the European Union. So to do all this in the middle of this enlargement was really an extremely challenging task. But I believe, as I said, that the European Union has shown that it’s capable to overcome such difficult challenges.

DP: So the euro currency will survive?

JMB: No doubt about it. The euro is one of the two strongest currencies in the world, and in the short period, it has [been] established as a credible and stable currency.

DP: You left your post amid British EU-skepticism but steady European economic recovery. Where do you think the European Union is going in the future? What is the future role of the European Union on the political world stage?

JMB: I think the European Union is going to consolidate itself, namely because of globalization. You know that the European Union started as a European community after the Second World War, basically as a means toward peace among former enemies. The original project was to achieve political goals through economic integration. Today, in the 21st century, it’s quite obvious for me that even the biggest countries of the European Union on their own do not have the leverage to deal with some global issues. They also want to engage with such important partners as the United States, the traditional ally of Europe, and also China and other major powers. And so, only together will these countries be able to protect the interests of their citizens and promote their values. This is the main reason why I am confident about the future of the European Union, even if we know that some political accidents may occur so that the configuration may be adapting itself. For instance, it’s possible that we have increased flexibility inside the European Union. For instance, there will be more integration for the euro area countries, those that share a common currency, and not so much for others that are not members of the euro.

DP: What are Europe’s greatest short-term and long-term challenges?

JMB: In the short term ... of course to consolidate the recovery. But it’s still timid, even across Europe. And we have a huge problem, which is employment, especially the employment of young people. So we need stronger levels of growth. For that, most countries have already engaged an ambitious process of structural reforms. This, I believe, is the most important challenge in the short term.Politically, I believe it is important that the mainstream political forces from the central left to the central right, those that are basically committed to the European ideals, have the courage to fight the extremists that we have been seeing sometimes recently, that appear in the political spectrum from the extreme right to the extreme left that indeed are putting some times in question, some of the achievements of these last decades. In the more longer term, of course, the European Union has other partners in the world, the challenges of keeping peace, both in Europe and outside. To fight climate change, which is an existential threat to our planet. In Europe, specifically, there are worrying demographic trends. It’s a continent that is aging on average. There are some specific concerns also with energy security and energy supply. These are challenges that the European citizens in general are aware of and for which I believe the European Union needs to be better equipped. From my point of view, it will be more successful if our member states work in a more coherent and integrated manner.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

DP: And in the Chatham speech you also mentioned that “the way that the Americans, the Chinese or the Russians look at us today is completely different.” Could you comment on this evolution of international relations and perspective under your leadership?

JMB: I was comparing the situation, for instance, in the early ’90s when I was foreign minister, and so I can make that personal comparison. It is true that today in Europe, it is very fashionable (I call it the “intellectual claimer of pessimism”) to speak about decadence or the decline of Europe, but people are forgetting one thing among others. In the ’90s, the European Union or the European community was only a very small part of Europe. We were 12 members. Now we have a truly continental nature. And so I don’t agree with those who say that Europe is declining. If you look at the history since the Second World War, look at the progress — not only no more wars in Western Europe, the longest period in history in Europe without wars in that part of the continent, but also all of the countries are now democracies. There was the wave of democratization of the south of Europe in the seventies and most recently the countries of Eastern Europe, including the Baltic, got rid of totalitarian, communist regimes. So how can people today say that Europe is worse than 20 years ago? I mean, this shows that in fact they are lacking some historic perspective. So Europe has problems, yes, and in some cases, difficult ones to deal with. But I believe that, as a union, we are stronger now than we were before, even if some countries have been losing some, let’s say, positions.

DP: What do you think are the greatest differences between the United States and EU in regard to political culture?

JMB: Oh there are many differences. Many, many differences. We need a new Tocqueville to write a great essay like the one he wrote, “De la démocratie en Amérique.” Of course, basically, we are democracies and, in fact, American democracy and the country is basically a product. I hope my American friends accept that of the European civilization. And basically, from the English and French thinkers, the Enlightenment, the Revolution, these were, let’s say, the ideas of the founding fathers of the United States, and they were very much influenced by, let’s say, European philosophers. So genetically, we are indeed very close. Having said that, the United States were and still are a country where there is this spirit of a new frontier, the big space. They are more individualistic certainly than the European Union countries where we have what we call social market economy, which presents some instant differences. There is probably more entrepreneurial spirit in America and in some cases innovation is certainly stronger here. On the other side, there are stronger mechanisms of welfare and solidarity in Europe. No regime is perfect. Basically we share the same values, namely the value of open societies and open economies, and this is very important when we see a world where we see real threats to freedom, to human dignity. There are cultural differences that are explained by historical developments, European nations, most of them being very old nation states and the Unites States being a relatively young country. But I believe, if you look at the evolution of the world globally, the commonalities are stronger than some differences.

DP: What advice would you give to students seeking to pursue careers in diplomacy?

JMB: Basic advice is to study. To work. You can get nothing in life if you don’t work. But specifically, for those interested in diplomacy and international relations I would give probably three [pieces of advice]. One is to travel. It’s great. Look — it’s great. This generation also has the possibility of traveling all over the world, which the previous generations did not. Not only for financial reasons sometimes, but because there were not the means of transportation that today we have. Second, I would say learn foreign languages. It’s great that we have English as a lingua franca today in the world, for people can communicate in a common language. But to really know and understand what is going on in other parts of the world, we need to learn other languages, so I would advise those who are interested in foreign policy or in diplomacy at least to know well two other languages apart from their mother tongue. I know it’s an effort, but it’s rewarding. Third, enlarge your horizons, from a cultural point of view. I think today it’s more and more important, the broad cultural view than the over-specialized studies in a topic. Why? The world is changing really fast and what we need is not always information. Often what we need is exactly the capacity to delete the information we don’t need. You see? So knowledge of the process by which we eliminate useless information and that comes with critical thinking. That’s why, for instance, I advise students to reserve some time for literature and philosophy, seeing good films. By the way, there are excellent European films; I know that probably they are not as easy as most Hollywood ones, but I think it’s important. So, my strong advice is to enlarge the cultural horizons, embracing disciplines out of your main field of study, namely the arts, literature, humanities. I think this is important so that we have people with the capacity to adapt to different circumstances. Because the only certain thing is uncertainty. I could end my answer with a quote from U2. There is a song in their album, I think called “Zooropa:” it goes, “Don’t worry baby, it’s gonna be alright, uncertainty can be a guiding light.”