Speech by Commissioner Mandelson on EU-US trade relations

I want to thank Vivian Haig and the Transatlantic Policy Network team for inviting me to address this gathering. I'm sorry I had to withdraw from an earlier invitation.

I also want to record particular thanks to Erika Mann MEP - a brilliant tornado of inexhaustible enthusiasm for, and dedication to, EU Trade Policy, in particular EU US economic cooperation.

It is a special pleasure to be able to meet our US participants, in particular Senator Robert Bennett. [Chair of your session].

Networks like the TPN make an invaluable contribution to a productive and cooperative partnership between the world's two most significant trading economies. But the unique thing about TPN is your capacity to make me feel like a member before one even thought of applying. It's the reverse of Groucho Marx's dictum. Or I think it is. So even though it's my first formal visit to TPN, I feel like I've been talking to you for some time.

In my hearing before the European Parliament in October I said that transatlantic trade and investment would be one of my top priorities.

We all know why that should be. The volumes of trade and investment between us are enormous. They forge strong ties between our economies, businesses and people. Although the world is changing fast, our relationship remains a key motor of the global economy.

But that economic relationship is both a foundation and an expression of something much wider and even more important. This is the political partnership and alliance between Europe and America.

Let me dwell on this partnership a moment. My commitment to Europe and to the transatlantic relationship have been the twin pillars of my politics all my adult life. In my view, the partnership is of fundamental importance to us all.

Nobody would deny that we have been through a difficult patch in the last few years. It is time for us to make a fresh start. I accept that, in this changing world, the identity of interest and approach between Europe and America is less self evident than it was during the Cold War. Of course we need to understand and indeed in most respects, welcome the structural changes in our global environment such as the rapid emergence of major developing countries as a key new economic force. At the same time, we must confront the new security challenges that face us in different parts of the world, not least the Middle East. Life is in many ways less simple for the Western democracies than it was twenty years ago, when we faced a common Soviet threat.

Today, our reactions to events and challenges will not always be the same. Over Iraq we saw very different views in America and in some parts of Europe - as well as between Europeans. In Iran, while I hope we share the same objectives, there has been a difference of emphasis in approach. On other major global issues like climate change we have not been able to forge a common analysis, let alone a common view.

Our relationship is evolving. But that does not make it any less important or any less strong. I do not agree with those who argue that our basic values are fundamentally diverging, or that our interests no longer coincide.

On the contrary, we still share a belief in democracy and individual freedom. We face the same global challenges to our security.

We have to find ways to address the same shared human problems: poverty, migration, climate change, resource crises. And as I have said, our societies and economies remain ever more closely intertwined. Nor do I forget the historical debt we Europeans owe America.

So, instead of consigning the relationship between Europe and America to the history books, we need to find the commitment and vision to redefine it for a new century.

Broadly speaking I believe that what we should work for is a stronger and more balanced, less unequal partnership between the two of us. One in which Europe is more united, more able and more willing to take a role of global responsibility and leadership; and one where the US is more inclined to share leadership in working with a more effective, more united Europe.

We will not be able to have either side of this equation without the other. Europe certainly needs to do still more to forge stronger and more integrated foreign and defence policies, and to be ready to act. We need to show the US that we are serious, as partners not rivals. But equally the body language and sometimes the policies themselves we see from America - for example, on climate change - have a huge impact on how Europeans feel about the partnership. We must find ways to complement each other, not compete with each other in the political arena.

I have one particular message for some in Washington who tend to dismiss Europe: a successful relationship between Europe and America, which is our common interest, requires a strong Europe, not a weak and divided one. I hope that the US will restate and reinvigorate its traditional support for European integration - a process which has brought so much good to the world. This is why the United States should see ratification of Europe's new Constitutional Treaty as being in the US as well as the European interest. And while I am at it, I also hope and believe that the US will restate and reinvigorate the case for NATO. I want to give my US friends two reasons to come to Brussels, not two reasons to avoid it!

I am fortunate to be working now in the area of policy in which Europe is perhaps strongest and most effective - trade. There is much to be done both in multilateral negotiations and bilaterally to strengthen global growth and people's prosperity. Europe and America have particular responsibility.

Our top priority in trade on both sides of the Atlantic has to be to put our weight behind the current multilateral negotiations and to encourage others to demonstrate a similar commitment. Bringing to a successful conclusion a Doha Development Agenda that lives up to its name, and matches the bold ambitions of those who launched, it will bring enormous benefits to both developed and developing countries.

Europe took a major step earlier this year on agricultural export subsidies. The EU, US and others then worked hard and collectively to produce a framework agreement in Geneva in July. We are looking to the US to build constructively on that. And I will be talking to Bob Zoellick next week about how we can now accelerate work in other areas of the Round - such as services, industrial tariffs and anti-dumping rules - so that we can advance a balanced and ambitious agenda, which is what we need to secure agreement.

The Doha Round is different from its predecessors in that is has, at its core, the question of development. If we do not deliver on this there will be no Round. So I hope there will be strong buy-in by America to these goals. We need to show shared commitment to ensuring that the poorer countries are engaged and derive benefit. We need to involve them more in setting the agenda and reaching the decisions. And the more advanced developing countries have responsibilities here too.

I believe too that there is much scope for new thinking and action on bilateral EU-US trade relations. We can and must do this without undermining our work in the Doha Round and I see no incompatibility.

Of course, problems crop up in our trade relations. They are relatively small as a proportion of trade affected, but they certainly make the news. I inherited a prime example when I walked into my office.

The disputes reflect two things. First the sheer size and importance of trade and investment flows between us. In such volume problems are inevitable. Second, our readiness to use the agreed international dispute settlement procedures of the WTO. Both are good signs, in different ways, of the maturity of the transatlantic economy and the international system of governance.

The broader and deeper issues we need to address primarily between us are different from those on the Doha agenda. Our markets are relatively open and highly developed. Tariffs are not the problem. A Transatlantic Free Trade Area is not the issue. Today we need to concentrate on removing the regulatory and structural barriers that still impede businesses and inhibit innovation, growth and prosperity on both sides.

This means looking harder at regulatory convergence and mutual recognition of standards, looking at the nitty-gritty of transatlantic business transactions: how our businesses interact; how our economies are intertwined and occasionally bump into each other. I know this is not glamorous stuff. The important things often are not.

It certainly is very complicated stuff. I am beginning to understand just how complicated, given our different regulatory systems and cultures. To make progress we need closer dialogue, at all levels, and we need to think outside the box for ways in which to move forward, which is one reason that I am so pleased we are both consulting widely in our "stakeholder dialogue", a process shortly to come to a conclusion. Of course, TPN doesn't need any such encouragement to speak up and make its voice heard: you have already done much to stimulate debate on the way forward.

There is a positive transatlantic economic agenda for us to work on, as my predecessor Pascal Lamy acknowledged. I intend to do just that. Work. I am not inclined to set high sounding targets or launch lofty initiatives. I prefer to set a practical, attainable agenda that I can actually help deliver on in my five years in this job.

Given how many companies do business on a transatlantic level, we need to make a decisive move on accountancy rules; we need to look at how our stock exchanges are run and at the detail of financial markets regulation (because if there is one place where the devil really resides, it is there...).

I am equally interested in areas related to consumer interest, such as health. I understand the "right to regulate" is an issue of great concern to individual citizens, but my instinct is that we need to keep a close eye on our approach to the assessment of risk. Once again, we want to give proper attention to the detailed responses from our stakeholders, and then we will get to work.

This work on regulatory convergence and cooperation will contribute greatly to another key part of my portfolio responsibilities in the Commission: the international aspects of Europe's competitiveness. Growth and jobs are the priorities of this Commission. As Trade Commissioner I want to ensure that the policies I pursue in Trade contribute to the creation of growth and jobs in Europe. This mission needs to embrace closer regulatory cooperation with our major trade partners to simplify transactions, as well as learning from them about how we can do things differently and better. But this requires work on both sides. Bringing the Lisbon agenda into transatlantic relations must mean a two way street. Is America ready to take forward this agenda? I hope so.

First, we need to build a meeting of minds. Our work will be helped and stimulated if it is supported by close dialogue between us on global trade and other economic questions, such as piracy and IPR. With so much going on, we really do need to share our thinking on it.

So my message is simple. There is still a Transatlantic Economic Partnership. It is critically important to Europe, the US and the rest of the world. Like all partnerships there is rough with the smooth. Like all partnerships we need to find new concrete and practical ways to develop and deepen it. And like all partnerships it must not be too introspective: we have a joint responsibility, in pursuing our own interests, to keep our eye firmly on the DDA and other means of delivering benefits too for other less advantaged parts of the world.

Together, I look forward to doing business with the USA - in every sense of the word.

| Top |