[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Page 24240]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             WHERE TO NEXT?

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in the next several weeks I will be 
visiting Europe to meet with government and business leaders in London, 
Paris, and Brussels. I believe the United States' relationship with the 
European Union and the states of Europe is of supreme importance. 
America's economic, security, political, and institutional links with 
Europe are stronger and deeper than with any other region of the world. 
Recently, the importance of this relationship was explained very well 
in an article written by the Honorable James Elles, who is a Member of 
the European Parliament.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Elles's article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   On EU/US Relations: Where to Next?

       Once the race for the US Presidency is finally over, the 
     new President and his advisors will move from reflecting on 
     the results of a successful campaign and will look for the 
     conduct of policy in the months ahead.
       What are the immediate priorities with which to deal on 
     both the domestic and foreign fronts? How, for example, 
     should economic growth best be fostered? How are priorities 
     to be handled in far away places such as Iraq, Afghanistan 
     and Palestine? What is to be the real objective of the four-
     year mandate by which he would like to be judged as being a 
     truly successful President?
       As these questions are being mulled over between now and 
     the Inaugural address early next year, he might reflect that 
     thinking is taking place across the other side of the 
     Atlantic on many of the same issues. Although the incoming 
     Commission President has not yet got the approval of the 
     European Parliament for his new team, he will be also 
     considering how to answer a similar set of questions.
       How similar are the policy challenges for the incoming EU 
     and US administrations? Is it correct that Europe is swamped, 
     as many would have us believe, by a huge anti-American wave 
     generated by hostility to the Iraq War? Or is there an 
     extensive common agenda which could be drawn up in the next 
     few weeks and serve as a basis for joint action over the 
     period 2005-2008?
       Certainly, there is no shortage of potential flash points 
     in external policy which the pessimists can draw attention to 
     and which are already on the transatlantic agenda. The war 
     against terrorism will certainly be at the top of the US 
     agenda, in its continued search for ensuring domestic 
     security.
       In this context, the run-up to elections in IRAQ will 
     require steel nerves. So will their aftermath, in particular, 
     determining what role European Governments will wish to play 
     in a military and financial capacity. Hot on the heels of 
     this dilemma will be the question of IRAN. How will the new 
     US administration wish to address this issue? Will it be 
     happy to let the Europeans take the lead or will it wish to 
     take a more active approach as some suggest should be done?
       Linked to both these questions is the overall pursuit of 
     peace in the MIDDLE EAST. What has become of the initiative 
     to bring European and American involvement together to make 
     progress in the Broader Middle East? Should for example the 
     roadmap be resuscitated?
       Last but not least is the question of ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE 
     to both Afghanistan and Africa (a potential priority for the 
     G8 next year). How should this best be coordinated by the two 
     major global donors--the EU and the US--who contribute about 
     80% of the world's assistance programmes?
       This is all enough to cause indigestion. Certainly more 
     questions are posed than answers are available. Even if 
     cooperation is seen to be highly desirable, with the aim of 
     moving from a transatlantic community of values to a 
     community of action, how can it be done?
       The best chance available to the incoming administrations 
     is, as they say, not to start from here. These problems have 
     been around for many months and will be around for many more.
       A recently released document published by the Transatlantic 
     Policy Network (TPN) lays the groundwork for a potentially 
     successful approach to deepening joint cooperation between 
     the EU and the US.
       At the outset, it recommends a strategy which articulates a 
     common purpose, building on strengths and reinforcing 
     linkages while accommodating differences. This is based on 
     the recognition of growing linkage between the partners' 
     economic, defence and security, and political interests.
       In short, should strengthened partnership be a shared goal, 
     if so a bold new agenda for economic collaboration needs to 
     be linked with a commitment to enhanced joint action on the 
     highest shared political priorities.
       What does this mean? Avoid well known areas of dispute such 
     as a free trade area (FTA) and focus instead on what already 
     exists to a large degree--the transatlantic market. The TPN 
     document recommends deepening and broadening the 
     transatlantic market, with a view to its completion by 2015.
       An accelerated 2010 target date should be set for financial 
     services and capital markets; civil aviation; the digital 
     economy; competition policy and regulatory cooperation.
       Furthermore, there should also be provision for a broad 
     security partnership between the EU and the US, together with 
     a mutually reinforcing interface between the EU and NATO.
       Last, but not least, there should be put in place, by 2007, 
     an enhanced basis for cooperation between the two partners--a 
     transatlantic partnership agreement--building on the 1995 New 
     Transatlantic Agenda and reflecting the strategy proposed.
       Is this approach realistic and practical? Maybe 
     surprisingly, the broad outlines of this approach have 
     already been approved by the European Parliament in May 2004.
       The economic option has the great advantage that most of 
     the elements are already in place: the administrations are 
     jointly consulting stakeholders as to how to remove the 
     remaining barriers to trade and investment. Given the more 
     than quadrupling of cross investment over the past 10 years, 
     the process of interdependence between the EU and the US is 
     not likely to slacken.
       The vital ingredient for the success of this proposal is 
     the factor of 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 best advice for the incoming Commission 
     President would be to pay a short informal visit in early 
     January to Washington. This should be not just to compare 
     notes but also to put forward a joint plan which will allow 
     Europeans and Americans to work as closely as possible in the 
     interests of their peoples in the years ahead.

                          ____________________