1. "What is your current assessment of the 'state' of transatlantic relations?"

Dangerously strained. Public opinion in most European countries is sceptical of US foreign policy - which seems to be nothing other than an extension of its domestic commercial policy - and is deeply hostile to the war drums beaten loudly for the past several weeks by the present Administration

2. "Do you think that the next decade will bring positive news in the two 'historical' pillars of the US-EU relations: security and trade?"

This depends upon what you consider to be positive.

The face of Europe - and, with it, the international political scene - has changed beyond recognition over the past two decades. This momentum is unstoppable. The logic of the momentum, in regard to security, is further realignment. There are no longer two blocs facing each other over a concrete wall. We are moving way beyond a cold war mentality (for instance, the 'Partnership for Peace' programme offered by NATO to many of the former soviet countries). This should lead eventually to a refashioning - or even dismantling - of NATO and the emergence of a European defence force. This would be positive. So would the removal, or radical restructuring, of WTO. It is absurd that a free-floating bureaucracy, outwith the control of democratic governments, should have the power to defend the commercial interests of multinational corporations against the public policy interests of individual citizens.

Will they happen? The first: yes, probably. The second: I doubt it. Life as usual, in fact: the good news and the bad news.

3. You support the organization of the congress 'Reshaping Transatlantic Relations for the XXIst century: the citizens' perspective' to be held in Miami on November 14th-16th. Do you think that such an event can bring new fresh ideas on the present debate over the transatlantic relations?

Despite recent examples of personal courage, we often overlook or underestimate the power of the committed individual: remember the many street demonstrations in the former East Germany and the sudden sweeping away of Slobodan Milosevic (aided by that marvel of modern technology - the text message)?

Yet it is individual commitment that lies at the heart of 'people to people' co-operation, and is therefore central to this congress. It is easy for Americans and Europeans, viewing the world from either side of the Atlantic, to become bemused by the soundbites and news flashes of media reportage into believing that TV images reveal the way in which the others actually live. In practice, most of us probably live simpler, more meaningful and more positive lives - caring for family, friends and those around us as fellow human beings. If we meet together on this level, exchange ideas and enjoy mutual dialogue, anything is possible. We just have to abandon our preconceptions and think the unthinkable.

4. Is the ‘people-to-people’ cooperation able to open new fields of constructive US-EU cooperation in the coming years? In which way?

See my answers to 3 (above) and 5 (below): future cooperation has to be based on shared understanding and common philosophies. At the moment, both are lacking. We need to ensure firm foundations, before we reach for the sky.

5. Being the two richest and most democratic areas on the planet, do you think that both the EU and the US societies face a special responsibility regarding globalization on the one hand; and on the other hand, do you think that they will face a growing number of similar challenges in their way towards the next decades?

We may be the two richest areas on the planet, but I doubt that we can lay claim to being the most democratic. Some European countries fail to elect legislatures that truly reflect the proportion of votes cast for the various political parties. Others are struggling to learn, or to re-learn, the art of democracy after many years of totalitarian government.

US politics seem to be dominated by the power of money (corporate donations to fund election campaigns, for example), which exclude the average citizen from standing for high office. This seems to be the antithesis of what the founding fathers had in mind. Big donations incur a debt of loyalty and eventual repayment, which distorts policy development in the public interest. And then, of course, there is the tale of pregnant, dimpled and hanging chads…

So whom do we kid, when we claim some special democratic virtue? We do, however, have a special responsibility towards globalization, because of our economic power. Globalization was created by the western world as an export vehicle for its own commercial aspirations. So we in the west bear a moral responsibility for the baleful effects of globalization on populations and individuals worldwide. Globalization is based on one motive only: profit. The advocates of globalization can claim all sort of altruistic notions: free trade raises living standards, for instance. But increased trade can never be an end in itself. We have to ask: 'who benefits?' Most added value accrues to the rich world. The reality, for many people living in the third world, is the opposite: exploitation, poverty (indebtedness to the west), hunger and despair - indeed, an overwhelming sense of helplessness, a lack of control and little influence. No wonder the west is resented.

If we wish to respect the essence of this congress - personal empowerment - we must accept responsibility for the ills of globalization and determine to turn it around. This means that we have to identify ethical values to underpin our living together in comfort and harmony on a small planet. Mutual respect, proper dialogue, responsibility for others as well as for self, religious tolerance and international solidarity all come to mind.

6. Beyond treaties, organizations, common interests, ... the cooperation between Europeans and Americans is, in the end, a matter of people cooperating with people (politicians, civil servants, businessmen, executives, professors, activists,). How do you assess this 'human factor' today? Should it be improved?

See my previous answers. Should the 'human factor' be improved? Yes, of course. This is the challenge we all accept, as part of life's journey. Perhaps, as individuals and as communities worldwide, we just need to practice a spot of tender loving care towards one another. Idealistic? Yes: but how much more powerful and true to the human spirit than bravado gunboat diplomacy or the soulless struggle for bigger world markets.