It’s make or break time – summit of ambitions for EU-US relations

Date: 19/06/03

THE first summit between EU leaders and George W. Bush since the war in Iraq takes place in Washington next Wednesday (25 June). As part of our summit preview, Dana Spinant addresses EU-US strains with Günter Burghardt, head of the European Commission's office in Washington.

OFFICIALS say it is "make or break" time for EU-US relations. What can this summit do to get the relations between Europe and America back on track?

There is indeed a need for sober analysis of what went wrong on both sides during the not-so-friendly fire over war against Iraq; and to look ahead at the upcoming summit to put the indispensable strategic EU/US relationship back on track, including working together on the many post-war challenges.

During my involvement in transatlantic relations over the past decades, I have experienced so many squabbles. Despite the traditional support of the emerging postwar "New Europe" by both Democratic and Republican administrations, an obvious systematic reason was - and still is to some degree - the asymmetry between the European Union, a "work in progress", and the United States, a superpower evolving into the world's dominant military power and, some neo-conservatives would suggest, the imperial power.

The fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989 was our major common victory, the combined result of the attractiveness of European unification on the post- communist new democracies and of American resolve and steadfastness during the Cold War. "Europe whole and free", working together as a counterpart, not a counterweight, as a "partner in leadership" not as a follower, of the United States, was President Bush Snr's way of describing our ambitious common agenda.

While Europe is about to consolidate its enlargement from 15 to 25 in a historic constitutional process, the geopolitical earthquake of 11 September 2001 has had the effect of a tectonic shift on the agenda of President Bush. America the invincible has lost its sense of invulnerability.

The ensuing focus of an understandably traumatized America on "war against terrorism" is still not fully understood in Europe. And the decision to go to war over Iraq has produced unparalleled disunity, both throughout Europe and across the Atlantic, together with unprecedented recriminations and bitterness. Many in Europe have real problems with what they consider America's almost obsessive focus on combating terrorism through preventive and pre-emptive war, coupled with a strategy of pre-eminence.

This had the almost unavoidable consequence of exacerbating divisions within the European Union through the organization of "coalitions of the willing". In a comment on the book jacket of the just-published Rogue Nation - American unilateralism and the failure of good intentions by Clyde Prestowitz, a liberal republican who heads a Washington think-tank, I have summed up my thoughts as follows: "Will the United States succumb to the temptation of changing roles from sole superpower working with partners to the world's imperial power in search of followers? Will the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers lead to the dismantling of the twin pillars of the postwar transatlantic relationship, NATO and the indispensable partnership between the US and the EU, the new Europe?

"Prestowitz convincingly illustrates why such a course must be avoided at all cost."

While the risks for EU/US relations have never been so dangerously apparent, the recipe to avoid an unproductive "make or break" discussion has again become crystal clear. More Europe, not less America, in order to narrow the capabilities gap in a relationship of mutual respect, shared objectives and complementarity of means. The role of officials in this context is to persevere in solid, daily groundwork on an ever-broader transatlantic agenda instead of competing with op-ed writers on both sides in a beauty contest over caricatures and stereotypes about each other.

The EU/US summit on 25 June in Washington will provide an opportunity to get relations back on track. From the Washington end, this has been clearly underlined by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice last week, when she referred, in a conversation with my colleagues and me, to President Bush's pronouncements in Krakow: "This is no time to stir up divisions when Europe and America are united, no problem and no enemy can stand against us."

You said, in an interview with European Voice (10-16 April), that we have to avoid the present problems affecting the "healthy body" of our economic cooperation. Is economics the key to repairing EU-US relations?

I find a lot of sympathy for this approach with many US interlocutors. The value of the daily transatlantic economic relationship, including trade in goods, services, and foreign direct investment, stands at around €2.9 billion per day and accounts for roughly 13 million jobs on both sides. In terms of overall assets and cross-ownerships we have become important stakeholders in each other's economies. The US and the EU combine 60% of world GDP and account for some 40% of world trade. Our economies are the most globalized and intertwined part of the global economy.

The transatlantic marketplaces are truly joined at the hip. US business is earning more than half of all foreign earnings in Europe. 60% of all foreign direct investment in the US is originating in Europe. And 75% of Europe's investment abroad is in the United States.

Emotions may occasionally run high. However, the need for the virus of policy disagreements not to affect the healthy body of our economic relationship has never been so indisputably paramount. Moreover, beyond dealing responsibly with our few unavoidable trade disputes, which represent a tiny portion of our exchanges, the ever-broadening economic interdependence already operates as a stabilizer of the overall relationship.

The potential of a positive economic agenda must be further enhanced in order to make it a source of momentum and dynamism and a driving force for the transatlantic finalité politique, the concept of partnership of equals.

Economic relations have suffered too: officials involved in the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) say there have been repercussions on business. Is the damage more severe than initially admitted?

The rancor and harsh language over the Iraq crisis worried the transatlantic business community, and rightly so. I am encouraged, therefore, to see that the business community has taken the lead in reorganizing the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue, which will be officially relaunched at the EU-US summit.

Of course, some stances taken in Congress over "freedom fries" and alleged European protectionism against GMOs might have given the impression of anti-European attitudes. While no major real damage has yet occurred, such extreme rhetoric must be kept in check. It would also be patently wrong and misleading to the general public, for one side to claim exclusive ownership of the moral high ground, eg by constructing an artificial link between the marketing of GMO products and the fight against hunger in Africa where Europe's record is second to none.

Chris Patten and Pascal Lamy, in their 9 April Herald Tribune op-ed, rightfully recommended "putting away the megaphones".

Should the summit's agenda be built so as to avoid the sensitive questions and to tackle only "healthy" uncontroversial issues?

Clearly, the answer is "no". It is only by constructively addressing the sensitive questions that we make progress toward resolving them. Frank and open discussion is healthy and absolutely essential to maintain the vitality of our partnership. A summit provides the opportunity for our leaders to iron out issues face to face when necessary. This is an integral part of managing our relationship.

Do you think that the new row, about immunity for American service personnel before the International Criminal Court (ICC), will affect the summit?

The recently granted extension by the UN Security Council to the US for another year should have alleviated the issue. However, the EU is a strong supporter of the ICC, and has been promoting ratification worldwide of its charter by many countries. We remain aware of US concerns, but we think there are sufficient safeguards enshrined in the treaty to protect US citizens as much as others against possible abuse of the ICC.

On the issue of future EU member states being pressured by the US into signing Article 98 agreements [bilateral agreements on ICC immunity], we have reminded them of the expectation that they should stick to EU guidelines on the matter. The European Union believes strongly in the functioning of a global court that can ensure that perpetrators of crimes against humanity cannot do so with impunity. We believe the time has long passed to establish a permanent rather than an ad hoc system of justice for humanity.

Being in Washington, do you feel the mood toward Europe has become more positive again, after the Iraq crisis?

I think that for the most part passions have cooled and people realize what happened in the past is in the past and now we have to look forward.

Day by day, events sharpen the conviction of many Americans that no country alone can successfully accomplish enormous challenges such as nation-building in Iraq. The magnitude of what must be done, and the implications for the Middle East as a whole of success or failure, will help us all understand the need to work together. The EU is a capable and experienced partner in nation-building. We shoulder our share of the burden in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, and I'm sure we will do so in Iraq.

How can the EU speak the same language at the summit, although represented by several persons?

The onus is on the substance rather than on the numbers. President Bush knows that when it comes to economic issues the Commission speaks for the European Union, and he is particularly aware of the work done by Bob Zoellick and Pascal Lamy on managing trade issues on both sides.

It is appropriate that the summit is preceded by the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki. This will allow [Greek] Prime Minister Costas Simitis and [Commission] President Romana Prodi to express EU positions where they have been established.

The more Europe there is in substance, the more relevant the summit will appear for the US president.

The "menu" of the summit will range from the fight against terrorism (with the signature of landmark EU/US agreements on mutual legal assistance and extradition); security related issues, non proliferation and weapons of mass destruction; the Middle East, including the critically important US and EU roles with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian issue and the postwar situation in Iraq; a large positive economic agenda which ranges from progress in financial services, the opening of negotiations on a transatlantic aviation agreement, cooperation on energy developments, in particular hydrogen, to WTO compliance issues and the Doha Development Agenda with the preparation of the September ministerial meeting in Cancún. Agriculture and GMOs might require more straight talking, as did the issue of US steel measures at last year's summit or the Kyoto protocol under the Swedish presidency in 2001 at Gothenburg.

Prime Minister Simitis and President Prodi will brief on the Convention on the future of Europe and subsequent steps. It is in that context that the numbers of EU participants at future summit meetings will be determined.

The Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou said recently in an interview with European Voice (22-28 May) that EU-US summits have in the past been "a gathering of speeches" and that he wants to inject more sincere dialogue into these events. Are Europe and America sincere with each other?

I participated in many summits in the past and can only say that there was rarely time for leisurely monologues; rather shortage of time to seriously deal with the many operational issues on our plate. I would, however, strongly agree with George Papandreou on the need for more mature and sincere dialogue. The substance of future EU/US summits will evolve concerning EU capabilities beyond the economy, where we already are considered to be a relevant, if not always a comfortable, partner.

But this is true both ways. "Sincere dialogue" also requires a higher degree of continuity of interlocutors on the EU side, beyond the Commission, and a more clearly defined role between EU representatives and the constant uncoordinated pilgrimages of individual member states' dignitaries to the White House with often confusing bilateral messages. A situation that would become worse with enlargement.

On the part of this administration, Condoleezza Rice recently summed up expectations: "The US will deal with the EU where [the EU is united and] with those member states that support the US where the EU is divided."

The basis for an EU/US partnership must be recognition of common values and basic objectives, more dialogue before decisions are taken together or separately, a recognition that differences must not lead to rivalry and the readiness to engage in hard work on global issues from the Middle East to AIDS in Africa. I am convinced that this is a good road-map leading to better results and that both sides are capable of improving.

For Europe, the sine qua non condition is "to get our act together". This crisis should serve as a timely wake-up call.