U.S. Committed to Partnership with "United Europe"

U.S. Remains Committed to Partnership with "United Europe"

DOS's Charles Ries before House International Relations Committee

The "energy and new initiatives" from the June 25 U.S.-European Union Summit, "with new pledges of cooperation on non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, regional problems and aviation, prove that the Atlantic partnership remains a vital force in the world. We remain committed to this partnership with a united Europe," said a senior State Department official July 22.

In prepared testimony to the House International Relations Committee, Ries -- principal deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs -- characterized U.S. relations with the EU as "multifaceted and highly complex."

This relationship encompasses "the entire range of international economic and foreign policy issues," he said. "Literally any important event in any country in the world will be subject to consultations between the U.S. and EU, and where we can find common ground, [to] cooperation and coordinated action."

Areas of close transatlantic cooperation, Ries said, include non-proliferation, the Middle East peace process, the Balkans, counter-terrorism, and "the reconstruction and the building of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Ries also reviewed "areas of conflict" between the United States and EU, including:

- Liberalization and reform of agricultural trade; governmental regulations over chemicals, biotechnology and beef hormones, poultry, financial services, and accounting; and participation in the International Criminal Court.

As factors that will continue to bind the Atlantic partnership, Ries cited U.S.-EU economic ties, stating that "Prosperity for Europe and the U.S. -- indeed the entire world -- depends on our ability to continue cooperation and economic interdependence."

And secondly, he said, "As often as the U.S. and EU disagree, we share common objectives and values. And it is increasingly clear that the only way we can achieve these goals is a common U.S.-EU approach and common action. Canceling each other out is counterproductive."

Following is the text of Ries' prepared testimony:

(begin text)

Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Testimony for the House International Relations Committee

By Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Charles Ries

"U.S.-EU RELATIONS"

July 15, 2003

[Note: Hearing was postponed until July 22, 2003]

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss today the relationship between the United States and the European Union. Our relations with the EU are multifaceted and highly complex. The structure of the EU and its decision-making process is one of the most complicated in the world. The increasing role of the European Parliament and the addition of ten new EU members will add new factors to this already arcane and procedurally complex process. In addition, the breadth of the relationship -- encompassing the entire range of international economic and foreign policy issues -- is impressive. Literally any important event in any country in the world will be subject to consultations between the U.S. and EU, and where we can find common ground, cooperation and coordinated action. While the U.S. works with European Union institutions when appropriate, we of course continue to strengthen our close working relationships with countries that are members of the EU, such as the special relationship of the U.S. and the United Kingdom.

Management of this complex process can be frustrating, and an agenda covering the range of international issues that we address with the EU will inevitably leave us with differences. In this testimony I will cover both the areas where cooperation is promising and areas where we continue to have problems. There are a number of areas, some of which were highlighted at the U.S.-EU Summit, where the relationship seems to be on track, including cooperation on non-proliferation, regional issues, and counter-terrorism cooperation.

Recent Examples of Close Atlantic Cooperation

As the threat of the spread of nuclear weapons became even more prominent with the revelations in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, the EU has adopted a tougher new strategy toward non-proliferation. The EU Council of June 16 approved a set of Basic Principles and an Action Plan to strengthen international controls of weapons of mass destruction, which included a mandate to develop new cooperative measures with the United States. At the U.S.-EU Summit in Washington in June, the U.S. and EU pledged cooperation on a joint work program to combat the proliferation of dangerous weapons. It is worth mentioning some of the measures both sides agreed to implement:

- making the IAEA Additional Protocol a standard for international nuclear cooperation and non-proliferation;

- supporting an increase in the IAEA safeguards budget;

- tightening the enforcement and implementation of national export controls on dangerous materials and technology;

- strengthening national controls over dangerous pathogens and fostering the elimination of chemical weapons.

The U.S. and the EU have also agreed that national controls should include criminal penalties for the illegal export, transport, or brokering of weapons of mass destruction, missile delivery systems, and related materials and technology to create effective national exports systems to prevent transfers of WMD. The U.S. and the EU may provide assistance to advance this effort.

In sum, while we still can find ways to further strengthen and deepen our cooperation, the U.S. and EU have taken significant steps that will have a real impact on our common non-proliferation goals.

The joint U.S.-EU Summit statement on June 25 also condemned the nuclear programs in both Iran and North Korea and expressed their united determination to ensure compliance with the international non-proliferation obligations. We have worked together in the IAEA with the EU and its member states to bring non-complying countries into compliance.

Overall the U.S. and EU have been successful in coordinating our approaches to regional problems. Our views of the world and on our strategic interests are likely to continue to converge as the EU implements the strategic view endorsed at the Thessaloniki Summit on June 20. In the Middle East, the U.S. and EU both support a sustainable peace between Israel and the Palestinians. We have worked closely with the EU in developing an agreed roadmap that will eventually fulfill the President's vision of an independent Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with its neighbor Israel. We continue to cooperate in the Quartet to implement the road map, but progress will require close U.S.-EU coordination to support the new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and to encourage both sides to carry out the measures outlined in the roadmap.

In the Balkans, the U.S. and EU have worked closely to help the region move beyond the problems of the past and to bring peace and stability to this corner of Europe. In Macedonia, the EU recently took over peacekeeping duties, with forces established under the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). With the adaptation of Berlin Plus this year --a set of agreements designed to coordinate military operations between the EU and NATO-- the Macedonia operations fit in well with U.S.-EU efforts to bring greater stability to the Balkans.

U.S.-EU counter-terrorism cooperation has been close and productive in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. One major contribution has been police and judicial cooperation, including:

- effective collaboration with law enforcement authorities in EU member states, resulting in the arrest and disruption of a number of terrorist cells;

- establishment of a EUROPOL liaison with U.S. law enforcement and negotiation of a data privacy agreement to facilitate the exchange of personal data and information on suspects;

- signing of extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties, giving police on both sides of the Atlantic new tools for fighting terrorism and other serious crimes.

In January 2002, U.S. Customs launched the Container Security Initiative to provide a forward customs presence in foreign ports to prevent containerized cargo from being exploited by terrorists. The U.S. has bilateral CSI arrangements with 8 EU member states and is working with the EU Commission on future cooperation to implement CSI throughout Europe and increase the security of global trade. The U.S. and EU are also working together to shut down financing of terrorist groups and to freeze their assets. The EU designated the vast majority of terrorist groups and individuals whose assets have been frozen. The major exceptions are the political wing of HAMAS and Hizbollah. The EU is reconsidering this stance. The concluding statement at the last EU Summit June 19-20 noted "the Union demands that HAMAS and other groups declare immediately a cease-fire and halt all terrorist activity and recalls that the Council is urgently examining the case for wider action against HAMAS fund raising."

Finally, the U.S. and EU are working in partnership in the reconstruction and the building of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. In March of this year the European Commission announced a $452 million package of reconstruction support for Afghanistan for 2003-04, concentrating on rural development and food security, economic infrastructure, public sector reform, and healthcare. The United States, with assistance from France and others, is helping to train and equip a new Afghan National Army. Germany, with American assistance, is helping to rebuild the Afghan police force. Italy has done important work on judicial sector reform. Among the EU member states, the Germans, Dutch, and British have all served as International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) lead. In Iraq, while the EU itself was unable to support the U.S. due to divisions among its membership, a number of EU countries were part of the coalition forces. Many have also offered forces for peacekeeping missions, and the EU and its member states have been key suppliers of humanitarian assistance. Currently the EU is participating in the planning of a donors' conference to fund longer- term reconstruction in Iraq.

Areas of Difference

There are areas of conflict with the EU, some of them recent and some seemingly chronic. These differences stem from a variety of reasons, among them pure protectionism, differences in regulatory approach and philosophy. Even in matters where we share common values and interests, sometimes negotiators fail to reach a workable compromise.

Agriculture is one domain in which disputes are unresolved. Liberalization and reform of agricultural trade have long been issues of contention between the U.S. and the EU. Following the Doha WTO Ministerial, the U.S. was the first to propose a bold and comprehensive proposal to open markets and liberalize global agricultural trade. Europe has only recently taken a reciprocal step, agreeing to limited reform of its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This is important, but more will be needed as progress in this area will be key to the success of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). Cooperation between the U.S. and the EU was essential for agreement on launching the DDA and will be as important for achieving a successful conclusion of the Doha round.

In questions of regulation we also find persistent differences between the EU stance and our own. The U.S. and EU have different philosophies about governmental regulation, and these differences can have a significant impact on trade. At present we face a number of such disputes, involving chemicals, biotechnology and beef hormones, poultry, financial services, and accounting. The biotechnology dispute is the most persistent. In May we requested WTO consultations with the EU on its de facto moratorium on approvals of biotech applications. These consultations have not resolved the issue, and we will be requesting the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Despite extensive dialogue with Europe, and despite the reports of its own scientists that genetically modified foods present no health risks, the EU member states have been unwilling to grant approvals for biotech products. Europe's negative approach is also having a chilling effect elsewhere. Three African nations (Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe) have rejected U.S. food aid and prohibited importation of biotech seeds, based on their concern that the biotech seeds would affect their future trade opportunities in Europe. It would be tragic if superstition and political objections in wealthy Europe should lead poorer countries to reject biotechnology, which holds the potential of improved, sustainable yields and lower pesticide and herbicide use.

We are also concerned with the EU's proposed new traceability and labeling rules for biotech food and feed. The European Commission proposed these onerous rules to stigmatize biotech products that have been scientifically proven to be safe. The rules even require labeling of products derived from biotech commodities. The European Parliament approved in early July the European Commission's proposals. The legislation will now go back to the European Council for final review and could come into effect before the end of the year. While the EU argues the labeling policy is a prerequisite for an import approval process, we are very concerned that they may have the opposite effect and constitute a technical barrier to trade. The regulations will do little to restore consumer confidence and will be costly to implement, difficult to enforce, and could put existing biotech trade (e.g., $1 billion [$1,000 million] annually in soybeans) at risk. We have repeatedly explained our views to our colleagues in Europe. Our regulators are in frequent dialogue with their European counterparts. One example where we believe we are making some headway, though we remain concerned, relates to the EU's draft Chemicals Regulation recently published for comment by the European Commission. We have a mutual interest in protecting the environment and public health. We have welcomed the opportunity to consult with and have input into the Commission's preparation of its proposed new "Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals" framework. We welcome what we understand to be an active internal review of the proposed scope and possible implications of the proposals. However, we are concerned that the EU not adopt a costly, burdensome and complex system that proves unworkable, adversely impacts innovation and disrupts global trade. The proposed regulations and comments are to be reviewed by the Commission this summer following a public internet-based consultation period that ends July 10, after which a final proposal will be issued.

There are, of course, occasions on which, while the U.S. and the EU share common values, we may differ on how best to advance those values. Thus, for example, both the U.S. and the EU abhor war crimes and other offenses against the law of nations. But the U.S. and the EU do not share a common view about the wisdom of having the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United States is not a party to the treaty on the ICC known as the Rome Statute. The National Security Strategy of the United States issued by the President states:

"We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.

"We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and officials."

Expansion and Constitutional Changes

The EU is undergoing significant changes with the addition of new member states and consideration of the recent recommendations for structural modifications by the Constitutional Convention. On May 1 the EU will take on ten new member states: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus.

The expansion of the EU and the inherent challenge of governing a Europe made up of 25 nations, has led the EU to look at new ways of structuring the Union. Previous EU Treaty changes have been negotiated by governments alone. This time, EU leaders took the unprecedented step of creating the "Convention on the Future of Europe," led by former French President Giscard d'Estaing, and comprised of government officials and other senior figures from member states and accession countries. The Convention was tasked with producing a draft constitution to replace the treaties that currently form the EU's legal foundation, and it reported to the EU Summit in June. Among the institutional changes proposed by the draft are the creation of a Foreign Minister position for the Union and the replacement of the EU's rotating six-month presidency with a president elected by the Council of the European Union for a two-and-a-half year term.

Potentially more important for American interests, though, are proposals to allow subsets of member states to cooperate on defense matters even when there is no consensus within the EU. These proposals may not survive the next stage in the process, an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) beginning in the fall that will turn the constitutional draft into a treaty. Meanwhile, common foreign and security policy should continue to be based on unanimity among the member states rather than moving to a form of majority rule, as some had feared the convention would propose.

U.S. Interests in a Unified Europe

U.S. policy traditionally has been strongly supportive of an integrated, united Europe, and this policy has proven to be, on balance, very much a positive gain for U.S. interests. As foreseen by the European Union's founders, early integration efforts reconciled France and Germany and deeper and broader integration bonded together much of the continent, making an internal European war all but unthinkable. After being caught up in two world wars initiated by internal conflicts in Europe, the United States clearly benefits from Europe's current peaceful state. In addition, during the Cold War NATO provided the umbrella to allow the EU to develop in peace, while the EU built economic and political bonds and solidarity among European countries to help democracy ultimately prevail. EU expansion, along with the expansion of NATO, is tearing down permanently the barriers that divided Europe during the Cold War and reinforcing newly formed Eastern European democracies and free market economies. Finally, European integration and unity has clearly contributed greatly to Europe's economic liberalism and prosperity. Trade with Europe has contributed to our own prosperity.

Our support for a united Europe has clearly served us well. But there are critics who doubt that this will prove the case in the future. They point to some member state governments and some European international relations scholars who advocate a European Union that defines itself in opposition to the United States. In this view, the EU's combined economic power and clout in international organizations would be used as a counter-weight to U.S. policies. A more subtle argument sees differences in U.S. and European military capabilities and attitudes toward the use of power as inevitably building a breech into the Atlantic relationship. A Europe convinced that the international environment is permanently more benign would be less able to find common ground with the United States and less capable of acting jointly. In this view, rather than making itself America's adversary, Europe will make itself irrelevant. Either way these critics claim, support for European unification no longer should be in the United States' interest.

The Administration does not share either of these pessimistic views of Europe. There are several factors that will continue to bind the Atlantic partnership together and ensure that the U.S. will continue to have a stake in European unification. First, economic ties are so close and important to the prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic that any lengthy separation or even estrangement could be very painful. Total trade across the Atlantic is equal to nearly $500 billion [$500,000 million] a year. EU member states supply the U.S. with 65 percent of our foreign investment while the U.S. accounts for 45% of European foreign investment. Prosperity for Europe and the U.S. -- indeed the entire world -- depends on our ability to continue cooperation and economic interdependence. Second, as often as the U.S. and EU disagree, we share common objectives and values. And it is increasingly clear that the only way we can achieve these goals is a common U.S.-EU approach and common action. Canceling each other out is counterproductive.

The energy and new initiatives from the June 25 Washington Summit, with new pledges of cooperation on non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, regional problems and aviation, prove that the Atlantic partnership remains a vital force in the world. We remain committed to this partnership with a united Europe. As President Bush put it at a press conference following the Summit: "Since the end of World War II, the United States has strongly supported European unity as the best path to European peace and prosperity. We believe, as well, that strong ties between America and Europe are essential to peace and the prosperity of the world.”

© Scoop Media