One person for whom I have a great deal of esteem and respect considers that relations between the EU and the United State are too important for Agence EUROPE not to speak out on the subject. In practical terms, he has asked me to take a stance. I shall therefore set out a few simple ideas.
Useful reservations. The first, however banal it may be, must never be forgotten: Europe's debt of recognition (and it acknowledges it) towards the Americans does not mean that it must align itself on all Washington's stances. Taking different stances does not mean forgetting the past, nor overlooking the fact that the EU and the United States agree on what is essential. The second simple idea is that European reservations, far from being an impediment for the Americans or a disagreeable attitude, is at times useful to the Washington authorities themselves. They can lead them to reconsider their initial stances, as - as the President of the European Commission declared - Europe has "a capacity to understand and a knowledge of scenarios in regions of the world where tensions are today the strongest and exceed those of any other country". Even in cases where EU countries have given the impression of a cacophony of declarations and stances, as over Iraq, it is reasonable to consider that certain European voices have contributed in leading the Americans to greater consideration and moderation.
Everywhere where Europe takes on its "Community" mantle, it is heard and listened to. The third idea is an observation: in areas where Europe exists as unit and speaks as one, it is able to have itself heard, have its stances listened to and often secures satisfaction. Trade policy, agricultural policy, certain aspects of transport policy and implementation of the rules of competition prove that each day. Everywhere where there is a European stance and where it is the Commission which, having secured a Council mandate, speaks on behalf of the EU, the EU discusses and negotiates with the United States on an equal footing. It will be the same in the monetary field as soon as the problem of the euro's external representation has found a reasonable Community solution. And It will be the same, tomorrow or the following day, in the field of the common foreign and defence policy, if the Convention finds effective and realistic formulae for the functioning of the CFSP and ESDP. This observation has a corollary: those who demand European autonomy vis-à-vis the United States and at the same time oppose the consolidation of the CFSP and ESDP are crying in a vacuum. They may raise their voices as much as they want, but what they say remains incoherent and ineffective.
Co-operation yes, unified area no. The fourth simple idea is that the EU can and must progress as far as possible in co-operation with the United States, but that it must leave aside any temptation to build a free-trade area with the US or a unified economic area. I continue to consider that proposals made along these lines by the European Commission a few years ago to be one of the most glaring mistakes of its history. European experience proves that the management of a unified area where borders are removed requires common institutions and the transfer of certain powers from national governments to a supranational authority with the ability to implement binding and automatic rules. This cannot be asked of the United States. Even were the President to agree, Congress would never agree. Such a development is, however, unnecessary: facts prove that areas of collaboration are sufficiently broad for an effective partnership based on mutual trust and gradually to resolve all possible problems, in the respect of international rules freely accepted by both sides. To go further would mean alienating Europe's own autonomy and its model of society and agriculture.
Often, if the poison comes from America, the antidote does too. The fifth simple idea is that one has certainly not to consider the United States as a compact block always aligned on the positions of its authorities. One may not like the current president or his parliamentary majorities, but without forgetting that the strongest opposition to certain policies at times criticised in Europe is expressed in the United States itself. The ecological movement has its roots and its most glorious traditions in the United States, the "no-global" movement was born there, and, although the most glaring abuses of and deviations to the capitalist system are to be found there due to the fault of certain large managers, it is also true that the Americans have reacted with great force and that, over there, those responsible are criminally punishable. The poison comes from America, the antidote too. Would Europe be able to react as strongly?
These few simple ideas, and others in the same spirit, guide our attitude.
(F.R.)