Closing the transatlantic culture-gap

Date: 10/11/05

With the tenth anniversary of the New Transatlantic Agenda looming, leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are beginning to look at how they might revamp what is arguably the most important relationship of the 'free world'

Signed by Bill Clinton and Felipe González in December 1995, most of that document's goals still resonate in 2005: promoting peace and stability, democracy and development, developing closer economic relations, building bridges across the Atlantic.

Yet some omissions or near-omissions are glaring in the context of today's political discourse. Combating terrorism, for example, receives only a passing mention; so too the emergence of China and India.

While both sides agree on the need to revamp the 1995 declaration, some are now asking if it is time to move beyond mere political declarations into legally binding bilateral agreements.

Europeans deeply involved in transatlantic affairs are encouraged by the greater attention paid by the US to relations with the EU since George W. Bush's re-election and his visit to Brussels in February.

They say they would like to see relations bolstered by a binding 'framework agre-ement', a grand document that would put the relationship front and centre.

Such a document would largely reflect the way the Union itself has grown and would be a vote in favour of a rules-based system of international relations that the EU says it wants to see.

A legally binding agreement would likely need the approval of congress and governments on this side of the Atlantic. Given the rancorous debate over the current round of world trade talks, this may be difficult to come by. It would also leave the EU and US open to allegations of dictating the terms of world trade.

US legislators seem wary of issuing a grand declaration. With their propensity for solution-based actions they say they would prefer a 'get to it' agenda, targeting the work that needs to be done.

It is an approach that has some support from big businesses involved in the debate.

Others in Europe have expressed scepticism, sensing that an aversion to a high profile agreement may reflect a residual fear of putting the EU-US relationship on a pedestal, not least because it might give the impression that it is more important for political discussion than NATO.

A third approach is emerging, which could improve relations, at least in the economic sphere. One that could perhaps rework what appears to have been the maxim of transatlantic relations in recent years: never let a collective goal get in the way of an argument about how to achieve it.

Some are looking to boost relations by other means, providing a legal framework as well as tackling problems before they arise. The key, advocates say, is to improve ties between the US Congress and European parliamentarians.

Today legislators, along with representatives from business, meet informally via the Transatlantic Policy Network, but as members readily admit, the forum lacks resources and political impetus.

Creating an early warning system where legislators discuss upcoming law on both sides of the Atlantic at an early stage could, supporters argue, smooth over the more troublesome aspects of legislation, defusing crises before they emerge.

According to German MEP Erika Mann, rows such as that over Sarbanes-Oxley, the US financial and accounting disclosure rules, would have been drafted differently if such an agreement existed, creating less problems and uncertainty for EU and US firms. Frits Bolkestein, the European Commissioner for the internal market, famously characterised Sarbanes-Oxley as a US solution to a US problem.

There are obvious difficulties: the US Congress's first concerns are domestic rather than international. The European Parliament does not have the equivalent status and some European national governments are wary of giving it more power.

So could institutionalising meetings between legislators help solve political problems?

Although less dramatic than a high-profile bilateral agreement, increased contacts between lawmakers might close the cultural gap that seems to open up mid-Atlantic - at least more quickly than ten years of declarations.

Major analysis feature in which the author discusses the idea to base the relationship between the European Union and the United States on legally binding agreements or more formal consultation procedures.

EEAS: Countries: United States of America http://www.eeas.europa.eu/us/index_en.htm

---