SPIEGEL ONLINE: The new European Commission was approved Tuesday, thereby ending your 10 years as a commissioner in Brussels. Is the EU still an alliance of nations on the way to an ever-closer union, or is it just a bigger club with the same old problems?

Günter Verheugen: With the 27 members that it has today, compared to the 15 that it had back then, the EU has obviously changed dramatically. We have achieved much in those 10 years, but a few fundamental questions remain open: There seems to be no vision within the Union of where we are heading. There is no consensus over where the borders of the EU should lie in the future, and there is no consensus over how we should define our role in the world.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is it not too late for that already? Barack Obama recently cancelled his participation in the upcoming EU-US summit. Has our continent become unimportant to the Americans?

Verheugen: No. The overwhelming strategic importance of the trans-Atlantic relationship won't change. The Americans expect more participation in global affairs from our side, but we are not ready for that. We want to be taken seriously by the Americans as partners, therefore we should first develop our ability to be partners.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In the public perception, you and your colleagues represent the whole EU apparatus, which is held in increasing disdain. Why is the Commission viewed as the epitome of bureaucratic hell?

Verheugen: That isn't fair. The Commission is the motor and powerhouse of European integration. But I concede that the image of the Commission is still too strongly influenced by the idea that it is some kind of many-tentacled bureaucratic monster that wants to regulate and harmonize more and more areas of people's lives.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But there are good reasons for that impression.

Verheugen: To me, achieving a cultural shift in the institutions of the European Union has been of the highest importance over the last few years. I have tried to get away from the mentality that the European project can only be achieved through more and more rules. That said, whatever we communicate has to go through the twin filters of the national media and national politics. In many countries, especially in Germany, the bad habit has developed of always putting the blame for anything unpleasant on "those people in Brussels." A lot of what we do is very technical, the language is horribly overblown and bureaucratic through and through. It's something that is difficult for people to understand.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is that resignation in the face of a self-created monster? You have complained often enough that is hard to get anything done with all the bureaucracy.

Verheugen: The ability of politicians to oversee the ever-increasing influence of the bureaucracy doesn't grow in line with that influence. It can't -- after all, human capacity has its limits. There are 27 commissioners, which means 27 directorate-generals. And 27 directorate-generals means that everyone needs to prove that they are needed by constantly producing new directives, strategies or projects. In any case, the rule is: More and more, more and more, all the time.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Hasn't this kind of excessive growth long since suffocated one of the original intentions behind the European project, namely the vision of a "United States of Europe?"

Verheugen: At the moment, the idea of a single European state is simply irrelevant to the political reality. In fact, it's really just parts of the British media that constantly claim that there are people who want such a thing. But I don't know anyone who does.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: At the same time, though, someone like Joschka Fischer, who was Germany's foreign minister under then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder from 1998 to 2005, could very easily imagine having a more closely integrated Europe.

Verheugen: Sure, but that was aimed at a political union within the EU itself, which wasn't very realistic. Nevertheless, it's still an option that you can't rule out for the future.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Does the EU really see itself as a global player?

Verheugen: It isn't one yet. But in 10 or 20 years, Europe will be forced to compete with new economic superpowers which will also have their own political agendas. And at that point, we won't be able to play an equal role if we do not have a single EU representation in international organizations such as the IMF or the UN Security Council and are hence unable to speak with one voice.

'No More Institutional Changes for Quite Some Time'

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So France and Britain are supposed to vacate their seats on the Security Council in favor of an EU representation? How would that work? In the wake of the enormous effort that it took to get the Lisbon Treaty through, there is practically a consensus that the EU should wait a while before trying to tackle any more big issues.

Verheugen: That's right. We won't be able to push through any institutional changes in the EU for quite some time. No one is in a rush to bring up that issue anyway. But that's the dilemma we face: It's in precisely those areas where we need more Europe that you can find the largest emotional resistance from the member states. For example, there's the issue of a common foreign policy. Take the war in Iraq, which the overwhelming majority of Europeans opposed. It wasn't possible to bring Europe's weight to bear and to dissuade the Americans from pursuing this folly. From the very beginning, we Europeans were divided into two irreconcilable camps regarding this issue.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But presumably things won't be any different next time around.

Verheugen: Exactly. And that's why I believe that having a global role won't be possible as long as Europe continues to see itself exclusively as a "soft power." It's an illusion to think that you can conduct global politics just with humanitarian assistance and diplomacy. One also needs to have the means to enforce your decisions.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How do you imagine that working in concrete terms?

Verheugen: I believe it's necessary to have a common EU military force, for reasons of efficiency apart from anything else. Today, Europeans have 2 million soldiers under arms, but they are not even able to deploy 60,000 of them somewhere. We can't say on the one hand that we have a right to make decisions regarding the major challenges facing humanity on the same level as the Americans and others, if we aren't in a position to fulfill our role in things such as peacekeeping missions that have been decided on by the international community.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: And where do you get the legitimacy for such a project from?

Verheugen: We're all free to think whatever we want, and someone has to get the dialogue started. I think that all the complaints about the EU's supposed lack of democratic legitimacy are misleading. If you view the EU as it really is -- an association of countries, rather than a state itself -- then the decision-making institutions have a degree of legitimacy that is completely sufficient.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Who could tackle such a European defense project then?

Verheugen: Probably it could only be those heads of government who have both a strong desire to lead and a European vision. But it is precisely those member states who are currently strongest that lack both of those things. Take Britain, for example. Elections are about to be held there, and if the pollsters are right, there's probably going to be a new government which isn't particularly pro-Europe and which will therefore be unwilling to push European integration forward.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: And what about the famous Franco-German motor that supposedly drives the EU?

Verheugen: It's not running perfectly at the moment. And even if it were, it would no longer be enough. We need at least three countries from the group of the strongest member states which don't always immediately form a kind of blocking alliance within the EU in order to hinder each and every proposal that is put on the table.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: And we don't have three?

Verheugen: No. Let's go through them, shall we? We had Britain, but we can't depend on it anymore. We also don't need to talk about Italy at the moment. Spain is in a critical economic situation and isn't able to exercise a leadership role. Poland is heading in that direction, but it's still got a long way to go.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the Paris-Berlin axis is all we have?

Verheugen: Recently it's been more theory than practice, it's a bit anemic. Reinvigorating this partnership would be a good thing for Europe whatever happens, particularly if France and Germany don't just revert to pushing their own national interests. And both of them have to learn one thing: Germany and France can no longer set Europe's course by themselves.

The Next Wave of Enlargement

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Despite the fact that the EU is bumbling along without a leader, it is still getting ready to accept a whole host of highly problematic new members. Is that really such a wise idea?

Verheugen: That will be the biggest question that the EU has to answer. This will be the issue where we have to show just how much desire for unity we really have. Will the belief prevail that expansion causes more problems than it solves? Or will we realize that we don't need to be anxious about having a larger Europe and that, in the long run, expansion guarantees political and economic stability even in those parts of Europe where we don't currently have those things?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But the question has already been decided, at least as far as the German public is concerned. They say: Enough is enough, stop.

Verheugen: I know that this is a widespread view. But that would be a fatal mistake. I wish that politicians in Germany would acknowledge the great success of the two waves of enlargement, in 2004 and 2007. If one neglects to mention the positive results and only points to the alleged problem children of Romania and Bulgaria -- which, incidentally, they are not -- then one should not be surprised if people are suspicious about the next wave of enlargement.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But opposition is growing, and not just in Germany.

Verheugen: The idea here is the old conception of European integration as a western European project in which Eastern and Central Europe have been left out. A new dividing line through Europe would be historically inappropriate and shortsighted. Or perhaps you can explain to me why the Serbs are less European than the Irish or Portuguese?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But why is it shortsighted to slow the expansion of the EU's territory so that existing problems can first be solved before new ones emerge?

Verheugen: It's shortsighted because the real argument is actually the following: They're too poor, we don't want to have them because we would then have to feed them. That argument turns the reality completely on its head. All the major waves of enlargement that we have had up until now have involved countries which were lagging significantly behind in terms of economic performance, which then caught up as a result of being EU members and which, as a whole, helped to drive growth and create jobs, especially in Germany.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But nothing has harmed the reputation of the EU as much as the accession of Romania and Bulgaria.

Verheugen: I am aware of that. But if I were asked which EU member state had the biggest problems with organized crime, it would not occur to me to mention Bulgaria and Romania first. In any case, what is certain is that the democratic maturation process that is still needed there would not be encouraged if those countries were outside the Union.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But that is still not an argument in favor of further enlargement.

Verheugen: The Balkan states and Turkey are on the agenda. The Balkan countries have had the prospect of membership since 1999. That was a deal: You get the prospect of joining the EU and, in return, you work to create stability in your country. That worked well in some places and badly in others. At times it went badly on the whole. Now some countries are doing a bit better. Others, especially Bosnia-Herzegovina, are an almost insoluble problem, in my opinion. They simply do not want to live together in one state, but they do want to live in a united Europe. This explosive part of Europe can only achieve long-term stability if it is part of the EU.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Does that mean that Turkey can only become more European if it is in the EU?

Verheugen: I am convinced of that, assuming you mean democracy and the rule of law. It is in our interests that Turkey belongs to us, the family of Western democracies. One of the major issues of the 21st century will be how the relationship between the West and the Islamic world develops. And in that respect it makes a big difference whether a country the size and importance of Turkey is in the European Union or not.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But aren't the Turks actually moving away from the European community of values at the moment?

Verheugen: For the moment, that's how it looks. We are all caught in a kind of vicious circle together. The negative signals from Europe changes the direction of Turkish politics. This change is then interpreted by those actors that sent out the negative signals in the first place as a confirmation of their reservations.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How far do you want to expand? After the Balkans and Turkey, are we then going to Europeanize Ukraine and Belarus?

Verheugen: The rule states that any European nation that meets the necessary conditions may apply for membership. But it would be meaningless to talk now about the possible accession of Belarus or Ukraine. That is not on the agenda. But don't forget that both countries are important to us, for example, in terms of energy policy.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: With that argument, you would soon be on the lookout for new EU members in Siberia.

Verheugen: I am not looking for new members and am opposed to an accelerated enlargement policy which goes beyond the commitments that have already been made. But I think it is realistic to imagine a pan-European common market that includes the entire continent and also our Mediterranean neighbors.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you trying to make us really afraid now?

Verheugen: On the contrary, I am thinking of your future. We are already in direct competition with economies such as China and India and in the near future Latin America. They are all much bigger than us and are continuing to grow dramatically. If we want to be competitive, we will need a larger European market.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Together with Russia?

Verheugen: Absolutely.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: It took almost 10 years to push through the reforms that are now part of the Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force in December 2009. How long will it take to establish this vision of a Europe that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

Verheugen: In principle, it has already been decided in the form of the European Neighborhood Policy. It is already one of the EU's policy objectives. This will be one of the major challenges facing Europe's future leadership team of Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, Catherine Ashton, Europe's foreign policy chief, and, of course, the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Excuse me, but that almost sounds cynical. Doesn't such a grand vision require more high-profile leaders?

Verheugen: We received the leaders that the governments of the EU's member states were currently able to agree upon. And if you have some criticisms of them, then I'm afraid I have to ask you to contact Angela Merkel or Gordon Brown or Nicolas Sarkozy -- but, please, not me. Now we need to give the new leaders a fair chance. That's the important thing.

Interview conducted by Hans Hoyng and Hans-Jürgen Schlamp