Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-15-Speech-3-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020515.2.3-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I have listened carefully to Mr Elles’ presentation of his report and also to Mrs Mann’s speech. In my view, their assessment of the current state of our relationship with the United States and in particular of the Transatlantic Agenda and the future of our relationship merit careful study by the Commission and the Council.
Fifthly, and still in the same vein, the wish to cooperate in other fora and international processes was declared. Specific reference was made to the Doha Agenda and the run-up to Johannesburg, that is, the Conference on Sustainable Development.
Finally, it was noted that internal changes within the Union had made themselves felt in all these spheres of cooperation. Two such changes are the enlargement process and the establishment of a common foreign security and defence policy, the consequences of which have been felt in a strengthening of the relationship with the United States.
These, Mr President, are the main conclusions to be drawn from this meeting. As is usual practice, the meeting began with a closed session. This was followed by a plenary session devoted to the more political issues. This was in turn followed by a lunch at which the trade issues were dealt with.
Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will now allow me to present a detailed analysis of the specific content of the negotiations on each of the agenda items, whilst still bearing in mind the ideas I just outlined.
The war on terrorism comes first. As stated on previous occasions, both parties believe it is a key issue and a priority, especially following the events of 11 September. In this connection, the draft agreement on extradition and legal aid in criminal cases was considered. As already mentioned, this followed the approval of the mandate by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 25 April and was welcomed by the United States.
Efforts to cut off sources of funding for terrorism come second. This led to a reference to the point concerning extending the lists of terrorist organisations in order to bring the European Union’s in line with the United States’. There was also discussion on updating the Union’s measures with a view to applying United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. Parliament is doubtless aware that the Presidency made a considerable effort over this item, to the extent of calling several Clearing House meetings and an extraordinary Coreper to deal exclusively with this issue. The extended European Union list was eventually formally adopted on the very day of the Summit. As expected, the United States welcomed this further effort. Nonetheless, a degree of disappointment at the omission of Hamas and Hezbollah from the list was expressed. Both sides undertook to make a greater effort to come up with more consistent lists in anticipation of future amendments.
Lastly, there is the question of non-proliferation. In this connection, the United States focused mainly on what is known as the ‘ten plus ten over ten’ programme. This is a ten-year scheme aimed at reducing the amount of radioactive and chemical material in Russia. The estimated cost is USD 10 billion. The United States emphasised the importance of the role the European Union can play in this regard, given its relationship with third countries such as Iran. The European Union undertook to include non-proliferation as one of the issues to be dealt with in the political dialogue within the framework of the negotiating mandate for the free trade and cooperation agreement the Union hopes to adopt with Iran. Furthermore, the European Union took advantage of the opportunity to announce measures aimed at strengthening multilateral instruments.
I should now like to move on to comment on the various issues of mutual interest in the field of regional cooperation dealt with at the Summit. I refer to the Middle East, the Balkans, Russia and Afghanistan.
As regards the Middle East, Prime Minister Aznar recalled the need for urgent action not only to achieve a cease-fire but also to give a political dimension to efforts to find a solution. For the United States, President Bush and Secretary of State Powell recalled that the message of the President’s speech on 4 April remained valid. The need to take account of the constructive spirit currently displayed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and by other moderate Arab states was recognised, however. The High Representative, Mr Solana, and Commissioner Patten reiterated the need to rebuild Palestinian infrastructure. They also recalled the conclusions of the
Contact Group in Oslo concerning the need to avoid a security vacuum in the Palestinian Territories.
It should also be mentioned that Mr Solana drew attention to the unfairness of the accusations of anti-Semitism levelled against Europeans by American public opinion. President Bush admitted these accusations were unfair.
As Mr Elles stated, in recent years circumstances have arisen resulting in changes in our relationship with the United States. Clearly too, the United States has adopted attitudes which are at variance with a number of common principles we felt had been accepted in the context of the Transatlantic Agenda.
It is also worth noting that the Quartet, as mentioned earlier, met on the fringes of the Summit, and that the United States felt it was a landmark meeting. The value of concerted international action in achieving a negotiated solution to this particular conflict was therefore recognised. Basic agreement was reached on the need to develop the political, economic and security dimensions in parallel. Furthermore, both sides expressed their determination to maintain pressure on both the parties concerned. The United States expressed its appreciation of the efforts made by the European Union in this field and stated that it would always invoke the precautionary principle to avoid compromising American credibility in the area. To sum up, the Washington Declaration strengthens and reiterates the Madrid Declaration of 10 April.
Concerning the Balkans, the European Union placed particular emphasis on the importance of the association and stabilisation strategy, and also on the common interest in the deployment of the APTF police mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina from January 2003. The Union reiterated its willingness to take charge of operation
in the Republic of Macedonia. The United States praised the joint initiatives in the area. In addition, the United States declared its willingness to bring pressure to bear on Serbia to ensure the latter cooperated with the Tribunal at The Hague.
The exchange of views on Russia took place in anticipation of the United States/Russia Summit of 24 to 26 May, the NATO/Russia Summit on 28 May and the European Union/Russia Summit on 29 May. The European Union highlighted the positive elements of the political dialogue with Russia. Nonetheless, it also referred to politically sensitive issues such as Belarus and Moldova, and expressed its concern over the situation regarding human rights in Chechnya. The United States welcomed the way concerted action is developing in the area, as this represents tangible evidence of President Putin’s Western leanings. In addition, the United States declared its commitment to reach an agreement with Russia on the reduction of nuclear weapons prior to the next summit. It was reported in yesterday’s news that such an agreement has been achieved. The European Union added a reference to the economic dimension and to the steps Russia is taking with a view to achieving full market economy status. The latter is a requirement for Russia to join the World Trade Organisation. It is not, however, envisaged that it will become a member before 2004.
The consensual position adopted by both partners over Afghanistan was again much in evidence. The need for bilateral cooperation in the task of rebuilding the country was emphasised. The United States also recognised the European Union’s significant financial contribution for that very purpose.
Turning to matters relating to economics and trade, the principle of avoiding further discussion on ongoing contentious issues was retained. Revisiting such issues often only results in overshadowing the significance of the strong economic links between the European Union and the United States. We dealt first with the Doha Agenda, then with the Monterrey Summit and finally with the forthcoming Johannesburg Summit. This item was raised briefly to restate both parties’ wish to achieve a consensual position within the multilateral framework of the Monetary Fund, in line with the Presidency’s approach. The Nepad initiative was raised as an item to be dealt with within the framework of the forthcoming G8 summit at Kananaskis. There was also reference to the scope provided at Johannesburg for the development of joint cooperation programmes regarding agriculture and drinking water for example.
More specifically, as regards trade disputes, the exchange revealed the United States’ willingness to negotiate. This was evidenced by its commitment to abide by World Trade Organisation rules, in particular regarding the contentious issues involving the Foreign Sales
Corporation and restrictions on the import of clementines.
Concerning steel, as is already known, the United States envisages the possibility of reaching a negotiated solution to the issue of compensation in the medium term, without prejudice to the complaint the European Union is to lodge with the World Trade Organisation. Each party presented a clear statement of its position. However, both sides reiterated their intention of complying with the World Trade Organisation’s regulations. Nonetheless, the European Union continued to argue in defence of its intention to pursue compensation further as the key to protecting its rights.
The item on the Foreign Sales Corporation was dealt with in a positive way, thanks to the favourable climate generated by postponing the panel’s decision until June. President Bush undertook to adjust internal fiscal legislation in the United States to bring it into line with the World Trade Organisation.
The issue of clementines was dealt with in the same spirit. The United States maintained its commitment to speed up procedures so as to avoid damaging consequences for the coming harvest. Clearly, this all dates back to before the advent of the new law adopted recently. The latter increases aid to American growers. This move could prove to be another bone of contention between the United States and Europe. It does seem that the United States is failing to send out a positive signal at the very time when we are all jointly committed to reducing agricultural subsidies with an eye to the Doha negotiations. I do however feel that we must draw our own conclusion on this matter, with a view to our negotiating position at the Doha round.
In the positive agenda we have brought together under this heading all those issues on which agreement is likely to be reached in the medium term, and for which the basis of agreement by both parties already exists. In principle, the following items are to be included: reciprocal access to trading on the stock market, the approximation of regulations for organic farming and its monitoring plus the development of a joint prototype for electronic customs inspections.
Nonetheless, I believe these are mere blips in what is essentially a strong relationship we trust will prove very significant. In fact, relations with the United States are already established and important, regardless of whether it is incumbent on us to reflect on strengthening them. Of all the Union’s external relationships, the transatlantic relationship is surely the closest one between the European Union and a third country.
Mr President, I must again emphasise the Presidency’s positive assessment of the Summit between the European Union and the United States in Washington on 2 May. The Summit’s effects will be far-reaching. In conclusion, the transatlantic relationship is important and we are indeed concerned about it. Nonetheless, the fact remains that it is a cornerstone in the structure of the Union’s external relations, and will, I believe, remain as such.
The European Union/United States Summit was held in Washington barely two weeks ago. There can be no reservations in declaring that its outcome was excellent. Both parties maintained a commendable constructive spirit across the whole range of issues discussed. This exemplifies what I stated earlier. It shows that regardless of some frustration on our side because of our aim of maintaining a more intense relationship with the United States, the fact is that due to the intensity and closeness of the transatlantic relationship the United States is currently one of the Union’s very special partners.
We are working together in a number of areas such as the war on terrorism and the joint effort to resolve regional conflicts, notably in the Middle East. The significance of the fact that a meeting of the so-called Quartet was held immediately after the summit should be noted. We are also engaged in drawing up and debating a positive agenda on issues related to trade. It is therefore appropriate to focus on the more important aspects of our mutual understanding rather than keep highlighting those areas where we disagree. The latter mainly involve minor trading issues and, incidentally, amount to less than 5% of the volume of trade between the United States and Europe. There are therefore many good examples of this transatlantic relationship based on common values and on the close cooperation President Bush himself deems to be unique and important.
From a global perspective and as stated in the press conference following the Summit, a number of conclusions may be drawn from this event. I should like to mention the main ones as I feel they encapsulate the current state of our relationship with the United States. In the first place, there is a clear recognition of the density and significance of the relationship between the European Union and the United States in economic terms. After all, together we account for almost half of the world’s economy, 40% to be precise. Only 5% of this is giving rise to dispute, as I stated earlier. This represents the greatest bilateral relationship in the contemporary world in terms of trade and investment. There is also recognition of the importance of this relationship in political terms with the renewed joint impetus in the fight against terrorism.
Secondly, the existence of common strategies and challenges was again highlighted. This means the European Union and the United States are strategic partners. Terrorism is the main case in point. Negotiations opened on agreements for extradition and legal aid in criminal cases. The Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted the relevant mandate on 25 April. Cooperation regarding freezing the assets of terrorist organisations and non-proliferation was strengthened. The updated list of organisations of this nature was finalised on the eve of the meeting to bear witness to our commitment and keep alive the struggle against such organisations.
Thirdly, concerning foreign policy, the close cooperation and concerted action on regional conflicts and reconstruction processes was highlighted. Examples of these are the agreement on security in the Middle East on the principles of the end to violence, recognition of states and recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a legitimate participant along with support for the Mitchell and Tenet plans. The improvement in the situation in the Balkans was also noted. Cooperation between the United States and Europe in areas such as Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro was cited. Mention was also made of the close cooperation in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and of the political solution achieved in the framework of the Bonn conference.
Fourthly, both parties stated their position regarding the World Trade Organisation’s regulations on all trade issues. They endorsed the principle underlying the positive agenda and the qualitative leap involved in identifying areas suitable for cooperation in future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Amber Fox"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples