Interview Alain Terrenoire on Eyes on Europe
Under the title “Europe Must Become an Independent Power Again”, the platform Eyes on Europe published an interview with Alain Terrenoire, Honorary President of the International Paneuropean Union.
The interview was conducted by Nathan Doude van Troostwijk, a member of the Young Paneuropeans.
In the interview, Terrenoire discusses Europe’s role in the world as well as the political and societal challenges facing the European Union.
You can find the translation of the full interview below.
Interview Alain Terrenoire
Europe Must Become an Independent Power Again
President of the International Pan-European Union for twenty years, Alain Terrenoire is a leading figure in post-war European engagement. Elected in 1967, at the age of 25 he became the youngest Gaullist member of the French parliament, driven by his ambition, in his own words, ‘not to be a spectator but to become a player’. He later became a Member of the European Parliament and was also the rapporteur for lowering the voting age to 18, making a lasting contribution to the expansion of democratic participation.
The International Pan-European Union (IPEU) was established in 1922 in Vienna by Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi and is still active today. It campaigns to promote a politically, economically and militarily united Europe in order to guarantee peace and face external challenges.
How did you discover the Pan-European movement, and what does it mean to you today?
I have always been sensitive to the European question, which for me was a matter of course. France had contributed to the victory (in the Second World War) but was terribly weakened, like its neighbours, which for the second time in the same century had contributed to European suicide (the two world wars). It was therefore imperative that France recover and become stronger. It seemed to me that only the European dimension would enable it to reach the level required in the 20th century. I considered that my primary struggle, I would even say my life's commitment, was to contribute to the construction of a great united Europe. So naturally, as soon as my political awareness was sufficiently awakened, I joined the Pan-European movement.
Why did you choose to get involved in the Pan-European movement in particular, rather than other pro-European movements of the time?
Firstly, the Pan-European Union seemed to me to be the most realistic, constructive and fair approach. My family felt the same way, as did my father, who, at the request of De Gaulle and Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, founded the Pan-European Union of France. The IPEU considered that the European dimension was a necessity for all European countries, but that it also had to be based on taking national realities into account. At that point in the 20th century, it was impossible to forget that, in reality, national existence was unavoidable. Europe therefore had to be created on the basis of the national realities experienced by Europeans. The Pan-European movement was therefore a reality experienced by national sentiment. To circumvent it seemed illusory to me.
Secondly, Europe only had value and real prospects if it asserted itself as a global and independent entity, capable of building its own future in all areas. In the 1950s and 1960s, American influence was still considerable and, to some extent, justified by the threat of Soviet imperialism on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
In this situation, it was understandable that Europe, still in the process of construction, needed external support. But it was obvious to me that Europe only made sense if it was capable of building itself, for itself, globally, without being permanently dependent on a third party.
Do you see any similarities today between wealthy individuals such as Édouard Stérin, Elon Musk and Vincent Bolloré, and nationalist political movements?
It is possible that they exist, but I do not see in what form or for what reason. Obviously, the Rassemblement National, which is favoured by Mr Bolloré's media outlets, has a mainly nationalist orientation. That is to say, it is closed off to the rest of the world, mistrusting and opposing anything outside France.
In my view, it is in France's interest to work with its European neighbours, because it is with them that it can defend its own interests. It should not be allying itself with foreigners who are themselves nationalists. All this is based on a great deal of demagoguery and electoral opportunism, which aim to win over voters who are disappointed and distressed by the difficulties they are experiencing.
Exploiting this anger will not lead to anything positive or constructive. It is also worth noting that as soon as these nationalists come to power, as in Italy recently, they are forced to take external and European realities into account. If Ms Meloni, President of the Italian Council, had not benefited from billions from the EU to revive her country's economy, she would not be in a position to do so.
How would you respond to voters tempted by nationalist options, in a context where pro-European forces are struggling to convince?
It is clear that most of those who vote for nationalism are unaware that it only leads to conflict. I wasn't the first to say it, it was a former President of the French Republic (François Mitterrand): nationalism means war. The entire history of humanity, right up to the present day, proves it: nationalism means war.
If we want to avoid war, we must avoid locking ourselves into a narrow nationalism that automatically pushes us into conflict with others. Today, in 2025, I see phenomena that closely resemble those of the 1930s, namely a resurgence of nationalism. Is that what we want?
At the time, that nationalism, particularly in Germany, took the form of anti-Semitism, with the consequences we all know. Today, it is directed against Arabs. That does not mean that Europe should be open to all influences, far from it; it must control immigration according to its needs. However, we must not consider immigrants in general to be adversaries who must be fought by any means necessary. The Rassemblement National has moved from anti-Semitism to systematic anti-Islamism. France has Muslims, and in our secular democracy, we must live in respect for religious feelings while remaining wary of the dangers they can sometimes pose.
We are seeing an increasingly marked rapprochement between China, Russia and other authoritarian regimes. How do you interpret this convergence?
It is clearly a relationship of balance. We saw this in Trump's behaviour. He wanted to impose very repressive customs duties on China before largely compromising. This is caused by America's dependence on a number of essential Chinese products.
The same is true with Russia. It is clear that Trump's America, despite its often-contradictory rhetoric, is seeking a compromise, or even a compromise, with Russia. This is where we see that the United States no longer considers free and democratic Europe as an area it is responsible for protecting. If Europeans had understood this earlier, in relation to what is happening in Ukraine, we would not be at the same level.
In the world we live in, do you think that European states could defend their sovereignty without the European framework?
I find it impossible to imagine that the international geopolitical dispersion of European countries could be of any use to Europeans. I would rather see a gradual invasion taking hold if we do not quickly manage to assert our own protection in all areas. Unity is strength. European unity is essential in today's world, otherwise we will see the gradual erosion of what remains of the old European culture and civilisation that has permeated the world.
Europe is now at a crossroads. The EU exists and has achieved positive results, but it has not been built on sufficiently solid foundations. We share, for the most part, the values of the rule of law, freedom, democratic practice and a generally peaceful vision internally. We can therefore, by ourselves, hold our ground and ensure the development that today's civilisation needs. It is a question of political will. If Europeans and their leaders are not fully aware of this and do not make the necessary efforts, then there is a risk that Europe's long history will gradually fade away in the face of Chinese and Russian imperialism and the resurgence of American individualism. There is a real fear that Europe will become part of history, but not part of the future.
Young Europeans are inheriting a Europe in crisis. What message would you send them to encourage them to embrace the European project?
In my view, we need to make young people understand that Europe only makes sense if it becomes an independent power. This word should not scare them; they can see the competition we are facing. There is no issue, even those considered essentially national, such as immigration or security, that cannot be addressed without being put into a European perspective.
So that is the message for young people. If you feel that your future is purely individual, if you do not see yourself as part of a human community, then by all means carry on as you are, but you will not get very far. If your idea is that of a large, open European market dependent on third parties, what is the point? However, if your idea of Europe is that of a power asserting its independence, go ahead.