Mr. Hans-Gert Pöttering, the twenty-sixth President of the European Parliament, in office since January 2007, has stood out from the beginning for his determination, so much that in the chronicles of his political activity there are often comments about his energy and passion, constant traits of his personality.
His cutting assertions, together with his firm positions, have in some cases provoked extreme reactions. On the 5th of January 2004, in fact, at the time in which he was the leader of a parliamentary group of the European People’s Party (EPP), he became the target of an attack, together with other party representatives. A letter-bomb was delivered to his office in Brussels. Fortunately, no one was wounded. The attack has been attributed to the anarchic-insurrectionary groups based in Bologna (Italy).
Pöttering is the leader of the only European institution whose members are elected. An institution, the EU Parliament, with many powers and functions: it exercises legislative power, and its legislative branch officially holds the Union's budgetary authority; it has other powers of general supervision, mainly granted by the Maastricht Treaty; it can also exercise control over the executive; it can institute a fact-finding committee in case of infraction or inappropriate application of EU legislation. The Parliament can in fact exercise an extraordinary decisional power.
However, the European Parliament is often perceived as only relatively influential as regards international policies. This is probably due, in my view, to the fact that its functions and powers are little known. Another reason might be that many of those decisions that are taken within the institution often regard very specific sectors, reducing the extension of their echo effect. Certainly, with the election of Pöttering, a stronger influence of the European Parliament within the global scene has started to be registered.
During the years he has followed closely issues ranging from security and global defence to EU enlargement.
Peace and security appear as first in Pöttering’s political reasoning, and this becomes apparent when one analyzes his position towards Turkey’s EU membership: he affirms that the position of the European Parliament is that the country must necessarily face its own past, but he adds that he would not ask Turkey to satisfy the request for the recognition of the Armenian genocide to allow the country to become member of the EU.
As regards Kosovo, the statements of Pöttering are always meditated: he has exposed the European position on the recognition of the independence of Kosovo affirming that EU member states should first ensure that the independence of the province would strongly be linked with the security issues that it implies. Then, he has added that he thinks that in any case there should be enough room within the EU for both Serbia and Kosovo in the future.
Amongst the other international issues on the table today, I wish to mention a speech that Pöttering has delivered on the 11th of September 2007 during the ceremony for the award of the Sakharov prize to the Sudanese human rights lawyer Salih Mahmoud Osman. On that occasion he has expressed his favour for the deployment of EU troops in support of the forces of the AfricanUnion on field in Darfur.
On the 13th of December the Reform Treaty of the European Institutions has been presented: a text that introduces important innovations, aimed at overcoming the critical phase that has followed the failure of the referenda for the Constitution in France and the Netherlands in 2004. The Treaty, that should come into effect by January 2009 - a few months before the elections of the European Parliament - will have to be ratified by all the 27 EU member states. In the Treaty, the issues related to the flag, the anthem, the name itself of the Constitution have been left apart, in order to avoid the repeated accusations of rethoric, and contrast the potential waves of anti-Europeism.
The aim of the Treaty is to uniform the European institutions and their working methods, to reinforce the democratic legitimacy of the Union and consolidate the fundamental values on which it rests.
It could easily be forecasted that the Treaty would have given raise to criticism and bitter reactions. What happened during the solemn proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the 12th of December 2007 in Strasbourg by the European Parliament and by the EU Council in the European Assembly of the Commission is emblematic: during the ceremony some so-called “euro-skeptical” members of the European Parliament started yelling and protested vivaciously. Pöttering referred to them saying that those who yelled did not bring forward any valid argument, they were just yelling and, if identified, they will undergo a reprimand.
“Harry Pöttering” – this is the nickname given to him by European members of the parliament, inspired by his being young-looking with a strong character – is certainly a man with a vast experience, a firm man. A man who can convoke experts of international issues at the eve of an important meeting with a Head of State or a key person in a delicate political process, and listen to them for hours to be as informed as possible, as Alexander Stutzmann, one of his closest and fundamental collaborators, being his diplomatic advisor, told me.
Many are the topics that we have covered in the interview, in which I have tried to follow the inspiration that has derived from the careful study of his profile, his political actions and his declarations. I have chosen to linger over vast themes, fundamental issues, starting from concrete situations, stimulating the conversation on the European Union today but also on that of tomorrow. Integration, security, enlargement, I went as far as allowing myself to ask for a consideration on Italy. Every answer, a small universe.

I firmly believe that both elements are essential for the European Union.
A central component of the European identity is Christianity. Christian heritage has had a decisive influence on the history of Europe. Although political realities are constantly changing, the European fundamental values are a strong foundation. We in the European Union must be flexible for adjusting to the future but preserving the European values inherited, including Christian values.
As leader of the EPP-ED (European People’s Part-European Democrats) Group in the European Parliament I have been personally involved in having a reference to God and the Christian-Judaic heritage in the preamble of the treaty. Unfortunately, the resistance to this idea was very strong and we did not succeed. Nevertheless we can’t say that the treaty is scraped of our Christian values. The basic Christian values such as the dignity of the human being, respect for human rights, principles of solidarity and subsidiarity are reflected in the Treaty and the Chapter of Fundamental Rights.
On 12 December 2007 I have signed together with José Sócrates, Portuguese Prime Minister and President-in-office of the Council, and José Manuel Barroso, Commission President, the Charter of Fundamental Rights in a formal ceremony at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The Treaty of Lisbon confers on the Charter the same legally binding character as the Treaties themselves. This is the best way to preserve our values, to give them a binding dimension. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become an integral component of the Treaties of the EU and once the new Treaty is ratified human rights, tolerance, subsidiarity and solidarity, which are Christian values, will become a binding foundation of our community.
Concerning the Constitution, even if it failed because of the negative referenda in France and the Netherlands, we have succeeded in reaching an agreement on the new Reform Treaty. This is a great success and a necessary step for the EU. The new treaty maintains the substantial improvements proposed in the original Constitutional Treaty. It simplifies the institutional structure by removing the pillars established in Maastricht. It extends democracy by giving greater powers to the European Parliament, by introducing a fairer voting system in the Council, by involving national parliaments more actively in policing subsidiarity, and by providing for a citizen's initiative. It strengthens the EU's capacity to act, by merging the foreign-policy functions of the Commission and Council in the same person. It modernises both Commission and Council, by reducing the size of the college of Commissioners, by extending majority voting in the Council, and by instituting a more permanent President of the European Council. Some of these changes will only take effect in 2014. However, the increased powers of the European Parliament will come into effect immediately after the ratification of the Treaty. Then, the Parliament will be co-equal with the Council in nearly all legislative areas and across the whole of the budget.
There are a few points which we regret: for example that the symbols (the European flag and anthem) which give Europe a soul and create a sense of European identity, are not included in the Treaty, and also that the double majority voting in Council has been delayed.
Nevertheless the overall result is positive, because an agreement has been reached after long and difficult negotiations, and so it was possible to avoid a crisis in the European Union. This was mainly possible due to the efforts and the engagement of the German Presidency.

I believe that we need to look at Europe positively, as an opportunity, not as a threat. I think that today most part of our citizens thinks of Europe in a positive way, and I am convinced that people with responsibilities should do more. We should go on the offensive, to make the case for Europe, and to defend it to the people. If one goes on the offensive and explains things to the people as they are, citizens are willing to respond. By contrast, if we are always more defensive, then we can achieve little. We have to engage in a positive dialogue with the people being closer to them.
And to transmit to people our European convictions and the achievements of the Union, we need the support of the media as well as that of national politicians. It is unfair to speak only about the European Union in the context of the problems we have - for example fraud and corruption against the EU budget - just as it exists in all member states. We are totally committed to fighting maladministration or crimes against the budget in all its forms. Frankly, you cannot expect that, when the media or national politicians speak badly about the European Union for six days a week, people will go to vote in favour of Europe on the seventh. So we need to communicate better what it is about the Europe Union that matters.
With regard to the relationship with national institutions it is important to stress that, as the European Union's competences have widened and the European Parliament's powers increased, we have understood that the national institutions and in particular the national parliaments in the member states are partners, not rivals, in the democratic process. We are not in competition with one another. Together we want democracy, and we must exercise the instruments of democracy at all levels, in giving the public greater voice in European decision-making.
One of my objectives as President of the European Parliament is to make this partnership with national parliaments ever more vibrant. We need a network of cooperation, and we are actively engaged in building one. In this line, this year I held inter-parliamentary conferences on four major issues: the Lisbon Strategy, energy, climate change and the future of Europe and the new Treaty.

This theme – that of dialogue between cultures - is one of the priorities of my mandate as President of the European Parliament, and as you said next year has been designated by the EU as “European Year of Intercultural Dialogue”. This gives us a marvellous opportunity to focus on the twin topics of Europe's relations with its near neighbours, and intercommunity relations within Europe.
Intellectual, cultural and religious dialogue among cultures is very important for mutual understanding. It is the basis for mutual trust and respect. It is an essential element in the process of global change and security. This dialogue must be grounded in tolerance and truth. Tolerance does not mean accepting anything and everything. Tolerance means respecting the convictions of the other while maintaining one’s own. I am firmly convinced that the Dialogue of Cultures can only succeed if it is based on truth and mutual tolerance.
Europe’s future is to a great extent dependent on successful coexistence among cultures and religions within the European Union and between the European Union and our neighbours, first and foremost in the Arab and Islamic world. In our position, then, cross-cultural dialogue is crucial. By the nature of our situation and our history, the European Union is absolutely determined to guarantee a peaceful cohabitation of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and all other religious, secular, and atheist people. We can only do so on the basis of mutual respect and the recognition of the principle of reciprocity.
In the course of 2008, the European Parliament - together with the European Commission and the 27 Member States - will strive to make intercultural dialogue an essential feature of both domestic and foreign policy. The promotion of this EU priority initiative is most timely. The current international and security situation have created a host of points of contention between Western and Muslim countries. This is not to treat either the West or the Islamic world as a homogenous bloc, for we live in a far more complex and interconnected world. However, one can identify certain common features within some of the most intractable issues of our times such as with the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, and terrorism.
Beyond 2008, the EU aims to treat intercultural dialogue as an horizontal priority going across all relevant European programmes and policies, in the fields of culture, education, youth, immigration and citizenship. If the same process can be realised at national, regional and local level by engaging as many civil society actors in the dialogue, we can make a genuine contribution both to more harmonious societies within Europe and to peace initiatives in the wider world.
Accession negotiations between Turkey and the European Union have started and will continue. Further reforms in Turkey are in the interest of Turkey and of the European Union. Progress must be made in all senses. For instance we demand that the EU candidate country Turkey fully recognize the religious rights of all non-Muslim communities in Turkey - not as an act of tolerance alone, but as recognition of a core European moral principle. The negotiation mandate states that this is an open-ended process. The objective is the accession of Turkey, but there is not automatism.

We are all obliged to mutual comprehension and understanding. Europe is an immediate neighbour of the Arab world. The bulk of immigration into the European Union originates from Northern Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, with Italy being one of the largest recipient of immigrants in today’s Union. Muslims have become the second biggest religious group in the EU, representing around 3.5 per cent of the total population. Mosques are a common sight all over Europe.
The Islamic community in Europe has enriched the cultural life of our societies. The pattern of events at a global level have underlined the importance of developing better knowledge, closer relations and a climate of inclusion and respect as this growing community develops its place within European society. It requires us, for example, to recall and appreciate the contribution which Islamic scholars and leaders made to the European heritage, in philosophy, science and literature..
We need to keep things in perspective and we should be wary of intolerance and extremism which see Muslims as some sort of threat to our identity.
On the other hand, we have to be committed to our values. The fundamental values of the EU are ones which have stood the test of time and which are worth defending. These include human rights, democratic participation, freedom of expression, free media, rule-of-law and respect for minorities. Education can play a key role in making all European citizens cherish these values, thereby contributing to an effective integration of immigrants.
Dialogue must be grounded in tolerance and truth. Tolerance does not mean accepting anything and everything. Tolerance means respecting the convictions of the other while maintaining one’s own, and thus coexisting peacefully. On one of my many visits to Arab countries, I was asked by a senior Islamic dignitary how Muslims live in Europe. My answer was that they are often not sufficiently integrated, but that they can live out their own beliefs and have their own mosques and places of cult. The question I asked in reply was whether it was true that in his country a Muslim man or woman could be punished with death if he or she converted to the Christian faith. The fact that I received no answer was an answer itself.
By ensuring that our values are upheld, we can make a positive contribution to the development of a tolerant and open Islam; rejecting the notion that Islam is somehow incompatible with western democracy.
In addition, European Citizenship brings with itself both rights and responsibilities. This brings me to a number of challenges which Muslims in Europe themselves face. Their own successful integration into European society depends upon how they respond to this challenge.

It is necessary to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration even if illegal and legal immigration are closely interrelated and the fight against illegal migration is vital for the establishment of a policy for legal migration.
With regard to legal immigration, the European Parliament has stated in several resolutions that legal migration is positive for the economic development of the EU. The EU must develop a coherent and global approach. Efficient integration policies must be developed and in the public debate, the positive role of legal migration must be underlined. The setting up of a coherent legal migration policy can actively contribute in fighting against illegal immigration.
As far as the illegal immigration is concerned the European Union must fight against it. Illegal immigration involves the transfer of large amounts of money in the hands of criminal organizations which control the human trafficking gangs and promote the exploitation of immigrant labour. In the fight against illegal immigration, the fight against human trafficking constitutes a priority. The criminal activities must be fought and stopped.
Another important point in fighting illegal immigration is the respect of human rights. The fundamental rights of all migrants must be ensured, and illegal immigrants must not be treated like criminals. All measures to fight clandestine immigration and step up external border controls must be consistent with the fundamental rights and in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Terrorism is a serious threat to our security, to the values of democratic societies and to the rights and freedoms of our citizens, especially through the indiscriminate targeting of innocent people. Terrorism is criminal and unjustifiable under any circumstances.
No inherent contradiction exists between the “right to security”, which is basically the right to life, and other fundamental rights. Without security, we cannot enjoy other civil liberties. What is essential is that we remain credible and adopt counter-terrorism measures that are necessary, proportionate and legitimate. The protection of fundamental rights is deeply rooted in our culture and societies. In this context, intercultural and inter-religious dialogue is of extreme importance.
The most serious threat to Europe at the moment is posed by radical Islamic terrorist groups. In December 2005 the European Council adopted the European Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which has provided the framework for EU activities in this field. Since then, several initiatives have been launched in the EU, although more cooperation is still needed.
The European Parliament has always insisted on the importance to keep a balanced approach for enhancing security while safeguarding fundamental rights, in compliance with Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this context, we can refer to three issues, recently brought to the attention of media all around the world, on which the European Parliament voiced its concerns: the existence of secret CIA detention centres and extraordinary renditions in Europe, the Guantanamo camp and the agreements with the United States of America on the use of passenger name records (PNR). Another important issue is the lack of adequate judicial review in the so-called UN and EU "black lists", which entail the freezing of funds of persons and entities associated with Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
On 12 December, the European Parliament has voted on a resolution on the fight against terrorism, in which Members have called for further scrutiny of intelligence operations and for more proportionate and evidence-based legislation in the future, while voicing privacy concerns and stressing the need to preserve basic human rights.

In the European Union we have created the figure of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism to facilitate exchanges between Member States. "Intelligence" coordination is also facilitated at EU level by the Joint Situation Centre which has two main functions: a) EU officials monitor and analyse open source information (internet, newswires, satellite imagery) to support decision making in the CFSP/ESDP (Common Foreign and Security Policy/European Security Defence Policy) area; and b) a direct link is established between the intelligence bodies of the Member States and Brussels through a national representative in the Joint Situation Centre.
In addition the EU Military Staff has an intelligence directorate which has links to the Member States military intelligence bodies. The EU Military Staff is a Directorate General within the Council General Secretariat which supports the EU Military Committee and the Political and Security Committee on ESDP/CFSP matters.
Nevertheless one should bear in mind that EU Member States still see intelligence as a primary instrument of national sovereignty and an area difficult to integrate at the European level without compromising the very sources of intelligence, in particular Human Intelligence (HUMINT). Improvements, in some, especially technical capabilities such as Signals Intelligence or use of Satellites, is to be expected and will help CFSPŽ/ESDP decision-making. Greater use of open source intelligence by the EU institutions will help to develop a common analytical platform as a basis for developing a common strategic culture on decision making, that is that all will have a common baseline to discuss CFSP/ESDP matters. This will be augmented with information/intelligence from Member States and improved cooperation with international organisations and non-governmental actors.
The European Parliament is closely monitoring the rapid development of CFSP/ESDP and the decision making structures underpinning it. It set up a specific committee to examine the issue of "extraordinary rendition" and played an important complementary role to other investigations particularly at the national level. The European Parliament will continue to exercise its treaty based on the right to scrutinise the development of CFSP and to work closely with national parliaments in carrying out their responsibilities. Should intelligence bodies expand at the EU level, the European Parliament will engage fully to ensure that such bodies serve to underpin the values of the European Union and the application of strict standards in the areas of accountability and transparency as well as international humanitarian and human rights law.

Italy is at the heart of the European Union. It is one of the founders and always committed to Europe. It is always in the frontline to promote the integration of our Continent. If all the other Member States had the same approach to the integration process Europe would be much more united. In this respect I have always had a very good cooperation with the Italian Members of the European Parliament.
But Italy has still some problems.
First in the implementation of the EU law: Italy is on the bottom of the list of the EU Countries being the 23rd out of 27 according to the last record of the European Commission.
Second: the not finely tuned way in which Italy relate with the European Institutions. Very often Italy discovers to have problems with decisions which have to be taken at the European level at the last minute, when it is becomes difficult to find solution for such problems then.
If Italy were better organized, it could give a more effective contribution to the EU decision making process and at the same time could better protect and promote its interests.