In short:

Dalia Grybauskaité, Lithuania's future Commissioner, "wants a piece of the trouble". All set to apply her outspoken and energetic style to take tough decisions and push through necessary reforms, she speaks to EurActiv about budgetary priorities, structural reforms and Lithuanian champagne.

 

 

Do you know what will be the portfolio you are going to have?

For the first six months, I will not have a real one, but merely be assigned to a portfolio. For the future, it will be more difficult. Of course, the final decision will be made by the President of the Commissison, but I have already expressed some priorities, which are based on my background, my experience, and, of course, my interests. This also has to do with where I see the most troubling issues in the Commission's job and the EU's future goals. Here I have two issues which I think need to be tackled very soon and very seriously. The first one is the budget, financial controls and OLAF. Not because I am Finance Minister, but also because of the discussions we see today about Member States' contributions - 1.0 per cent, 1.27 or maybe higher? This discussion expresses serious troubles in the budget and the way in which financial resources are used in the EU, the priorities of the budget, and the efficiency of expenditures. Here I think that it is more urgent to discuss a reform of the budget structure, and the expenditure structure, before deciding on 1.0 or 1,27 per cent. If in the future we continue with the same proportions giving only one sector, agriculture, half of the budget, the EU will not be able to tackle it's needs at all, no matter how much we will put into the budget.

So you would be arguing for a reform of the CAP?

I think not only CAP, but I think we need to be very serious with enlargement, the EU-25 and the needs we will face, to think about structure and reforms of the budget very soon. If we want the EU to be competitive and go ahead with the Lisbon process, which is stuck today, the budget on the table today is not serving these goals. I think this is the most serious and challenging package.

The second issue is financial control. The troubles occuring in the last Commission and this Commission show that not everything is OK with the financial controls. OLAF was created in 2000, and very good, this was the proper thing to do, but the control is still not doing the job we expected from it. So I think the budget and financial control are serious issues, trouble makers. And this is why they are interesting for me.

The second trouble maker is the second package that I prioritised: it will be economic and financial policies, and the Stability Pact. This is also a trouble maker today, which we fell in all together - the Commission and the Member States.

So you want Schreyer or Solbes, in other words?

I mean, I know that I will not have these portfolios independently, but a piece of the trouble I want. From one package or another. I am coming here to work, not to sit on holidays, so that's why I want troubling pieces. These are my priorities.

You seem quite impatient..

Yes!

... are you sure you are coming to the right place? The Commission is usually quite slow..

You are right. I have been warned that not everything is done fast here. But I have worked with the Commission already in 1994-95, when I was negotiator from another side [as Minister at the Lithuanian Mission to the EU]. Of course I understand your message. But I think most of us newcomers will be impatient, because we have been under pressure to implement fast reforms over 15 years, so we can't wait to see the results. Of course I imagine that with the bureaucratic machine which is slow, it will not be easy, but at least we have the wish to do something. That's not bad for the beginning.

So for the first six months, what would you like to achieve, and what are your expectations?

It will be very strange. The first three months will be to learn the job, integrate into the new position and so on, and try to participate, let's say, if it will be on the budget package, in discussions of the Agenda 2007 and the new budget perspective, if it will be on the stability pact, it will be with troubles. But after three months we will practically have the name of the new President. Then there will of course be the negotiations for the real and serious portfolios from November, and the preparations for that portfolio will start. So you see that six months will be pass very fast, especially if you consider that August is a holiday in the Commission. But party, it's ok that we will have some time to look around, not only to understand and to learn, but also to show what we want and what we are able to do. From this point of view, I think it's also a good occasion for those people from the new Member States with no experience of working in a huge bureaucratic machine to get used to that in five months. This is why I do not have, and I do not want to have, huge ambitions for these first five months. I want to make intelligent research for myself, and also to show myself to the people who would like to see what I can do. From this point of view, I hope that this time will be very useful.

There has been talk about rotation for Commissioners...

Not yet. I am also meeting with Mr Kinnock today, and I will be asking him how he sees that, but I do not think that a final decision has been made by the Commission authorities how it will work. But personally, I don't think that they will be able to do that, because as I said, in three months we will have the new name, and there will be no time for serious rotation.

So you think you will rather be working with one Commissioner?

I think so. Also, there will be new rules for decision making processes, which as under discussion now. With 25 members in the cabinet, how to group people, how to take written and oral decisions, on what issues, so that not all 25 have to meet each week in cabinet etc. Our participation will also now be under preparation, and we are already jumping in, nobody will do that without us or behind our backs. This is also a good possibility to be involved from the beginning.

You have been dealing with the EU before as a negotiator. Can you tell us what has been your most interesting and challenging experience?

Every day, every day. The discussions from the beginning of the nineties. I was involved in our first agreement, a general agreement on trade and cooperation in 1992. Then came the free trade agreement that I was heading as Chief Negotiator from the finance side, and this for us was a completely new challenge, rules of origin that we had never seen before, what that means. We were discussing about champagne which of course was not champagne, just sparkling wine. I am joking a little bit. There were a lot of things to discuss with the Community to understand how it works. So, in 1993 was the free trade agreement, then the Europe agreement in 1995. From 93 I was national aid coordinator, dealing with ISPA and PHARE funds.

From this point of view, European affairs were always very close. They pushed us very much to be fast with the reforms, to adopt a lot of acquis, to harmonise a lot of laws, to introduce a lot of laws into our economy and society. So that was a very, I would say, productive pressure of the relations with the EU all these 15 years.

One one hand, there is of course the legal integration, but then there is also the 'real life' integration. How have the Lithuanian people, and the administrators in your country been actually consuming these reforms?

You know, a lot of obligations were included in the treaties, and the first one was in 1992, then one in 1994, and in 1995, and now the membership. So we had partically four serious treaties, and all of them contained a lot of obligations, including administrative capacities, a lot of acquis, a lot of laws. When we started membership negotiations in 2000, two thirds of the acquis had already been introduced by the provious agreements. So the last 10-12 years have practically been under the pressure of relations with the EU. This is why the reforms were quite softly taken and absorbed by the economy, and also mentally by the society.

Looking at the Lithuanian people - what do you feel are the most important things the people need to learn and understand about the EU?

We are very monogamic, compared to other nations, not so cosmopolitic. There is a difficult history of surviving and fighting for survival, which makes us tough, and, at the same time, quite a closed society. So the first thing we need to do is open up, to understand subsidiarity, that not only our interest comes first, but also the European interest needs to prevail. We go into a club and also need to think about the club interests, and the interests of the European people, not only ourselves. So I think all these things need to be learned, which will be a background for better and closer cooperation on the social and economic front. Economically, this is further advanced, as we have already accepted a lot of acquis, so this will work. But socially and mentally, I will like to see that people open up to the European Union, and accept the new challenges more openly and friendly.

Are there any aspects that you have identified as especially difficult for the Lithuanians?

Well, at least now we have very good polls for EU membership, but we also expect some kind of cyclical attitude in the way that we have seen it everywhere. Of course there is a lot of hope now that everything will change very fast, and that will of course not the case. As the government, we expect that there could be some kind of backlash, that everybody might say, look, you've promised, but it's not going so well nor so fast, and there is such a big bureaucratic machine and so much regulation, and we don't like that. Of course that can occur. But it's normal, and all countries, especially new members, have gone through that. What will be difficult is that improvements and results will not come as soon as people expect. This I think is the biggest challenge for everybody, for the people to accept, and for the government to tackle.

You will be a Lithuanian national, but also a Commissioner. Your role as a Commissioner is to take care of the general interest. How do you think this will work for you?

Personally, I think that for me that will not be very difficult, because I present a very special phenomena. I am a minister, but I am not a member of a any political party. So I have been understanding my job in the way that I would always put my country's interest first, without a politically engaged interst. I was treated as a neutral, 'state' finance minister. That will also help me with my new job. I understand that I will swear and oath on the European Constitution in the European Parliament, and the code of conduct says that a Commissioner works for European interests, not national ones. I think my experience of being neutral will help me to manage the interests between European needs, and the possibility of helping my country.

That leads onto my next question. What do you think will be the most important tasks for the next Commission in the next five years?

First I very much hope that the new constitution will be close to be finalised this year, but if not, it would be one of the first jobs for the next Commission to help push through. Also, the Stability Pact needs to be revised. Without that, we see that the conflicts between governments and the European Commission are very harsh and not giving any resolvement nor improvement in the relations. We also need to revise or have some new input into the Lisbon agenda, which is not working, but the ideas behind it are good ones, and they need to be implemented.

And the structural reforms. Europeans are already talking about that, but there are no real reforms anyone. We are discussing the stability problems of some countries. I don't want to name any names, but some of them are merely paying lip service. These will be the most important challenges for the EU-25. If we do not revise the budget, the stability pact, and decision making processes, I believe what a previous Commission president [Jacques Delors] said: we will not be speaking about Europe anymore. I agree fully with him.

You seem to be saying that as the new countries joining the EU have been through such a vigorous reform process, you will want to push for reforms in the EU as well.

I think it will be absolutely unavoidable, because we are not afraid to do that. We have already been through that process. Mentally, we are prepared for that. And we see that if this does not happen in Europe now, we will go down together. 25 is a reminder that 15 was too late and sleepy, waiting for troubles.

The EPP group in the European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling upon all groups not to admit former communists to their ranks. What is your view on that?

I did not read this resolution nor did I follow this debate very closely, but often, extreme views like this are geared towards upcoming elections. They do usually point to troubles inside the coutries. My government has decided not to react to that, as it seems to reflect the own personal needs to be re-elected rather than real politics. But the EPP's views were not nice to hear, of course. I think these extremes are based on troubling situations of each country they represent, especially in economic affairs. We are facing new elections in June this year, and usually, a bad economic situation creates a lot of tensions in political attitudes and extremelises political agendas. So I think this is not objective, but the signals are dangerous. They do not say that we are moving towards a better and united Europe, but on the contrary, they show that they will be troubles and that we will not take care seriously about economic affairs, but also political troubles. In my country, we sometimes have similar reactions, especially in pre-election times, when political groups say things that are never fulfilled after they come to office. So we try to see this as a electoral game, not as a serious issue.

On the budget discussion, the proposition of six countries to fix the budget at 1.0 per cent - how realistic do you think this is?

Today, I think this is not realistic. Why? If the budget will no be reformed and we cut it down to 1 per cent, we will be in trouble, because with 25, we will not be able to resolve the problems of growth, competitiveness and knowledge economy of the EU. We will again only put money into CAP. Is this a priority of the EU? Agriculture? This budget structure as we have it now is 100 years old. 100 years ago we were able to say: "Yes, agriculture is the main priority of the economy." But today, it's a shame.

So what should be the priorities of the next budget?

Practically the priorities that have been laid down at Lisbon. They must be reflected. If we want Lisbon to be fulfilled, let's do it financially. Without financial background, no goal will be implemented. The question of 1.0 or 1.2 is not so important. What is important is how we spend it. And if we spend it efficiently, it does not matter, maybe we will only need 0.8. But now, if nothing changes, of course it's important to point out that 1.0 is not enough.

You realise of course that it is not an accident that the CAP spending has been fixed at the level it is, but it's because of a compromise struck between France and Germany. Do you think that could be changed?

I don't want to speculate. It is a pity, and it happens in my country as well, that sometimes politisations of economic and pragmatic processes take over too much, and then, only political compromises are presented without economic meaning.

Another big debate in the past was the split between current and new Member States over the war in Iraq. Do you think the EU will be able to forge a really common foreign policy over the next five years?

I think it is necessary, but we don't have that yet. It is necessary for Europe to avoid such kinds of splits, and to have something generally united. The proposal of the Convention was close to it, but we still have rejections of the new constitution. This is a necessity, just as much as a new constitution for the decision-making processes. Nice practically liberalised decision-making. We got the opposite effect of the one of the Rome Treaty.

So your country would go along with the qualified majority voting in foreign policy?

Yes, Lithuania yes. In everything, we will be for qualified majority voting. We want a constitution as soon as possible, because we understand that without a new constitution and decision-making processes, Europe will be stuck and no reforms will be implemented.

You you have taken on the spirit of compromise?

Yes, we think compromise today is more necessary than countries' ambitions to win one point or another of the discussion.

Mrs Grybauskaité, thank you very much for this interview.