Brussels, 16/09/2004 (Agence Europe) - "It was four and a half hours of good, constructive discussion in a positive atmosphere", Pascal Lamy's spokesperson Arancha Gonzalez said after talks between the Commission's services and US Trade Representatives (USTR). The Americans pointed out that they wished to renegotiate the 1992 agreement to do away with subsidies (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.10) to the aeronautics industry. Europeans, who are not opposed to negotiation, still pose one condition: "Any movement on our part (the EU) must be accompanied by a similar movement on the part of the United States", Ms Gonzalez repeated, before going on to point out: "We are ready to negotiate but the result must be aimed at improving the agreement we have today".
Europeans mainly criticise the agreement for not allowing follow-up of indirect US aid to be carried out as easily as for reimbursable loans. The EU's ambition is to improve other points, mainly to bring aid to intra-state entities into the framework of the agreement or to clarify the behaviour of the other countries that intervene in the context of the launch programme. The part played by Japan and Italy but also the federate States (Washington, Kansas, Oklahama) in the Boeing 7E7 programme, in the form of direct subsidies, causes concern on the part of Europeans who see direct aid as being counter to the 1992 agreement. Europeans and Americans agree that, before beginning discussion, it is first of all necessary to "come to an agreement on the aims and the principles of re-negotiation". At this stage, however, the margins of manoeuvre on substance appear slim and arguments are conflicting. "It seems difficult to accept the fact that all aid is eliminated for Airbus when 7E7 has just received a hefty package", Ms Gonzalez said. She confirmed what Americans are saying: If an Airbus programme enjoying state aid is not a success, then the aid does not have to be reimbursed. "But do you know many programmes that have not worked?" she added to better underline the fact that all aid paid to the European aircraft manufacturer have been or are being reimbursed. On the threat of action being taken at the WTO, she has, apparently, a different interpretation of case-law than Americans do, saying: "The panel's decision are not retrospective but are valid for future aid".