The future of transatlantic relations in an uncertain world

Date: 10/11/04

Two MEPs discuss the direction of EU relations with the new US administration

The EU and US need to work more closely together on an economic and political level, says James Elles

NOW that the race for the US Presidency is finally over, President Bush and his advisors can start considering the conduct of policy in the months ahead.

What are the immediate priorities on domestic and foreign fronts? How could economic growth best be fostered? How are priorities to be handled in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine? What is to be the real objective of the four-year mandate?

The incoming European Commission president will probably be considering a comparable set of questions.

How alike are policy challenges for the EU and US? Is there a common agenda for 2005-08 that could be drawn up in the next few weeks?

The pessimists have plenty of potential flashpoints to point to in external policy. The war against terrorism will certainly be top priority for the US.

The run-up to elections in Iraq will require steel nerves. So will their aftermath, with European governments determining what financial and military roles they wish to play. Then there is the question of Iran. Will the US be happy to let the Europeans take the lead or will it take a more active approach?

Both these questions concern the overall pursuit of peace in the Middle East. What has become of the initiative for EU-US cooperation in the broader Middle East?

Finally there is the issue of economic assistance to both Afghanistan and Africa. How should this be coordinated by the two major global donors, the EU and the US, who contribute around 80% of the world's assistance programmes?

This is all enough to cause indigestion. Certainly there are more questions than answers.

But these problems have been around for months and will be around for many more.

A recently released document published by the Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN) lays the groundwork for successful EU-US cooperation.

Its strategy is based on the recognition of growing linkages on economic, defence and security, and political interests.

A bold new agenda for economic collaboration needs to be linked to joint action on shared political priorities.

This could mean avoiding well- known areas of dispute, such as a free trade area, and focusing on what already exists - the transatlantic market. The TPN document recommends deepening and broadening the transatlantic market, with a view to completion by 2015.

A 2010 target date should be set for financial services and capital markets; civil aviation; the digital economy; competition policy and regulatory cooperation. There should also be provision for a broad security partnership between the EU and US, with a mutually reinforcing interface between the EU and NATO. Finally, there should be a transatlantic partnership agreement building on the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda and reflecting the strategy proposed.

Is this a viable approach? Surprisingly, the broad outlines were approved by the European Parliament in late April 2004.

The economic option has the advantage that most elements are already in place, with joint consultation on removing remaining barriers to trade and investment. In any case, the process of interdependence between the EU and the US is unlikely to slacken.

The vital ingredient for the success of this proposal is political will. Will transatlantic leaders take a fresh look at how to bring the EU and the US together before getting sucked into the daily grind of politics?

Perhaps the incoming Commission president should pay a short informal visit in early January to Washington. Not just to compare notes but also to put forward a joint plan for EU-US cooperation in the years ahead.

• UK Conservative MEP James Elles is a vice-president of the European People's Party group (EPP-ED) and founder of the Transatlantic Policy Network.

Enough of US interference - we need to focus on multilateral cooperation, argues Pierre Moscovici

NOW that George W. Bush has been re-elected, I can see two possible scenarios.

The first scenario is that there will be a change in US foreign policy and that the influence of neo-conservatives such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz will be less strong than it has been in the past four years. There were already signs that such a process might be underway before polling day.

The second is a darker scenario. This is that US foreign policy will stay the same. If that occurs, then there will be serious difficulties for multilateralism.

We have to recognize that there have been fundamental changes in the US. The country has been deeply affected by 11 September 2001.

It has had legitimate security concerns but the way it took on international terrorism showed how its foreign policy is linked to its dominance in the world.

The caricature of Bush is that he underwent a paroxysm of preventive action. This showed itself in Iraq and was divisive for the entire planet.

The changes now will either be deep or shallow. They will either lead to improvements in the state of international affairs or a deterioration.

For the last two years the Bush administration has wanted a weakened Europe. It has largely been responsible for the divisions in Europe.

Europe, on the other hand, needs to adopt the constitutional treaty as this would give it the instruments for a real common foreign and security policy.

The war in Iraq has been a failure. Iraq does not enjoy security and the fight against terrorism has not been advanced. On the contrary, I think it would be true to say that the military action has only encouraged the development of terrorism in all its forms.

Although France and Germany opposed the war, we should not rejoice at its failure. Instead, we should heed the lessons and try to be effective tomorrow.

We should all be preoccupied with the democratic process in Iraq. Also, we should seek a change to the nature of the multinational force in Iraq.

It is time, I believe, to place that force under the aegis of the United Nations and its Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The Kyoto Protocol on climate change is one of those questions about the attachment to multilateralism. John Bruton, the incoming European Commission ambassador to Washington, has suggested that there may need to be a new instrument to tackle climate change, taking into consideration the continuing US rejection of Kyoto.

In my view the important thing is that we pursue the objective of dealing with climate change, not necessarily focusing on the instrument we employ.

On the Middle East peace process, the US could take a much stronger initiative than it did during the first Bush administration.

Bill Clinton had been very involved in this issue in the past. But Europe should also have a stronger role in seeking a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The US has been pursuing an awkward strategy towards Europe on various issues, for example, by pressing the EU to keep its arms embargo on China.

This really is a matter for debate between Europeans themselves and I believe it would be better to let Europeans make decisions on their own affairs.

While I agree with the US that Turkey's place is in Europe, I have a problem with the way the US has interfered in the EU's debate on Turkish accession.

At the same time, we have to recognize that Ankara has been more independent of the US in recent years. We saw that with the Iraq crisis, when the Turkish parliament blocked US attempts to launch attacks from Turkish soil.

• Pierre Moscovici is a French Socialist MEP, a vice-president of the European Parliament and a former minister for European affairs in France.

Two MEPs discuss the direction of EU relations with the new US administration. UK Conservative MEP James Elles, who is a vice-president of the European People's Party group (EPP-ED) and founder of the Transatlantic Policy Network, says that after the race for the US Presidency, President Bush and his advisors could start considering the conduct of policy in the months ahead. Pierre Moscovici, who is a French Socialist MEP, a vice-president of the European Parliament and a former minister for European affairs in France, can imagine two scenarios, one of diminished influence of neo-conservatives in the cabinet and a change in US Foreign Policy or, alternatively, one of continuity meaning serious difficulties for multilateralism.

• Primary Source