Brussels, 25/02/2008 (Agence Europe) - In an exclusive interview with EUROPE, George W. Bush's special envoy to the European Union Boyden Gray says why he thinks the forthcoming presidential elections will not change transatlantic relations or the US policy on climate change, which, he claims, is “more ambitious” than that of the EU. Gray, who was his country's Ambassador to the EU between 2005 and 2007 (see EUROPE 9582) talks also about why Turkey should join the EU, why Washington wants a stronger Europe and why the Lisbon Treaty could further strengthen police and legal cooperation between the EU and the United States.
Agence Europe: In his last State of the Nation speech on 28 January, President Bush did not once mention Europe or the EU. Does this mean that Europe is not one of the priorities of the President's last year in office?
Boyden Gray: No. We are fully engaged with Europe. So it's rather good news than bad news that Europe or the European Union are not mentioned. The New York Times recently listed a long list of problems the new President will have to solve. Europe is not listed. That does not mean we don't care about Europe. I think things (with Europe) are going well. That's why do don't see much of it mentioned. (…) In the economic field, for instance, we have the most intense investment relationship which ever existed. It's getting more intense and more robust every year. The Transatlantic Economic Council is very high on our list (of priorities) and very high on Europe's list. But we've got to make it work. The Europeans are enthusiastic, we are enthusiastic. So it's working.
A.E.: Are we to expect changes in transatlantic relations after Mr Bush leaves office?
B.G.: I don't think you will see a dramatic change. Europe has been very critical of us, I think with some justification over the last several years, over our reaction to climate change. But I think that the Europeans now realise that we are quite serious and that we had been serious for some time. We are going to support and accelerate the UN process for reaching a new post-Kyoto international agreement.
A.E.: Although President Bush is now ready to commit himself, subject to some conditions, to an international post-2012 agreement, Europeans still feel that the United States is not doing enough to combat climate change.
B.G.: We have adopted a new Energy Bill. Europeans have been slow to pick up on how important this Bill is. It's now a law and it is more ambitious than anything Europe is proposing, at least for the transport sector, which is the second largest polluter but the fastest growing sector. What we have done in the form of a law is more ambitious than the EU has ever proposed. (…) We are not behind Europe, we might, in fact, be ahead of Europe. The key will also be where the technology is. And the US is putting a lot more money into it than Europe. The EU is doing a lot, but, collectively, the private and the public sector is doing more.
A.E.: So the EU is wrong to say that it is leading the world in tackling climate change?
B.G.: No. I want to commend Europe for its leadership. But what we can't afford is to be accused of lagging behind. Because we are not.
A.E.: Do you think that an international post-2012 agreement can be sealed at the Copenhagen Conference on December 2009?
B.G.: I'm cautiously optimistic. I don't think that the Presidential elections will complicate the negotiations, because the building blocks (of the agreement) will already be put in place this year. We have support from Congress for what we are doing and they know well what we are doing. I think that, when we leave office, we will leave a negotiation that is well understood by whoever comes out of the elections.
A.E.: In Europe, many are hoping for a change in US climate change policy after the departure of George W Bush, who didn't want the Kyoto Protocol.
B.G. It was because Kyoto did not ask any commitment from China and the developing world that the senate under President Clinton voted unanimously against Kyoto. So, it's not a policy question in the US. All Democrats voted against Kyoto. So when you can't understand why the president (Bush) did not submit the treaty (Kyoto Protocol) to ratification, it's because he was facing some years earlier a unanimous vote against it. Today, a vote (on the ratification) would be much closer, but it would still be against if China and others were not included.
Democrat Senator John Kerry was at the Bali conference (Ed: December 2007) and said: if China is not in, you can count the US out. This is an incredibly important message which comes from a leader of the Democratic Party. The fundamental need to include the developing world in this arrangement is the same. It has not changed and won't change.
A.E. With the Lisbon Treaty, the EU aims to develop its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and become a significant political actor on the world scene. Is this realistic?
B.G. We would welcome it. We live daily with Europe's acknowledged gaps in its energy policy in terms of its foreign relations. This hampers Europe in its energy security policy. Europe would greatly benefit form the Lisbon Treaty adoption (entry into force) because it would permit it to have a more unified energy security policy, especially vis-à-vis Russia. So, this is very much in our interest. We are looking forward to a strengthened cooperation in this field.
A.E. And on an international policy level (Middle East, Balkans, etc) is the EU serious when it says it wants to play a greater role and become an equal partner to the US?
B.G. We take the EU seriously. Of course, Europe has to have the funding for it. There is still a gap between the funding levels, compared to us. I think that this will require slightly more…an economy that is as robust as it has been in the last years cannot ignore the financial aspects of this…We very much welcome a strong Europe.
Yet, on Kosovo, Europe has not been able to act unanimously. It is not the EU as a block, but individual countries that are recognising (or not) Kosovo. It would be better if the EU could do this as a block, it would be better if dealing with its energy policy if could deal with Russia as a block.
A.E. Washington wants swift Turkish accession to the EU and is also encouraging enlargement of the EU to Balkan countries and even certain former USSR republics. Some people see this as an attempt by the US to make the EU bigger but also more vague and less politically united.
B.G. Are you suggesting that we would ask for Turkey to be added to dilute the EU's power? We don't view as our business what the EU's enlargement policy is. Yes we think that Turkey should be admitted, but we would not intervene with your member states or lobby for this. That's an internal matter for the EU. Turkey would be one of the largest EU countries, larger than Germany. Any additional membership dilutes the power of everybody else. The same was true when we admitted Texas. The influence of the other states was, of course, diminished. But we survived and we were even stronger as a result. We think that the EU would be greatly strengthened with Turkey as a member. And it would strengthen their security and defence policy. It would not dilute the EU's power, it would strengthen it. It would also strengthen its political cohesion.
A.E. A lot of people have doubts about it.
B.G. I don't understand why Turkey's accession should dilute political cohesion. You would be gaining a major Muslim nation that would strengthen the EU. We don't have any Muslim states (in the USA). We think that the addition of a Muslim country would greatly enhance Europe's diplomatic outreach to the Muslim world. We would envy you in that regard.
A.E. The Lisbon Treaty will give the European Parliament co-decision power in police and legal cooperation. Given that the EP is particularly critical of sensitive dossiers such as PNR or the fight against terrorism, aren't you worried that the new provisions in the treaty will further complicate EU-US cooperation in these areas?
B.G. I think it will actually strengthen EU-US cooperation. Why? Because at the moment, the EP has a big platform to speak and to get press coverage, but no real accountability for what happens because they are not really part of the process. Once the EP is part of the process, they will have to take decisions for which they will be held accountable. They will thus be more balanced in their approach than they are now.
A.E. When do see the US visa waver scheme being extended to all EU member states?
B.G. We are working very hard to do what we can to extend it. We will see how much we can deal with the EU and how much can be done bilaterally with individual countries. That's under discussion right now. We take this very seriously. (H.B.)