Plenary closing session, European Continental Assembly, Peles, Romania

(Restitution of topical groups: see the reports by topic)

Transversal restitution formulated following the topical restitutions.
•	Philippe Cacciabue

It is very difficult to write a synthesis while the iron is hot, though it is clear that several convergent elements with similar contents were brought to the fore in different ways by two, three and even four reporters. Here, I shall simply mention them:
-An initial section concerns Europe and our neighbours and Europe and the rest of the world. There is a need for Europe to build foundations of responsibility, meaning that Europe cannot be built on the basis of rights that we give to ourselves while failing to give them to others. Thus there is an absolute requirement to only choose those principles of European construction that can also be applied to others. This is not the case at present. Europe is developing according to modes of production and relations that do not permit the rest of the planet to develop. Likewise, we must carry out a full review of our relations with our neighbours; we must start out anew on the basis of equality between us and them. Is it still possible to consider the weight of history, the debt and so forth to be a relevant framework for working together? We must work on relations that are contractual in time, with steps and in a differentiated way. It is no longer possible to use a single system of relations with others. In MIG, on co-development and RUR, it is clear that we cannot continue using the same relations of development aid. Furthermore, we must learn to manage the phases of change better than we have up to now. We have a principle in the RUR group, for example, regarding enlargement: as long as enlargement and reunification have not been achieved, everything must be done to protect economies, resources and the social fabric of the countries involved. We cannot continue advancing by preaching that it is possible to unite without taking urgent measures of precaution specific to those countries queuing for membership. This amounts to saying that Europe cannot continue to destroy and degrade other countries.
Another thing that I learned from the general atmosphere during the five days of our meeting was that we cannot build Europe without peace. This means that our project can only be credible if we are capable of anticipating conflicts and confront this problem with far greater seriousness than Europe has shown up to now. 
- The second section is a Europe of citizens. Everyone agrees on several points. We must first build a Europe that gives its inhabitants the means to control their own destinies and make their own choices. However, this is not the case at present. We need a Europe that listens. It needs institutions, methods and tools in order to consult its inhabitants. For example, the Swiss constitution incorporates the means for consulting the country’s citizens, the cost being paid by the community. It is out of the question that it a is luxury only for the rich, it is vital that we give ourselves the means to consult the people. We need a comprehensible Europe. Several times, I have heard people say “I don’t understand anything!” We don’t understand the world in which we live, so we need more information, that is also more reliable and clearer. Europe must be more transparent. Incidentally, the other day I spoke of the black box into which our money goes, though we know nothing of its ultimate destination, nothing about who decides what, and we don’t know what we eat or consume. In short, we must have knowledge to be capable of making choices, to take on our responsibilities and finally our solidarity by making our choices. A generous and human Europe. No, profit is not the ultimate goal, no more than are the market and work. Resituating humanity at the centre is a commonplace statement, though what I have heard gives it very concrete forms. It implies reconsidering our entire education system, which is designed for accumulating knowledge but not for protecting ourselves, or for learning about the world. It entails the recognition of our existence, whether one works or not, whether one is a woman or a man, we exist and are someone. We need an open Europe, one in which all are welcome everywhere, confident that the stranger at our door brings us wealth rather than a threat; this is the principle of this welcome. Lastly, a Europe that does not abandon the principle of cohesion and solidarity. It is the assertion that we cannot tolerate our neighbours living in misery, we prefer sharing our wealth because all in all it is better, even for us. I heard this principle of cohesion several times.
- There is something else that can be shared though slightly less. All the groups mentioned it. It is the principle of a sustainable Europe, that is to say a Europe that respects rather than destroys itself, especially with respect to natural resources. A Europe that is not only sustainable but which chooses methods of functioning that permits sustainability elsewhere. For example, we cannot ask China to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions if we don’t do so ourselves. We cannot demand that others uphold human rights and other rules if we don’t apply them to ourselves. So, Europe must opt for an approach to development that is universal.
- A Europe of open territories. Here again, the principle of subsidiarity was taken up by all the groups. Our environment is best understood at local level, there where we live, where we see how it works. This is the level where solidarity between people is real and where the principle of subsidiarity can be implemented. This does not mean territories as isolated components but as open ones that increasingly exchange people and experiences between East, West, North and South. We are stuck in a straightjacket that we need to throw off. We need to be more flexible and fluid in our treatment of knowledge, meaning and people.
So, roughly, that is what stays clearest in my mind after the four exposés. But I think we still need to work on at least two things. Firstly, the words used. There were still far too many cultural misunderstandings in the RUR, WORK and MIG groups, because not enough work has been done on the concepts and what the words convey.
Furthermore, we are making progress by working together, but we still need to learn to dream together, free ourselves from existing cultural rules and stop saying that nothing can be done because of the WTO, the market and so  forth. There seems to be a problem in calling such and such a principle into question, and wondering about what it could be replaced by. This is what I mean by the collective dream we must continue working towards.
I shall return to the problem of enlargement, this time on the basis of my group. This opinion is not taken from the syntheses. We wanted to drop the use of the word “enlargement”, preferring to speak of “reunification” or another Europe. There was relatively general agreement with the proposal, that I am sure you also agree with, that political union  should be achieved before economic union. To do this, we need to organise another Peles, but instead of repeating our participation, we will invite 50 Members of Parliament from the East and 50 from the West to work for five days on the same subjects and with the same methods. What Europe do they want and what principles do they want to apply? I hope that one day we shall meet at Peles to listen to reports made by European MPs of their debates.
Thank you.

Debate

•	Hans Harms
What you need is not a long speech after this week of work, so I promise to be short. Just few general considerations, a sort of evaluation. There was a big diversity in our groups, not only because of the different countries or cultures but also of ages, professional experiences and so on. This means in one hand a problem, for example for the methodology or the topics, but on the other hand it was a chance because regarding many points of view, it really opens our minds. I think that most of you express a great satisfaction on a personal level and I think you evaluated this meeting as a unic experience of mutual enrichment. What I found out in our group but also in the other groups, that means in a face to face situation, was a real exchange on our conception of reality and future. We face the conflict with the people coming from Georgia, Palestine, Israel or wherever, this time we see a face in front of us. That means that we were more directly affected.
In what regards the contents, we are in a process of transformation of our societies which seem to be in crisis. And this means, we are today not at the end of this event but at the same time at the starting point of a process ; it seems that there is enough energy, interest and collective stimulation in this group. But at the same time I want to remind you that this is a feeling that can disappear very fast when you come back, when you return to your everyday life, in the routine ; and we need some body in each group who stimulate and relly everyone to the others. And we have to do it in a very short time.
One question, that came up yesterday evening between the animators, was : how to name this group, to name this initiative. One answer which came out was to call it Equinox of Peles that we are celebrating this night. But I have to confess you that we speak about this very late in the night yesterday and we were really a little bit crazy. I am not sure of the pertinence of this proposal.
What will come in the next future ? In a few weeks you will see the results of this week, especially those presented in the two plenary sessions, but also more details because the synthesis are developped in others detailed documents. You will receive as well the results of the box of offers and demands. And shortly you will receive a precise questionnaire to evaluate this meeting ; we ask you to be precise and critical in order to not make a self congratulation.
The results of this meeting would be presented at the big meeting which will be held in Lille at the end of the year, it is also for this reason that we ask you a feedback.
What the Alliance can offer you to the next future is to maintain this kind of letterbox, the web site and the email where you can send your contributions. But we recommand you to create email lists of those of you who want to collaborate on special topics.
And finally I would like to ask you for a big applause for all of those who make it possible to be here, who worked on logistics, who prepared and served the meals for us, people making the translations, the travel agency, and everybody who make possible this unic and unbeleavable event that I am sure nobody of us will forget in his life.
Thank you very much.

•	Sandro Guiglia

I would also like to use the term that Philippe used in his synthesis, that of the dream, and I propose you a dream on a second level. I think that the need we have of maintaining relations and contacts should be realised by an initiative, a common project. I turn to Manola and the people of the Alliance, to propose that we should immediately launch a campaign based on the Europe we want, that is to say how to build a project for society and civilisation. I think that a campaign of this type should be aimed at expressing opinion directly to institutions and building  relationships between different sectors of civil society and European forums. Debate must be generated between European populations on a project for Europe in the face of globalisation. This approach could also be used to give life to participatory democracy, by leaving behind a position based on opposition to take up one based on proposal. In my opinion it is important to do this in order to develop awareness of the danger of neo-conservatism and therefore participate with those who are setting up networks to combat economic globalisation, that of markets, and so forth.
I see this campaign as having two levels of work: on one side there is the chief dimension of building European forums of discussion groups. In the past significant experiments have taken place such as political cafes, that is say groups of people that think, and I remember the experience of Barcelona that I feel was very important, that of groups of people that rethought society in view to imagining the type of project of society we want for ourselves.
The second level would permit something wider, to presume that we already have the right to propose laws and popular initiatives. This entails making a petition aimed at the institution that currently represents Europe, that is to say the European Parliament to be elected in 2004. This petition would demand that the European Parliament gives us a Constitution or a Charter encompassing the entirety of a political and internal project in which we want to incorporate the right to referendums and especially the right to popular initiatives. I think that if we can set up thousands of groups that debate and think of the Europe we want, on the one hand, and if, on the other, these groups collect signatures in front of churches, in markets, etc., then we would have an influence on the way European citizens think about the challenges facing them and make them aware that if we participate directly we can succeed in changing things. This would be an experience that would use this methodology, this process of construction, as a framework rather than as a model, since Europe should not be reduced to a model, 
At present, we can only count on ourselves to carry out such a vast campaign. We must make contacts with other groups in Europe that are making similar proposals. We must widen the project rather than build on just ourselves. My dream is to return home and be able to widen the proposal and launch it. Of course, civil society is made up of many very different sectors and the organisers of discussion groups obtain very different things, but so be it, that is diversity. I think that, for example, unions work on subjects related to labour, ecologists on the conservation of territories, etc. What is important is to be a catalyst, the snowball that becomes an avalanche. To achieve this, the material that we have produced here should be used, beyond being a contribution to the Lille Assembly, as a basic document for launching these discussion groups.
The first phase of collaboration between us could be that one of us offers to work on all this material to produce something that is both simple and attractive. The second phase would consist of finding possibilities of alliance. Indeed, each of you belongs to community movements and is aware of different realities. Our friends in Belarus spoke to us of initiatives that have already been programmed.
Therefore there could be a phase consisting of diffusing what has been produced here and a phase of collecting existing experiences and initiatives. The first attempts to organise this project must be started in September. We could then start working on something more concrete, for example, on January 1 or December 25, according to desire, and give ourselves until the end of 2004 to collect the signatures. Taken proportionally, in comparison with the Swiss, we need 3 million signatures. This is a lot. Despite the fact that this operation will have no legal value, its political value will have considerable impact, since, on the one hand, if we can present to the future parliament the results of hundreds of discussion groups on the Europe we want, with the guidelines of what we have started to set out together and, on the one hand, a petition with one and a half million signatures, this would have significant political impact. This is my dream. Tell me if it is possible and how it can be organised.

On behalf of Manola, I would also like to propose another initiative. In order not to bring bad luck, one should not announce things that are still in the process of gestation, but we are thinking of setting up a European review or a web site devoted to civil society. I do not yet know what form it will take, but we can already rely on three groups in Italy and France. If this idea takes root, the main problem will be to obtain news and information to study and diffuse. It could be useful tool in Europe.

Addition from Manola :
Newsletters on civil society exist already in every European country. Also, when you say that information must reach us, I would just like to say one thing. Information exists there where it is but it must be mobile. There will not necessarily be concentrations of information. I have become aware of this here at Peles. People are already diffusing information and it would no be just another medium or tool, rather it would serve to strengthen and unite all these kinds of initiative.

Debate

•	Manola Gardez Rauss

Today is June 21, the day chosen to link the five continental assemblies together. Marti is the person responsible for setting up communication between the assemblies. You haven’t heard very much about these other assemblies, but several of them are starting today, whereas our assembly is ending. 
We have also had the pleasure to welcome Maxime for the Americas and Innocent for Africa.

•	Marti Olivella

He reads the message received from India. 
We have sent 45 pages of messages to the other meetings.
We have been able to meet each other despite many problems, but it’s the first step of a long process. We are a small mark on the calendar, but we are also jointly responsible for setting out the next steps. Sandro has just proposed a few of these but we must also determine strategic perspectives for the coming years. We have profited from the working programme proposed by the Alliance that has lasted for seven years, though now we have reached the end and we must now define the future. It would be a good idea to add our proposals to the reflections of each topical group so we can combine what we do. This time we received the money required to meet together but we won’t receive it again in future years. Have you seen the list of participants? The column of emails is complete. It’s incredible, since it would not have been possible only a few years ago. It’s the first time in history that ordinary men and women can work and share their hopes remotely, without money. This gives us a lot of independence and we ought to benefit from it to work together during the years to come.
The idea of the drums of peace was also started by this team six months ago.
Today, June 21 there are about 10,000 people who will play these drums around the world, proving that it is possible to organise remotely.
Thank you.

•	Maxime Laplante

I would first like to thank you for accepting me as an observer and as a participant. I have felt so much a participant that I broached the question of Canada becoming a member of the European Union!
Marti has sent me the messages and writings of the other correspondents for the assembly at Quito in Ecuador. There were 3 correspondents: the first spoke of their desire to globalise hope; the second spoke of the resistance of indigenous communities while the last emphasised the different combats against neo-conservatism.
If someone asked me what the differences are between the Americas and Europe I think I would say that the only common denominator I see is the lack of democracy. Whether at home in Canada or here, everyone is asking where the train in which they are in is going.
I shall end by saying that if problems have become global, we must build a network because contact is indispensable. We can never get to know each other by the Internet, we must meet at least once.
Thank you.

•	Innocent Muhozi

Thank you Maxime for making me feel less guilty about not fulfilling my role of observer enough and being too much of a participant. I shan’t be the only occupant in the condemned cell! 
The aim of the Caravan project is to restore dignity in Africa, and much was said of dignity here in Europe too. It is also to attempt to get Africa to participate in creating this responsible and united world that we all want.
The adult generation has not known colonisation or slavery and has no scores to settle due to these tragedies, even though it still suffers their consequences. It is also a generation of people that says that there are still too many tears and too much misery. They are the people that are now touring Africa, but they are not the only ones who want to change things.
What I have learned here is that when hearing about a country that one does not know, it remains abstract. Now I know you and I would be right in worrying if I heard that there are problems in your countries. The world is become forever smaller and there are no longer many far away places. The rights that ensure human dignity are the same everywhere. 
Concerning our meeting, I found the syntheses very timid in comparison with the machine that is now crushing the world. I did not find you subversive enough in relation to the power of money, and political and media power. However, this can be explained by current European reality. The people don’t have the same itineraries or the same concerns. However, I would have preferred more in-depth criticism and more awareness that there are no longer any remote countries. Nobody can pretend that what is happening in any other country does not concern them because fellow citizens also live there. This is a good thing to fuel human consciences.
I don’t know Sandro’s age, but many of us are younger than him at this assembly and it would be a disgrace if we were not as ambitious as he. We must be more rigorous about these dreams of humanity and solidarity and show no compromise for lethal machines. This demands a lot of work and critical minds, but we must not rest on our laurels, since we can never be content as long as those next to us are shedding tears or dying. One way or another their cries and tears will end by touching us, so the combat ahead is still long and tough. Let’s fight it with as much goodwill, hope and commitment as possible.
Since we have the chance to be alive, let’s live and do what we can so that others can live as well as us.
Thank you.

•	Karine Boyer

The image that I shall keep or our meeting here is that of a smile, that of the pleasure and happiness that we have had from being together. We've had more than minor difficulties with our work here, though we have succeeded in building a collective discourse.
Once again, the sheer magnitude and wealth of the results obtained show that meeting one's alter ego, one's other self, cannot be replaced by the modern technology available to us today. We have witnessed the implementation of collective intelligence. This has resulted in an overall increase of understanding and knowledge. The questions that we ask ourselves are no longer the same as those we asked a few days ago, and that in itself has immense value. We are too often told by politicians that there has been a depoliticisation of awareness and that the European project has  broken down. I suspect them of using these arguments to bypass their responsibilities, since our experience here proves otherwise. Our future cannot be left to the exclusive responsibility of experts and politicians in building Europe. The discussions they will have in their cosy offices in Brussels have nothing in comparison to those that we have had here, in groups of non-specialised people from thirty nine different countries. This is obviously the reason why our perspectives diverge so greatly. Will European construction entail a genuine cultural and institutional transformation capable of leading to changes in collective and cultural practices? The vital forces that we represent here also contribute to this process. There is no getting round the magnitude of the challenges to be met, or consultation between the community authorities and all the sectors of civil society gathered here. The European ideal that we have dreamed of here together over the last few days must become a reality. I feel that Sandro's proposal goes in this direction, since the Europe we want is one that expresses solidarity by opening up to the countries to its South and East, it is plural thanks to its wealth of diversity and responsible vis-à- vis the rest of humankind.
On behalf of all the coordinators I would like to thank you all for your patience, seriousness and courage. You have played the game and the rules were not easy. I don't know when we'll meet again but I am sure we will.
A big thank you to you all. See you soon.

Sandro Guiglia
As we said in 1968: "It's only the beginning, the debate continues"

•	Manola Gardez Rauss

The last words will be for those that spoke at the beginning and who were kind enough and had the merit to have welcomed us along with everything that entails in terms of effort, energy and work.

•	Dacian Ciolos

I would first like to thank you for having left your work and family to come to Romania for a few days, for having discovered a country and getting to know its people. We hope these five days have been efficient and that we have provided you with good enough working conditions to permit a productive assembly and reflection.
Personally, I only have one great regret, that of not being able to show more of this country. However, I hope that this lack of actual visits in-the-field has been offset by the warmth of the people around you and who you have met. I also hope that this frustration at not having seen the country will stir your desire to return and discover it as friends.
The challenge was difficult for our association, Agroecologia, but it has been a most enriching experience. I don't know what each of you has learned at this meeting but we have accumulated a great number of experiences that we hope, in the future, to use to the benefit of those close to us.
Now, at the end of this European Assembly, we wish good luck to the Lille World Citizens Assembly that we hope will strengthen the Alliance movement and we are happy to have contributed to strengthening the Alliance family which has grown thanks to the participants of the Peles Assembly.
I am very sorry not to be able to shake hands with all of you.
I would just like to say that according to Romanian tradition, on the night of the summer solstice, June 21, the skies open and the spirit of the sky descends to earth while that of the earth rises to the sky. So I wish you a good night full of sharing.

Thank you to the translators.

I would like to express my warm and special thanks to Betty Nguyen, Paola Baril, Dacian Ciolos, Valérie Villemin-Ciolos, Avram Fitiu, Manuelle Glasman, Rémi Boulongne, Codruta Marian, Radu Marian, Sorin Ciolos, Cosmin Barda and the personnel of Happy Tour.