Is an additional commentary on EU/US relations justified in light of the Washington Summit? There have already been a lot of them, some of which have been banal and repetitive, some sometimes hard-hitting and pertinent…I'll therefore not be adding another one but rather a few observations.
1. In first place, information. In general, the press have provided more commentaries than information on what happened at the bilateral summit. for the weekly press, this is understandable; for the dailies, this imbalance is less justified. Agence EUROPE has respected the fundamental principle of first of all trusting the readership and its judgement by providing it with all the relevant information, including the drafts (full or summarised) of the declarations approved by the two parties (and the explanation of the possible absence of declarations on one point or other). A broad report on the press conferences constituted the appropriate approach, with our readers subsequently being informed what President Bush or Prime Minister Costas Simitis, or President Prodi had to say, as well as their main collaborators, Pascal Lamy to Bob Zoellick (not inconsequential asides but rather little gems of information).
I am of the opinion that whoever seeks information on what happened and what are the results of the summit, in view of developing a personal view, they should take a look at the pages our agency dedicated to the summit in the bulletins from 26 June and the days that followed.
2. Return to the US position and support for European integration. When introducing the debates with the European Presidents, George Bush pointed out that since the beginning of the process of European unification, the USA has supported it. He referred to events and people, Truman and Kennedy's views on the subject, as well as another of others' personal anecdotes on the matter. His advisors had no doubt provided the necessary elements and had convinced him of the opportunity to counter the thesis according to which the policy of the current administration is to divide the Europeans to prevent them uniting and becoming too strong. Traditional US policy has always been to support European unity. The attitude of George Bush indicates that, after the sometimes difficult internal debates, the USA has decided to support this tradition. This is important as this position was not a dead certainty beforehand.
3. Rapprochement in foreign policy was reciprocated. The renewed US support for a United Europe has enabled rapprochement on essential themes such as foreign policy, which did not consist in a simple realignment of the EU's positions on those of the US, in the priority are, for example, of the war on terrorism. It went in both directions. The drafts adopted before by Heads of European governments at Thessaloniki (notably in relation to the war on terrorism, Iran and North Korea), which were closer the US positions and express an awareness of the scale of the terrorist threat and the need to face up to it with determination and in a co-ordinated way. The Americans appear to have understood that military action against Iran cannot constitute a precedent and it would be lunacy to seek to generalise this kind of intervention decided on unilaterally by a single country or group of countries. From one day to the next, they are realising that on the ground, a military presence is not a solution and that the US needs Europe as an equal partner. From the European side, the majority of European countries have understood that they need common, balanced positions, calmly elaborated with respect to the political procedures outlined by the EU, in the interest of all and especially, the governments which took radical positions that produced only difficulties.
The new policy for relations between the EU and the USA was summed up by the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi to the "German Marshall Fund of the United States". He declared that the US could certainly reach many objectives militarily but following each military venture, hope and trust…should be provided because "Without hope, there will always by hatred". Prodi also said, "Let us--your European partners-- help restore trust and inspire hope among people throughout the world-- and make the world a safer place for all…Europe is there as your partner--a partner on equal terms-- to build peace and fight poverty--- today and tomorrow. If we join efforts and tackle the root causes of insecurity across the world".
These sentences express the direction and the goal for the cooperation between the two sides of the Atlantic, updated in light of the most recent, troubled and somewhat traumatic experiences.
4. Economic divergences are normal but have to be mastered. Confirmation of economic divergences on economic issues are not surprising and should not be too much cause for concern. Economic interests, when they are wide ranging and diverse, do not always coincide. We even see that within the EU itself. That said, the scale of certain EU/US conflicts and their potential for damage, is indeed worrying. If the effects of the announcement can be slid into the effective use of updated instruments, measures and counter-measures could escape control of those making the decisions and cause havoc.
Up to now, the two parties give the impression of aiming to set up a legal arsenal that is very powerful and diverse, founded on the results of the complaints made to the WTO, but claim that they do not intend to use them. The effect must therefore essentially and reciprocally be dissuasive: don't shoot because I can shoot too. But this game cannot last for ever: beware the blows that could fall inadvertently or through irritation! It is therefore indispensable to make progress via compromise on these cases. This time in Washington, the cases that give rise to annoyance have not been dealt with by the summit and stress has been put on the positive initiatives, such as the launch of "open sky" negotiations or those on the "hydrogen" project.
On one point, however, European representatives have thought it essential to take action: on those concerning US affirmations according to which the EU attitude on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would harm poor countries and set back the fight against hunger in Africa. This is an accusations that is objectively unjustified and morally unacceptable, which taken up by the US press and relaunched elsewhere, has hurt Europe. It was necessary to take action.
5. The contribution by parliamentarians and intellectuals. The summit in Washington was preceded by a kind of offensive in favour of mutual understanding and collaboration on the part of parliamentary and intellectual milieus. Analyses and positions against the wind of madness that was blowing in favour of disagreements had begun well in advance, through attempts and testimonies denouncing the total incorrectness of certain theories. It is untrue that the USA represents a compact block behind whatever power is being exercised. No part in the world, is the freedom to criticise as well respected and carried out in practice. Those who have direct knowledge of the USA witness the vivacity of internal debate. In another sense, the ridiculous distinction between the old and new Europe has been positive because it has provoke a welcome response in Europe in favour of fundamental unity of the continent, its culture and traditions and at the same time has demonstrated its desire to safeguard the identities of each constituent part. Instead of division, the definition has provoked solidarity.
At the same time, the intellectual world has defended Trans-Atlantic cooperation via a series of initiatives and articles published simultaneously in the press in several countries (and certain ideas mooted, for example, by Umberto Eco, are in need of looking at calmly).
The parliamentary world's reaction was just as swift and firm. The resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 19 June represents both a denunciation of past mistakes and an incentive to collaboration and a guide for future initiatives. If the EU and USA act together, they can have a decisive influence when it comes to solving the major challenges to which humanity faces: the environment, development, immigration, terrorism, international crime. But collaboration must not aim to impose the wishes or power of one side as "security is a collective global concept which cannot be adapted to the interests and demands of just one country"; peace and stability in the world has to be founded on international law and the strengthening of international institutions, in a way that provides a multilateral framework and improves world governance. These main principles are accompanied by the taking of positions in favour of European positions on controversial issues (Kyoto Protocol, International Criminal Court, the "economically and legally unfounded complaint by the USA on the EU's attitude to GMOs") which to a certain extent weakens the balance between the "super parts". The resolution of the EP also, cautiously, relaunches the idea of a "Trans-Atlantic market", which in my mind has a rather demagogic flavour. But overall, it is positive and bears witness to the political will of the EU's parliamentary institution for going beyond divergences and constructing "a renewed Trans-Atlantic partnership for the third millennium" (the full draft is published in No.2319 of our EUROPE/Documents series annexed to our bulletin on 25 June).
The direction of politicians and intellectuals are therefore clear and support a strong partnership that is balanced and equal. Public opinion still needs convincing (in the EU), as well as the political milieus in the USA, which only perceive of a partnership under the leadership of their country.
(F.R.)