U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–975PDF 2005

THE EU CONSTITUTION AND U.S.–EU RELATIONS:

THE RECENT REFERENDA IN FRANCE AND THE

NETHERLANDS AND THE U.S.–EU SUMMIT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND 

EMERGING THREATS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 22, 2005

Serial No. 109–68

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND EMERGING THREATS

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

PETER T. KING, New York, Vice Chairman 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

TED POE, Texas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RICHARD MEREU, Subcommittee Staff Director 

JONATHAN KATZ, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

PATRICK PRISCO, Professional Staff Member 

BEVERLY HALLOCK, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Her Excellency Arlette Conzemius, Ambassador of Luxembourg ........................ 5

His Excellency John Bruton, Head of Delegation, Delegation to the European 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 9

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging 

Threats: Prepared statement .............................................................................. 2

The Honorable Robert Wexler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida: Prepared statement ........................................................................... 4

Her Excellency Arlette Conzemius: Prepared statement ..................................... 7

His Excellency John Bruton: Prepared statement ................................................ 11

APPENDIX 

His Excellency John Bruton: U.S.-EU Declarations ............................................. 19

(1)

THE EU CONSTITUTION AND U.S.–EU

RELATIONS: THE RECENT REFERENDA

IN FRANCE AND THE NETHERLANDS

AND THE U.S.–EU SUMMIT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND EMERGING THREATS, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:45 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elton Gallegly (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Call to order the Subcommittee on Europe and 

Emerging Threats. Today, the Subcommittee on Europe and 

Emerging Threats is holding a hearing on the EU Constitution and 

U.S.–EU relations after the recent referenda in France and the 

Netherlands and the U.S.–EU Summit. 

French and Dutch voters rejected the EU Constitution in national referenda on May 29th in France, and June 1st in the Netherlands. Following these ‘‘No’’-votes, the status of the EU Constitution and the future of the European Union has been thrown into 

question. Commentators have suggested that these votes were a result of a variety of factors, including the threat to traditional social 

protections by changing economic circumstances, the democratic 

disconnect between the EU institutional bureaucracy and the general public, and continued EU enlargement, especially relating to 

Turkey. Others have suggested that the referenda results should 

only be attributed to voter dissatisfaction with unpopular national 

governments and policies. 

These difficulties with ratifying the EU Constitution are calling 

into question the further integration and expansion of the EU. 

There are debates about whether the ratification process should 

continue. There is speculation that further integration may be reassessed, or even reconfigured. Many European officials have suggested that it may be necessary to slow the pace of EU enlargement. However, others would argue that the prospect of EU membership has been the most effective means of maintaining stability 

in volatile regions, such as Southeastern Europe, and freezing further enlargement could undercut one of Europe’s great strategic accomplishments. 

At the U.S.–EU Summit on Monday, President Bush stated:

2

‘‘The United States continues to support a strong European 

Union as a partner in spreading freedom and democracy, and 

security, and prosperity throughout the world.’’

President Bush was the first United States President to conduct 

meetings with the institutions of the European Union in Brussels, 

in February of this year. When he travels to Scotland next month 

for the Group of 8 Summit, Mr. Bush will make his fourth visit to 

Europe in the past 6 months. It is clear that the President wants 

a strong European partner. 

At the U.S.–EU Summit on Monday, European leaders sought to 

reassure the President that the recent constitutional turmoil would 

not stop the EU from playing a strong role on important issues 

such as Iraq, Iran, the Middle East peace process and counterterrorism. 

Considering all these issues, and all that has happened in the 

past month, the Subcommittee has invited our two distinguished 

witnesses, Ambassador Conzemius and Ambassador Bruton, to discuss these developments and to perhaps shed some light on what 

we expect the future may hold. 

I look forward to hearing from our two guests, the two Ambassadors, but before we turn to our witnesses I would yield such time 

as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, 

the Ranking Member, Mr. Wexler. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

EUROPE AND EMERGING THREATS

Today, the Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats is holding a hearing 

on the EU Constitution and U.S.–EU relations after the recent referenda in France 

and the Netherlands and the U.S.–EU Summit. 

French and Dutch voters rejected the EU Constitution in national referenda on 

May 29th in France and June 1st in the Netherlands. Following these ‘‘NO’’-votes, 

the status of the EU Constitution and the future of the European Union have been 

thrown into question. Commentators have suggested that these votes were the result of a variety of factors, including the threat to traditional social protections by 

changing economic circumstances, the democratic disconnect between the EU institutional bureaucracy and the general public, and continued EU enlargement—especially relating to Turkey. Others have suggested that the referenda results should 

only be attributed to voter dissatisfaction with unpopular national governments and 

policies. 

These difficulties with ratifying the EU constitution are calling into question the 

further integration and expansion of the EU. There are debates about whether the 

ratification process should continue. There is speculation that further integration 

may be reassessed, or even reconfigured. Many European officials have suggested 

that it may be necessary to slow the pace of EU enlargement. However, others 

would argue that the prospect of EU membership has been the most effective means 

of maintaining stability in volatile regions such as southeastern Europe, and freezing further enlargement could undercut one of Europe’s great strategic accomplishments. 

At the U.S.–EU Summit on Monday, President Bush stated (and I quote): ‘‘The 

United States continues to support a strong European Union as a partner in spreading freedom and democracy, and security, and prosperity throughout the world.’’ 

President Bush was the first U.S. President to conduct meetings with the institution 

of the European Union in Brussels, in February of this year. When he travels to 

Scotland next month for the Group of Eight summit, Mr. Bush will be making his 

fourth visit to Europe in the past six months. It is clear that the President wants 

a strong European partner. 

At the U.S.–EU Summit on Monday, European leaders sought to reassure the 

President that the recent constitutional turmoil would not stop the EU from playing 

3

a strong role on important issues such as Iraq, Iran, the Middle East peace process 

and counterterrorism. 

Considering all of these issues, and all that has happened in the past month, the 

Subcommittee has invited our two distinguished witnesses, Ambassador Conzemius 

and Ambassador Bruton, to discuss these developments, and to perhaps shed some 

light on what they expect the future may hold. 

I look forward to hearing from our two guests, the two Ambassadors, and I will 

now turn to Mr. Wexler for any remarks he may wish to make.

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you to the witnesses. 

It is safe to say that the EU is experiencing its most significant 

political crisis in decades following the French and Dutch ‘‘No’’-

votes. While I do not believe, as some naysayers suggest, that the 

EU is in any way unraveling, the failed referendums and the collapse, to a degree, of last week’s summit in Brussels have revealed 

cracks in the foundation of the EU and exposed a major disconnect 

between the EU as an institution and European citizenry. 

Under the upcoming British Presidency of the EU starting in 

July, member states will attempt to hammer out the EU’s 2007 to 

2013 budget, address the future of the Constitution and decide on 

further enlargement. 

I am particularly concerned that EU expansion will fall victim to 

the ongoing constitutional crisis. Halting the enlargement process 

is contrary to the interest of the European Union and, I would 

argue, to the United States, sends the wrong signal to those nations whose entire political, judicial and economic reform efforts are 

based on the possibility of accession. 

As a force for democracy, the European Union is a bastion of 

hope to many nations and people who aspire to greater prosperity 

and freedom. Imagine what Europe would look like today if Brussels had closed the door to those seven member states who, for almost half a century, were imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain. 

It is critical that the European Union maintain its commitment 

to those countries on the track for EU membership including Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey. Bulgarian and Romanian accession to the European Union should continue on schedule for 

2007 membership. And I respectfully urge that the European 

Union should continue its plan to open accession negotiations with 

Turkey as scheduled in October. 

As for American and European Union relations, there are some 

in Washington who suggest that the United States may be better 

off with a Europe that is in political disarray and a weakened EU. 

I believe nothing could be further from the truth. Since the end of 

World War II, America’s most important political, economic and defensive alliance has been with our European allies. I share President Bush’s sentiments that America wants a ‘‘strong EU’’ that has 

‘‘common values and shared aspirations’’ with the United States. 

Today, America and the European Union share the largest trade 

and investment relationship in the world, exceeding $1.3 trillion in 

2004, which I believe represents about 50 percent of the world’s 

trade. Imagine that, just between the United States and Europe. 

It is the equivalent of half of the world’s trade. 

I strongly believe we need a new trans-Atlantic dialogue which 

advocates closer economic, political and military cooperation. To 

this end, the United States must again assure our European allies 

4

that we support unequivocally the goal of a stronger EU that, despite its current difficulties, must look outward rather than inward. 

In closing Mr. Chairman, I would just like to highlight what I 

felt was a very interesting article which came out in the International Herald by Mortimer Sellers, a University of Maryland professor. The title of which was ‘‘Reach Out, America.’’ He had a 

number of very interesting points. At the end of the article, he 

talked about how the first step of greater European-American unity 

ought to be a North Atlantic Trade Organization. He talked about 

broadening NATO, because NATO has a degree of credibility like 

no other institution, into fields such as commerce and education. 

And that America ought to use what occurred in those referendum 

votes as an opportunity to reassess not the differences between Europe and the United States, but the commonalities and to think in 

the biggest of terms and to create even greater commitment between the United States and Europe toward the values that we 

share. And I will stop at that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wexler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT WEXLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

I want to thank Chairman Gallegly for holding today’s hearing on the European 

Union Constitution and US–EU relations. I also want to thank Ambassador Bruton 

and Ambassador Conzemius for testifying today—both do an extraordinary job in 

representing the EU’s interests in Washington. 

Mr. Chairman it is safe to say that the EU is experiencing its most significant 

political crisis in decades following the recent French and Dutch ‘‘No’’ votes opposing 

ratification of the constitutional treaty. While I do not believe, as some naysayers 

suggest, that the EU is unraveling, the failed referendums and collapse of last 

weeks summit in Brussels have revealed cracks in the foundation of the EU and 

exposed a major disconnect between the EU and European citizenry. 

Under the upcoming British Presidency of the EU starting in July, member states 

will attempt to hammer out the EU’s 2007–2013 budget, address the future of the 

Constitution and decide on further enlargement. 

I am particularly concerned that EU expansion will fall victim to the ongoing constitutional crisis. Halting the enlargement process is contrary to the interest of the 

EU and sends the wrong signal to those nations’ whose entire political, judicial and 

economic reform efforts are based on the possibility of accession. 

Additionally as a force for democracy the EU is a bastion of hope to many nations 

who aspire to bring greater prosperity and freedom to their people. Imagine what 

Europe would be like today if Brussels had closed the door to those seven member 

states who for almost a half century were imprisoned behind the Iron curtain. 

It is critical that the EU maintain its commitment to those countries on the track 

for EU membership including Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey. Bulgarian 

and Romanian accession to the EU should continue on schedule for 2007 membership, and I urge Brussels to open accession negotiations with Turkey on time in October. 

As for US–EU relations, there are some in Washington who suggests that the 

America is better off with a Europe in political disarray and a weakened EU—nothing could be further from the truth. Since the end of World War II, America’s most 

important political, economic and defensive alliance has been with our European allies. I share President Bush’s sentiments that America wants a ‘‘strong EU’’ that 

has ‘‘common values and shared aspirations’’ and will work with us to spread greater democracy and freedom to the world. 

For over fifty years America and our transatlantic allies under the umbrella of 

NATO, OSCE and EU have worked side by side defeating the scourge of communism and fostering a stable, prosperous and democratic continent. Today America 

and the EU share the largest trade and investment relationship in the world exceeding $1.3 trillion in 2004—representing 50 percent of the worlds’ trade. 

While there may be significant differences at times, there is much more that 

unites America and Europe than separates us—including shared values and a mutual respect for democracy and human rights. I strongly believe we need a new 

transatlantic dialogue, which advocates closer economic, political and military coVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:22 Oct 05, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\EET\062205\21975.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
5

operation. To this end, America must again assure our European allies that we support unequivocally the goal of a stronger EU that despite its current difficulties 

must look outward rather than inward.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thanks to the gentleman from Florida. At this 

time, I would like to introduce our witnesses for today’s hearing. 

Our first witness is Ambassador Arlette Conzemius representing 

the Presidency of the European Union. Luxembourg assumed the 

Presidency of the EU on January 1st of this year and will hold the 

EU Presidency until July 1st. Ambassador Conzemius presented 

her credentials as Ambassador of Luxembourg to the United States 

on September 10, 1998. She also serves as her country’s Ambassador to Canada, as well as Mexico. 

Our second witness is Ambassador John Bruton, representing 

the European Commission. Ambassador Bruton presented his credentials as Head of Delegation of the EU Commission in the 

United States on December 9, 2004. Ambassador Bruton is the 

former Prime Minister of Ireland from 1994 to 1997, and he has 

also presided over the Irish Presidency of the EU in 1996. 

I want to welcome both of the Ambassadors here today. I look 

forward to your opening statements. The microphone is yours, Ambassador Conzemius. 

STATEMENT OF HER EXCELLENCY ARLETTE CONZEMIUS, 

AMBASSADOR OF LUXEMBOURG 

Ambassador CONZEMIUS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee, I am very pleased to be here today with my distinguished colleague, Ambassador John Bruton, who represents the 

European Commission to discuss the situation in Europe after the 

votes on the Constitution and also, the trans-Atlantic relations 

after the EU–U.S. Summit that just took place last Monday. 

First of all, I would like to thank you for the very nice words of 

support that you gave to Europe and your belief in a strong Europe. I think we appreciate that very much. Of course, since the 

referenda in France on May 19th and 29th, and in Netherlands on 

June 1st, the European integration process has known certain setbacks and the failure to reach an agreement on the budget has 

added to the feeling that Europe is going through a crisis. So I 

would like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that as the Prime Minister of Luxembourg also said last Monday: ‘‘The European Union 

is not down on its knees.’’ While we have an institutional and a 

budgetary crisis, this does not mean that we will become introspective and only concern ourselves with our own domestic problems. 

The European Union is ready to fully take up its role on the international scene and to make all the necessary decisions internally 

and externally. 

The fact that we have postponed the adoption of the Constitution 

doesn’t mean that the EU suddenly stopped working. We certainly 

still have existing treaties that allow us to work, now, as before. 

The EU still has major responsibilities ensuring security and stability on its own continent, Europe, but also in the world. The constitutional treaty is not dead. 

Last week, we had a meeting of the European Council where all 

our leaders came together in Brussels on June 16 and 17, and the 

leaders reaffirmed the validity of the treaty. It is the fruit of a colVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:22 Oct 05, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\EET\062205\21975.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
6

lective process designed to provide the appropriate responses to ensure that an enlarged European Union functions more democratically, more transparently, and more effectively. Actually, Luxembourg has just decided that we will maintain our own referendum 

on the Constitution as was scheduled and it will take place on the 

10th of July. So I think this is to show that we still believe that 

this treaty is valid. 

In their meeting last week, the European leaders noted that 10 

member states have already successfully concluded constitutional 

treaties. Of course, it is true that two other countries’ citizens—

France and the Netherlands—have expressed a negative vote. So, 

the outcome of these referenda does not call into question the citizens’ attachment to the European projects, but governments. Of 

course, we must take into account the concerns and the worries 

that have been expressed. That is why the European leaders decided that it was necessary to reflect on the situation and allow for 

more time for the ratification process. This period of reflection will 

be used to enable a broad dialogue and debate to take place in 

every country involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national parliaments and political parties. It is true that there is a 

certain distance between citizens and governments and now, Europe must pay more attention to what citizens are saying. 

There is a big question, of course, concerning the impact on the 

enlargement. Although I don’t have a definite answer, I think we 

know there have been quick calls for a slowdown or even a stop on 

the enlargement process of the European Union. While we need to 

think about the impact on the European public opinion of last 

year’s big enlargement, when 10 new member states joined the EU, 

we also have to think about the importance of the enlargement. As 

we said earlier, I think it is a real contribution to peace and prosperity on our continent. And we should certainly respect the commitments that we have made to a number of countries. The European Council reaffirmed those commitments last week. 

We have Romania and Bulgaria who have already signed the 

treaty of accession last April, and are trying to fulfill their obligations in order to join the EU by 2007. Accession negotiations with 

Croatia and Turkey will start once the two countries meet all the 

requirements. The western Balkans; all of those countries have the 

perspective of eventual EU membership, and it is very important 

to those countries. 

Progress toward the EU for all the acceding and candidate countries will, of course, depend on how and when those countries deliver on their commitments. We already have clear evidence of 

progress. The best way to reassure the European public is to stick 

to the conditions for membership and to show that future members 

will not disrupt the European Union but reinforce it. 

Let me now turn to the trans-Atlantic relationship. The summit 

that just took place last Monday is the best illustration of our common willingness to work together on the global threats and challenges that we are facing. As you already mentioned, President 

Bush clearly reaffirmed his Administration’s support for a strong 

European partner and he said it again last Monday. He said that 

the United States continues to support a strong European Union 

as a strong partner in spreading freedom, democracy and security 

7

throughout the world. The President, in fact, confirmed the message that he had already given to us last February when he came 

to Brussels and paid his first ever visit to the European institutions. I think it was a very important message and we appreciate 

this support. 

The last summit, last Monday, addressed a number of concrete 

issues on our common strategic agenda. In the Middle East, Iraq, 

and Afghanistan, we share the same objectives of promoting democracy and supporting freedom, the rule of law, and human rights. 

Even today with Iraq we are holding an international conference, 

co-hosted by the EU and the United States to show international 

support for the Iraqi transitional Government, its institutions, and 

the Iraqi people as they take charge of their future. The decision 

to hold this conference, was made in February when President 

Bush went to Brussels. 

The EU and United States work together to promote peace, stability, sustainable development and prosperity, and good governance in Africa. And they will cooperate with the U.N., the African 

Union and NATO to avert further suffering in Darfur. A range of 

issues were mentioned during the summit. I would just mention 

the reform of the United Nations and the strengthening of international proliferation and disarmament. Just to mention one example on Iran, the United States and the EU reaffirmed a united approach with the objective of preventing that country from developing nuclear weapons. A number of other issues were discussed on 

trade, economy, and development. I am sure my colleague from the 

European Commission will also mention these. I think this really 

shows that we touched upon a broad range of issues and that our 

agenda is really very much alive. 

So the summit came at a very good moment, I think, to reconfirm 

that our trans-Atlantic partnership works well and has been relaunched. We are working together on our agendas on the basis of 

our shared values and shared interests. So I think this was an excellent way to also show to the American public, to the Government, that the European Union is there as a strong and valid partner and that our domestic problems, they certainly exist, but they 

don’t prevent us from being active and being a strong partner to 

the United States. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Conzemius follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HER EXCELLENCY ARLETTE CONZEMIUS, AMBASSADOR OF

LUXEMBOURG

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am very pleased to be here 

today with Ambassador John Bruton representing the European Commission to discuss the situation in Europe after the votes on the constitution, and the transatlantic relations, after EU/US Summit. 

Since the referenda in France, on May 29 and Netherlands, on June 1, the European integration process has known a setback. The failure to reach an agreement 

on the budget has added to the feeling that Europe is going through a crisis. 

Let me assure you, as the Prime Minister of Luxembourg did on Monday, during 

his joint press conference with President Bush that the European Union is not down 

on its knees. While we have institutional and budgetary problems, this does not 

mean that we will become introspective and only concern ourselves with our own 

domestic problems. The European Union is ready to fully take up its role on the 

international scene and to make all the necessary decisions internally and exterVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:22 Oct 05, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\EET\062205\21975.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
8

nally. The fact that we have postponed the adoption of the constitution doesn’t mean 

that the EU has suddenly stopped working. The existing treaties allow us to work 

now as before. The EU has major responsibilities in ensuring security and stability 

on its own continent and in the world. 

The Constitutional Treaty is not dead. Last week, at the European Council in 

Brussels on June 16 and 17, the European leaders reaffirmed its validity. This Treaty is the fruit of a collective process, designed to provide the appropriate response 

to ensure that an enlarged European Union functions more democratically, more 

transparently and more effectively. Luxembourg has in fact decided to maintain its 

own referendum on the constitution and it will be held, as scheduled, on July 10th. 

The European leaders noted that to date 10 members states have successfully concluded the Constitutional Treaty. But in two other countries, citizens have expressed a negative vote. While the outcome of these referenda does not call into 

question citizens’ attachment to the European project, Governments must still take 

into account the concerns and worries that have been expressed. That is why the 

European leaders have decided that it was necessary to reflect on the situation and 

allow for more time for the ratification processes. This period of reflection will be 

used to enable a broad dialogue and debate to take place in each of our countries, 

involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national parliaments and political 

parties. Europe must pay more attention to what its citizens are saying. 

How does the situation affect the enlargement process? There have been quick 

calls for a slowdown or even a stop to the enlargement process of the EU. We might 

need to think about the impact on the European public opinion of last year’s big 

enlargement, when ten new members joined the Union. But we should not underestimate the importance of enlargement as a contribution to peace and prosperity 

on the European continent. We should respect the commitments made to a number 

of countries, as the European Council recalled during its meeting last week. 

Romania and Bulgaria signed their treaty of accession last April and are trying 

to fulfil their obligations in order to join the EU by 2007. Accession negotiations 

with Croatia and Turkey will start once the two countries meet all the requirements. And the Western Balkans countries have the perspective of eventual EU 

membership. 

Progress towards the EU for all the acceding and candidate countries will depend 

on how and when the countries deliver on their commitments. And we have clear 

evidence of progress. The best way to reassure the European public is to stick to 

the conditions for membership and show that future members will not disrupt the 

Union but reinforce it. 

As far as transatlantic relations are concerned, the EU/US summit that took place 

last Monday is the best illustration of our common willingness to work together on 

the global threats and challenges that we are facing. 

President Bush clearly reaffirmed his administration’s support for a strong European partner. He said that ‘‘the United States continues to support a strong European Union as a partner in spreading freedom and democracy and security and 

prosperity throughout the world’’. The President thus confirmed the message that 

he gave to Europe last February when he paid a first ever visit to the European 

institutions. 

The last EU/ US summit addressed a number of concrete issues on their common 

strategic agenda: In the Middle East, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, we share the same 

objectives of promoting democracy and supporting freedom, the rule of law and 

human rights. With Iraq, we are holding today an international conference, cohosted by the EU and the US to show international support for Iraqi Transitional 

Government, its institutions, and the Iraqi people as they take charge of their future. 

The EU and the US work together to promote peace, stability, sustainable development, prosperity and good governance in Africa. They will cooperate with the UN, 

AU and NATO to avert further suffering in Darfur. 

The leaders expressed a strong commitment for a reformed United Nations with 

a balanced and ambitious outcome of the September High Level Meeting. 

They will continue strengthen the international non-proliferation and disarmament regime and work in concert to prevent WMD and ballistic missile proliferation. On Iran, the US and EU will maintain their united approach, with the objective of preventing this country from developing nuclear weapons. 

On trade and the economy, new initiatives have been launched to remove obstacles to trade and investment between the EU and the US to enhance growth, competitiveness and innovation, increasing integration of the transatlantic market. The 

leaders expressed continued support for the success of the Doha Development Round 

and decided to work together on promotion of energy efficiency and energy security 

9

including in developing countries. They committed to protect Intellectual Property 

Rights fighting piracy and counterfeiting both at home and abroad. 

They underlined their commitment to increased and more effective development 

assistance with a view to implementing fully the Millennium Development Goals 

The EU–US summit of June 20th confirmed that the transatlantic partnership 

has been re-launched. We are working together on our transatlantic and global 

agendas, on the basis of our shared values and shared interests.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ambassador Bruton. 

STATEMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY JOHN BRUTON, HEAD OF 

DELEGATION, DELEGATION TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Ambassador BRUTON. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am very pleased, indeed, to speak here with Ambassador Conzemius on behalf of the European Union at this important moment in the history of our Union, a Union that is now over 

50 years old. I cannot stress strongly enough, Mr. Chairman, the 

fact that the ‘‘No’’-votes to the Constitution in France and the 

Netherlands do not mean any reduction whatsoever in the powers 

of the European Union or the rights that citizens of European 

Union countries now enjoy. The Union still retains all its powers 

in trade, in the environment, in antitrust, in consumer protection 

and the rest. 

Its two foreign policy chiefs, Javier Solana and Benita FerreroWaldner, remain in place. European Union citizens still enjoy the 

rights given to them in already ratified existing EU treaties to live, 

to work, and to do business in other European countries. To the extent that any EU country or part of an EU country attempts to 

deny them those rights, that country could find itself hauled before 

the European Court of Justice. 

The European Union Constitution, were it adopted on time, 

would have consolidated all of those powers and rights in a single 

document rather than have them spread throughout a number of 

documents as they are at the moment. It would have made some 

additional changes in simplifying the voting procedures, in the 

Council of Ministers, in providing for more consultation with national parliaments of the 25 member states, in unifying foreign policy formation and in allowing majority voting in the Council of 

Ministers on cross-border crime rather than the unanimity that it 

obtains at the moment. The human rights content of the EU Constitution, although it would have been codified in the Constitution, 

is already, in fact, being enforced by the European Court of Justice 

and will continue so to be. 

It is also important to say that the process of ratification of the 

Constitution, notwithstanding the two ‘‘No’’-votes, will continue. 

That was the conclusion that the summit reached last week. The 

summit of the EU decided last week that the Constitution does represent the right answer to the problems posed for Europe’s future 

and does not propose any renegotiation of the terms of the Constitution. But, of course, it remains the case that that Constitution 

cannot come into effect yet unless and until all 25 member states 

ratify it. 

In fact, the main impact of the French and Dutch referenda will 

be psychological rather than legal. Undoubtedly, the confidence 

with which the European Union opened its doors to new members 

will be somewhat deflated in the short run. But it is important to 

10

stress that the 25 EU heads of government meeting last week 

unanimously agreed that the future of the countries of the western 

Balkans—I use the words that they agreed to unanimously—‘‘lies 

within the European Union.’’

Legally speaking, nothing has changed. The European Union is 

still free to offer membership to new additional states, although it 

remains the case that each new adhesion must be approved by all 

25 existing member states. Negotiations with Turkey will commence as planned in October of this year. But it is important, if 

I may, to set out the criteria which a country must fulfill to be admitted to membership of the European Union. 

In 1993, in Copenhagen, it was then agreed that the criteria 

were as follows: They should include stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities, and the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with the competitive pressures 

and market forces within the Union. These criteria are often 

quoted, and they have been extremely important as an incentive as 

both of you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member, have pointed 

out in assisting the reform process in countries intending to become 

members of the Union. But there were other criteria that were also 

laid out in 1993, which are not as often quoted here in the United 

States or indeed in the European Union. These criteria require that 

attending EU members be willing to take part and to take on all 

the obligations of membership; including political, economic, and 

monetary union. Support for political union of Europe is thus an 

obligation of EU members’ membership, for new as well as existing 

members. 

The Copenhagen criteria went on to acknowledge that when a 

country joins the European Union, that affects both the country 

itself and the existing members. These criteria stated that in deciding on a particular country joining, the Union’s capacity to absorb 

new members while maintaining the momentum of European integration, is also an important consideration. The important point I 

would like to stress here from these criteria are the commitments 

to political unity and to the continued momentum of European integration, which must not be disturbed by any new adhesion. 

In terms of U.S.–EU relations, most of the things we want to 

achieve as Europeans we will most likely be able to achieve in the 

world and internally if we work together on those things with the 

United States. It is equally the case that most of the things that 

America wants to achieve in the world are most likely to be 

achieved if the United States is working together on them with the 

European Union. The world is better served in terms of prosperity, 

in terms of security and in terms of stability when America and the 

European Union work together. 

President Bush has made it very clear that he is in favor of a 

strong Europe, a strong partner for the United States. We deeply 

appreciate the commitment that he has shown to the European 

Union at this particularly difficult time, and in particular, the last 

few days. I believe, sir, that the support that the President has 

shown for the European Union at this critical juncture will not be 

soon forgotten. It is in times of difficulty that one knows one’s 

friends. I think that we have been shown great friendship by the 

11

President of the United States and indeed on a bipartisan basis, by 

all representatives of the United States people in recent days. 

In this moment of transition and difficulty for the European 

Union, a transition which we will successfully complete and a difficulty which we will have no doubt completely overcome, the outcome of the summit between the United States and the European 

Union is a concrete step forward. We agreed on an ambitious economic declaration. It is a step toward the goal of a barrier free 

trans-Atlantic market. We agreed to strengthen our consultation on 

regulatory cooperation, stimulating capital markets, promoting 

knowledge and innovation across the Atlantic, improving trade and 

security, and the protection of intellectual property rights, both 

within our own jurisdictions and in other jurisdictions in the world. 

And we agreed to work together toward the successful Doha development round. 

The United States and the European Union, it is clear from the 

last few days, is growing together, not drifting apart. 

Last but no means least, the summit that took place this week 

between the United States and the European Union reached a 

clear agreement to promote peace, stability and prosperity in Africa 

on the eve of the G–8 Summit. As the President of the European 

Commission pointed out, 25,000 people die every day, either from 

lack of proper food or lack of clean water. Some may accept this 

as unfortunate but natural. 

There was a time when slavery was deemed to be unfortunate 

but natural. That was changed by political action in this House and 

in many other houses of legislation throughout the world. It is no 

longer accepted as natural or acceptable. So why should 25,000 

people dying needlessly every day be accepted as unfortunate but 

natural? 

If we have the will and harness the capability to tackle poverty, 

particularly in Africa, we will confine such avoidable deaths to history. We will make them something that our grandchildren will 

look upon with the same incredulity that we today look upon slavery. That is why that commitment that both the Administration 

here gave to increase the assistance to Africa, and also the commitment that the European Council gave to increase the average contribution that Europe is making to 0.5 percent, 5⁄6 percent of our 

GDP by 2010, involving a very substantial increase in financial 

commitment, is a very important step forward, not just for Europe, 

not just for the United States, but for humanity. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Ambassador Bruton. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Bruton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY JOHN BRUTON, HEAD OF DELEGATION, 

DELEGATION TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am most pleased to be here 

today with my colleague, Her Excellency, Arlette Conzemius, the Ambassador from 

Luxembourg, to discuss with you situation in the European Union regarding the recent outcomes of the French and Dutch referenda on the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, the outcome of the subsequent EU Summit held last weekend, 

and the over all effect of this on US–EU relations as seen in the results of the summit held on Monday of this week in Washington with the EU leadership and President Bush and his cabinet. 

12

Let me first and foremost state that the results of the referenda on France and 

the Netherlands, contrary to some media coverage, have neither ended the European Union nor even brought an end to the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty. 

Europe remains open for business. The EU has the capacity to meet with success 

and failure and treat the two just the same. 

I cannot stress this strongly enough, the French and Dutch ‘No’ votes do not mean 

any reduction whatsoever in the powers of the European Union or the rights Europeans now enjoy as citizens of the Union. The Union still retains all its powers in 

trade, the environment, anti-trust, consumer protection and the rest. Its two foreign 

policy chiefs, Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, remain in place. EU citizens still enjoy the rights given to them in already-ratified EU treaties to live, work 

and do business in other European countries; and to the extent that any EU country 

denies them those rights, that country may find itself hauled before the European 

Court of Justice. 

The EU Constitution would have consolidated all those powers and rights in one 

document, but it did not create them anew because they are established by existing 

ratified treaties. The main changes that the EU Constitution would have brought 

about were in simplifying voting procedures, consulting national parliaments, unifying foreign policy formation and allowing majority voting on cross-border crime. 

The human rights provisions of the EU Constitution are already being enforced by 

the European Court of Justice but were to be codified in the Constitution. 

However, the process of ratification will continue, that was the conclusion of the 

Council of Ministers which met in Brussels last week. After lengthy debate, the 

Council decided that the Constitutional Treaty is the right answer to many questions posed by people in Europe. There is no intention to undertake any renegotiation of the document. It is the culmination of the painstakingly achieved agreement 

of all 25 Member States. It is the outcome of an open Convention process that involved Government and opposition politicians of all member states. It is designed 

to provide the appropriate response to ensure that an enlarged European Union 

functions more democratically, more transparently and more effectively. 

The main impact of the French and Netherlands ‘No’ votes will be psychological 

rather than legal. The confidence with which the European Union opened its doors 

during the 1990s to new Member States may be somewhat deflated in the short run. 

In the short term, that may have a negative impact. But it is important to stress 

that the 25 EU heads of Government unanimously agreed during their Summit in 

Brussels that the future of the countries of the Western Balkans ‘‘lies within the European Union’’. Legally speaking, nothing has changed. The EU is still free to offer 

membership to new additional states, although it remains as always the case that 

each new adhesion must be approved by all 25 existing Member States (or 27 counting Romania and Bulgaria from 2007). 

In 1993 in Copenhagen, all then-Member States agreed unanimously on the criteria that new states would have to meet to join. These included ‘‘stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to 

cope with competitive pressures and market forces within the Union’’. These criteria 

are often quoted, and their existence has been very helpful in pushing internal reform in would-be EU members. 

But other criteria that were set out in Copenhagen are less often quoted, especially here in the United States. These require that intending EU members are willing to take on the obligations of membership ‘‘including political, economic and monetary union’’. Support for political union is thus an obligation of EU membership—

for new as well as for existing members. 

The Copenhagen criteria went on to acknowledge that when a country joins the 

EU, that affects both the country itself and the existing members. They stated that 

‘‘The Union’s capacity to absorb new members, while maintaining the momentum 

of European integration, is also an important consideration’’. 

The important point I would like to stress from these criteria are the commitments to ‘‘political union’’ and to the continued ‘‘momentum of European integration’’. Of course these commitments apply to existing members as well as to new 

ones. 

This extension allows the necessary time for reflection. This is in keeping with 

the decision not to renegotiate. There never existed a plan B, instead there now exists a plan D, where the D stands for democracy, dialogue and debate. This will 

mean time for broad debate, which would be used to generate interest in each member state. Clarification and discussion will make the difference. Also, the European 

institutions will also have to make their contribution, with the Commission playing 

a special role in this regard. The validity of continuing with the ratification process 

13

cannot be denied but it will be left to each member state to be the master of its 

own timetable. 

Neither the Constitutional nor the European project in general draws sufficiently 

on people’s emotions in the way that the well established and vital rituals of American patriotism draw all Americans together. Europe must be a Union of hearts as 

well as heads. The project of peaceful, voluntary, European integration is actually 

every bit as ambitious, every bit as inspiring and every bit as worthy of sacrifice 

as is the inspiring American dream. European leaders have got to find a language 

that conveys that to high ideal their citizens. 

Thus this pause for reflection can have a very positive outcome. Europe’s citizens 

are better informed now than 50 years ago and they demand more from the political 

elite. Going to Europe’s citizens and asking their opinion will make for a strong Europe, for a more united Europe achievable. 

In terms of EU–US relations, most of the things we want to achieve as Europeans, we are most likely to be able to achieve when we are able to work together 

with the US on them. It is equally the case that most things America wants are 

more likely to be achieved if American can work with the European Union. The 

world is better served in terms of prosperity, in terms of security and in terms of 

stability when America and the European Union work together. President Bush is 

in favor of a strong Europe. Europe will only get stronger through cohesiveness and 

internal democracy, which is in America’s interest. 

The outcome of Monday’s EU–US summit is a concrete step forward. We agreed 

on an ambitious Economic declaration. It is another step towards the goal of a barrier free transatlantic market. We agreed to strengthen our co-operation on regulatory co-operation, stimulating capital markets, knowledge and innovation, trade 

and security and protection of intellectual property rights. We also agreed to work 

towards an early and ambitious conclusion of the Doha Development Round. 

So the EU and US economies are growing together, not drifting apart. We already 

operate as one single transatlantic economy. We co-operate in everything from crisis 

management to trade liberalization. 

Last but by no means least, our unprecedented commitment reached at the Summit to promote peace, stability and prosperity in Africa on the eve of the G8 summit, is a genuine leap forward that couldn’t have come at a better time. 25,000 people die every day from malnutrition or dirty water. Some may accept that as unfortunate but natural. There was a time when slavery was deemed unfortunate, but 

natural. That was changed by political action. It is no longer accepted as natural. 

So why should 25,000 people dying needlessly be avoided as natural? If we have the 

will, and harness the capability, to tackle poverty, we will confine all these needless 

deaths to history. We can make them something that our grandchildren work on 

with the same incredulity that we worked on slavery. 

Over the past 55 years the United States and the European Union have built a 

strong transatlantic partnership based upon the common values of freedom, democracy, rule of law, human rights, security, and economic development and long will 

it continue.

Mr. GALLEGLY. You’ve mentioned in your statement several comments regarding the President’s recent summit. How would you assess the public opinion in Europe toward the United States and 

President Bush? Are President Bush’s efforts to reach out being 

covered in the European press and media? And if so, how is it 

being received? 

Ambassador BRUTON. I think, Mr. Chairman, that President 

Bush’s efforts—particularly in February, when, as Ambassador 

Conzemius pointed out, he visited the European Union institutions 

in Brussels and was the first President of the United States ever 

to do so, and his supportive words this week at the more recent 

summit—are appreciated by an increasing number of Europeans. 

They are especially appreciated, obviously, by Europe’s leaders. 

But, I think, increasingly members of the public are seeing the 

President of the United States showing a practical commitment to 

the European idea. That is something that some of them, because 

of previous disagreements with some policy positions that he took, 

might not have expected to find. But they are finding it and they 

are seeing it. I think it is helping them to come to a new appreciaVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:22 Oct 05, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\EET\062205\21975.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
14

tion of the role that the President and the United States are playing. 

That is not to gloss over the fact, of course, that there are differences with some policy positions that the Administration has 

taken, but I suppose there are even differences in this country on 

that matter. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Maybe even in this building. 

Ambassador BRUTON. Possibly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I appreciate your candor, Mr. Ambassador. 

Ambassador Conzemius, the impact is uncertain regarding the 

status of the constitutional treaty on the further enlargement of 

the EU. First, could you give us your assessment on Bulgaria and 

Romania and second, on the prospects of the countries in the western Balkans, particularly with regard to Croatia and then perhaps 

a comment on Turkey? 

That is a fairly long list. But if you give it your best shot. 

Ambassador CONZEMIUS. Yes, certainly. The countries you mentioned first, Bulgaria and Romania, are in the position that they 

already signed treaties of accession. So they are really well advanced in the process. The plan is to accept them as full members 

in 2007. Of course, they still have commitments to fulfill. So I 

think it is very important for countries like Bulgaria and Romania 

to continue the hard work that they have been doing and that we 

have recognized. Then we, of course, hope to welcome them as soon 

as possible in January 2007. 

The other countries you mentioned, we have not started negotiations with. These other countries that you mentioned, especially in 

the western Balkans, we have already decided that they belong in 

the European Union. We gave them this European perspective. I 

think it is a very strong incentive for these countries to work together, to develop regional cooperation, to work on their institutions and make sure that they are ready, and that they can fulfill 

all the criteria that my colleague, Ambassador Bruton, mentioned 

in his introduction. I think the Union wants to fulfill the commitments that we made to these countries. They have to, on their side, 

make sure that they are ready, and then things will certainly work 

out for them and for the European Union. 

So, we certainly hope that we will be able to do this as soon as 

possible. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ambassador Bruton, could you maybe express 

your thoughts, maybe more directed at perhaps Croatia and Turkey? 

Ambassador BRUTON. Well, in the case of Croatia, there is an unresolved question in regard to bringing before the International 

Court in the Hague a particular individual. The Croatian Government says that they are doing the best they can to locate this individual. But there is not entire satisfaction in the international community and in the European Union that everyone in Croatia is 

doing everything that they can do, perhaps not the government. 

The Union is maintaining the position that until this matter is resolved, we cannot go further. 

In the case of Turkey, the situation is that we have agreed to 

open negotiations with Turkey in October. At the end of negotiations, whenever that end of negotiation comes, of course, every one 

15

of the existing members—probably will be 27 members at that 

stage—individually would have to agree that Turkey joins on the 

basis of the terms that are being negotiated. People forget that it 

is a requirement that every one of the individual countries must 

agree. If one recalls the fact that Britain, for example, could not 

join the European Union in the 1960s because one country, France, 

was not agreeable to Britain doing so, this reminds us that the fundamental rule in the European Union is that a new state cannot 

join unless all the existing states are happy with that. 

So the expansion of the European Union is not perhaps as easy 

as was the expansion of the United States during the 19th century, 

where, on the other hand, there were some difficulties that had to 

be overcome, there had to be compromises of agreement reached, 

the Missouri Compromise and so forth to agree to meet to achieve 

enlargement. So the enlargement of the Union is not an easy or 

automatic process. But we are very conscious of the huge efforts 

that have been made by the Turkey Government, in particular by 

Prime Minister Erdogan, who was described at the summit by 

President Bush and by one of the Europeans, as ‘‘one of the greatest Turkish statesmen ever’’ for the contribution he has made to 

his country. It is the case that the prospect of European Union 

membership has been very helpful to him internally in that process. 

Of course as I stressed in my opening remarks, at the end of the 

negotiation it will be both for Turkey and for the European countries to decide whether they are ready to come together in a political union, in a monetary union, in a union where there is a willingness of the minority to accept the rule of the majority. That is 

obviously something that we can only see in the concrete circumstances when negotiation is actually completed and in the actual context of that time. But the goal is membership and the negotiations toward that goal were started in October. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I know I have run past my time but, with Rob’s 

indulgence, I would like to go back just very quickly to Croatia. I 

had the opportunity to be in Croatia last week. It happened to be 

a personal trip on a family emergency. Of course, in my job, you 

never go anywhere that you don’t find yourself quitting on your 

other half for a few minutes when the opportunity presents itself 

in being in a country where you are dealing with issues that are 

important at home. 

The issue you were referring to, it appears to me, that the Croatian people—and I think for that matter, the government—is 

aware that this is a serious matter that has to be addressed. It is 

no longer something that can just be sugarcoated and passed 

through with where they want to go without an honest effort on 

their part. 

A perspective that I have had in talking to several people in Croatia is that while many view this individual as a national hero, as 

a result of what was happening in a very difficult time in the recent history of Croatia, I found almost unanimously the folks that 

I talked with still believe that the individual should have his day 

in court in the Hague and clear his name and move on. 

16

It isn’t like, ‘‘Oh, he is a hero and we should continue to protect 

him.’’ I don’t know if you are getting a little more of that now. That 

wasn’t the feeling I had 6 or 8 months ago. 

Ambassador BRUTON. I think you are right, Mr. Chairman. I 

think your assessment is entirely correct. Of course, all of us who 

have been involved in political or diplomatic life over the years will 

know that extradition to another country for a trial is an inherently difficult thing for a people and for the country who is doing 

the extraditing to accept. 

We must understand that. I think we must also understand the 

historical background of the conflict that occurred in that part of 

the world. I think there is a need perhaps for people to be more 

educated in each of the countries, not so much about the crimes 

committed by their antagonists, but about the crimes committed in 

their own name. I think it is easy to see very clearly and condemn 

very eloquently, crimes committed by people of a different tradition 

or ethnicity than it is to accept that your own side occasionally 

does some terrible things too. 

This is a process, no doubt, through which the Croatian people 

are going. It is not particularly easy for them. But on the other 

hand, the goal that is in sight for them is a very attractive one 

once this issue is resolved. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Bruton. Thank you 

very much for your indulgence, Rob. We have a vote. We still have 

a few more witnesses and Ambassador Conzemius has a critical 

commitment that she has to leave for at 4 o’clock p.m. So whatever 

we can do. 

The time is totally yours, Rob. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, I will be brief. 

I would like to congratulate both witnesses for their extraordinary service for both their individual countries and the European 

Union. 

If I may ask two things, to follow on the Chairman’s comment 

regarding Turkey. I was in Turkey the week that the referenda 

came. I was pleasantly surprised by the reaction of the Turkish 

Government, which I think was entirely responsible. Essentially, 

the Turks’ reaction was that they are undergoing the economic and 

the political reforms that they are choosing to implement because 

it is good for Turkey. They very much want to be a part of the European Union but nothing has changed. 

I am curious if you believe the German elections, assuming they 

were to conclude with a change in government, would change the 

dynamic of the EU? I think from the perspective of most Americans, we would hope that it wouldn’t. I would be curious to hear 

your thoughts. 

Second, in many ways the confusion and the chaos within Europe 

couldn’t have happened at a worse time. In the next year we will 

witness either positive or extremely negative occurrences in Iran 

regarding their nuclear program. We will either have a successful 

or an unsuccessful Israeli pullout from Gaza, which will lead either 

to greater prospects for peace or even more egregious prospects for 

violence. If you read some of the Israeli newspapers, people like 

former Prime Minister Barak to some people like the former chief 

of staff—there are predictions from very different political 

17

ideologies—that once the Israelis pull out from Gaza they are headed toward a third Intifada. I am curious if you could share with us 

the European thought in this context. 

There have been reports that at a very low level, Europe has engaged in some type of discussion. When I say Europe, low-level European officials have engaged in some discussion with representatives of Hamas. Tell us what the European strategy is and what 

their thinking is. 

The Syrians have left Lebanon. The other half of the U.N. Resolution has disarmed Hezbollah. No way can we have a successful 

pullout from Gaza if what we leave behind is an emboldened 

Hamas. The Europeans and the United States are joined at the hip 

on both of these issues. If we succeed, we do it together. If we fail, 

we fail together. Where does Europe fall on this at this critical time 

in the context in what you are engaging in your internal discussions? 

Ambassador CONZEMIUS. If I may, on the first word on Turkey. 

Of course enlargement of an important country such as Turkey is 

part of an important discussion we are having in our countries. It 

might become part of the discussion in Germany, but that doesn’t 

change the fact that we have a commitment to this country. I think 

the right attitude was, as you described, the reaction in Turkey. 

They should really stick to their reforms and make sure that what 

they do is in their own interest, and it will be in the interest of 

the membership to the European Union. So I think we should really try to keep the line there. 

On the view of the Middle East process, I think we share the 

view that it is an important moment in many parts of that area. 

It is also very important that we work together inside the concepts 

of the European Union, the United States and all parts, and make 

sure that the Gaza withdrawal is a success. We should really focus 

on that and make sure that we have success during the summer 

and the coming months. It is very critical. 

You know, Lebanon has been a very good example of how we can 

work together to put pressure—and keep that pressure—to make 

sure that the 1559 Resolution is totally implemented. We have no 

change of position there. We really want a full implementation concerning withdrawal of all services from Syria and we hope that 

Hezbollah will also keep a position that will not disrupt the whole 

process. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. We are kind of running on a very tight schedule 

now. Mr. Poe had one quick question. I want to make sure that we 

don’t miss a vote. The voting schedule has made things difficult, 

both the start and the end today. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Very quickly, I will submit the question and if you could answer 

it, then we could make our vote, if that is all right with you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The French defeat of the EU Constitution; is that, in your opinion, a rise in French nationalism? 

Second, is it a fear of loss of identity on the part of the French? 

Third, is there a concern that the number of native French, if I 

could use that phrase, are becoming depleted in France with more 

immigrants coming into France? 

18

Those are the three questions I have. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Ambassador. 

Ambassador BRUTON. Thank you. Just to say, obviously, I think 

there is a national element to the ‘‘No’’-votes. But I don’t think anybody could be under the illusion that the French are losing their 

identity. I think that is their intention. They are as French as they 

were 50 years ago, and they will probably be more French 50 years 

from now. I don’t think there is any fear on that point. 

Immigration, of course, is a factor, but most of the immigration 

that has taken place is entirely unrelated to the enlargement of the 

European Union. It is immigration from North Africa or immigration from other countries that are not now in the European Union. 

As for the case of the mythical Polish plumber; the only conditions 

in which a Polish plumber could be doing plumbing in France 

would be illegally, because Poles don’t have, as yet, complete freedom to enter to work in France. There are only three or four EU 

countries where the labor market restrictions that would eventually be lifted completely in 2008 have been lifted, and France is not 

one of those countries. 

As far as the German election is concerned, nobody can say for 

sure how this would influence it, but I believe that the negotiations 

will commence. There will probably be several German elections 

that will come and go before those negotiations are finally completed. We just do not know what the conditions will be of Europe 

or of Turkey at the time the final decision is to be taken on actual 

membership, and that is the key decision. That has to come after, 

not before negotiation. 

As far as Hamas is concerned, let me assure you that there is 

no contact within the European Union Commission and Hamas, no 

contact at all. I think there may be some low-level exploratory discussions with some people in some European countries with 

Hezbollah, but no contact with Hamas. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much. I was 

going to try to sneak in that question for Rob and to make sure 

he got an answer. Is that acceptable? 

I want to thank both of you very much, particularly for your indulgence on all the extracurricular competition we had today. I 

know we will have an ongoing dialogue. We value your friendship. 

The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(19)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY HIS EXCELLENCY JOHN BRUTON, HEAD

OF DELEGATION, DELEGATION TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

EU–US DECLARATION ON ENHANCING COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF NON

PROLIFERATION AND THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM

1. Promoting international peace and security is of vital importance to the European Union and the United States. People all over the world should have freedom from fear and want and live in dignity. Societies have become more interconnected and more interdependent. And as the events of September 11, 2001 

and March 11, 2004 show, the European Union and the United States have also 

become more vulnerable to threats which are more diverse, less visible, and less 

predictable.

2. Fighting terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, coupled 

with the risk that such weapons could be acquired by terrorists, remain our 

greatest security challenges. In this context, we recall the 2004 Dromoland Castle Declarations on Combating Terrorism and on the Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which still provide the framework for our cooperation. 

We are fully committed to strengthen and support the important role of the 

United Nations in assisting member states in combating both challenges.

3. We reaffirm our commitment to cooperate in our efforts to combat global terrorism in full respect of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of 

law, and to address the underlying conditions that terrorists can seize to recruit 

and exploit to their advantage. We pledge to intensify our efforts to strengthen 

international cooperation to encourage the global and effective implementation 

of UN conventions and protocols on terrorism. We also work together with a 

view to adopting the Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism. We broadly 

support the principles of the comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy as proposed by UNSG Annan at the Madrid Conference in March 2005.

4. Our bilateral cooperation extends to developing comprehensive and efficient border security processes, more secure travel documents, contacts between our law 

enforcement agencies and improved information-sharing abilities. We will reinforce and expand our cooperation in the fight against terrorist financing. We 

will continue to strengthen the abilities of our legal systems to prosecute terrorists and will enhance our judicial cooperation in criminal matters. We will also 

continue our work to enhance the capacities of other countries to combat terrorism.

5. We will further strengthen measures against the proliferation of weapons of 

mass destruction by state and non-state actors. In this context, we reaffirm our 

support for the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and will continue to work together to strengthen it. We pledge to intensify our collaboration and coordination in promoting strict implementation of and compliance with relevant treaties, agreements and commitments on non proliferation. We will enhance the security of weapons-usable materials, facilities, and technology. We reaffirm also 

our willingness to work together to strengthen and universalise the disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and regimes that ban the proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

6. We will assist other states around the world to build stronger legal, regulatory, 

enforcement and other institutional capacity against proliferation. And we will 

work for more effective responses to address proliferation threats and prevent 

20

or remedy non-compliance. Our shared commitment to address proliferation 

threats is reflected in the ‘‘EU–US Joint Programme of Work on the Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction’’.

7. We remain united in our determination to see the proliferation implications of 

Iran’s advanced nuclear program resolved. Towards that end, we reconfirm our 

full support for the ongoing European efforts to secure Iran’s agreement to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is intended for exclusively 

peaceful purposes. As those discussions proceed, we urge Iran to abide fully by 

the terms of the November 2004 Paris Agreement and by the November 2004 

IAEA Board of Governors resolution, including the need to suspend fully and 

verifiably all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. We reiterate the 

need for Iran to cooperate fully with IAEA requests for information and access, 

to comply fully with all IAEA Board requirements and resolve all outstanding 

issues related to its nuclear programme. Finally we call on Iran to ratify without delay the Additional Protocol and, pending its ratification, to act in accordance with its provisions.

8. We note with deep concern the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program and its 10 

February statement that it has manufactured nuclear weapons. The DPRK has 

clearly violated its commitments under the NPT and its IAEA safeguards agreement and other international nonproliferation agreements. The DPRK must 

comply fully with its non-proliferation obligations, and dismantle its nuclear 

weapons and nuclear weapons programs in a permanent, transparent, thorough, 

and verifiable manner. We stress that the Korean Peninsula should be free from 

nuclear weapons, the security and stability on the Peninsula be maintained and 

the nuclear issue be peacefully resolved through dialogue and negotiations. We 

fully reaffirm our support for the Six-Party Talks and believe this represents 

an important opportunity to achieve a comprehensive solution to the 

denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 

EUROPEAN UNION AND UNITED STATES JOINT PROGRAM OF WORK ON THE NONPROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

1. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems 

continue to be a pre-eminent threat to international peace and security. This 

global challenge needs to be tackled individually and collectively, and requires 

an effective global response. We are fully committed to support in that respect 

the important role of the United Nations Security Council and other key UN 

institutions.

2. The European Union and the United States are steadfast partners in the fight 

against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and will undertake 

several new initiatives to strengthen our cooperation and coordination in this 

important arena, even as we enhance our ongoing efforts.

3. Building Global Support for Non-proliferation: The European Union and the 

United States will enhance information sharing, discuss assessments of proliferation risks, and work together to broaden global support for and participation in non-proliferation endeavours. We will increase transparency about our 

non-proliferation dialogues with other countries to ensure, to the extent possible 

consistency in our non-proliferation messages.

4. We reaffirm our willingness to work together to implement and strengthen key 

arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties, agreements and commitments that ban the proliferation of WMD and their delivery systems. In particular we underline the importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 

Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the 

Chemical Weapons Convention. We will increase our effort to promote, individually or, where appropriate, jointly, the universalisation of these Treaties and 

Conventions and the adherence to the Hague Code of Conduct against the proliferation of ballistic missiles.

5. Reinforcing the NPT: The EU and the US reaffirm that the NPT is central to 

preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The EU and the US stress the urgency to maintain the authority and the integrity of the Treaty. To that end, 

the EU and the US recommit to fulfil our obligations under the Treaty while 

working together in order to strengthen it. We will evaluate lessons learned 

from the 2005 Review Conference and continue to stress the importance of compliance with and universal adherence to the NPT.

21

6. Recognizing the Importance of the Biological Threat: The EU and the US will 

work together in advance of the upcoming BTWC-Review Conference in 2006, 

in order to strengthen the Biological Weapons and Toxin Weapons Convention.

7. Promoting Full Implementation of UNSCR 1540: We will coordinate efforts to 

assist and enhance the work being done by the UNSCR 1540 Committee, and 

compliance with the resolution. We will work together to respond, where possible, to assistance requests from States seeking to implement the requirements 

set by the UNSC Resolution 1540 and in particular, to put in place national 

legal regulatory, and enforcement measures against proliferation.

8. Establishing a Dialogue on Compliance and Verification: The European Union 

and the United States renew their call on all States to comply with their arms 

control, disarmament and non-proliferation agreements and commitments. We 

will seek to ensure, through regular exchanges, strict implementation of compliance with these agreements and commitments. We will continue to support the 

multilateral institutions charged with verifying activities under relevant treaties and agreements. We will ask our experts to discuss issues of compliance 

and verification in order to identify areas of possible cooperation and joint undertaking.

9. Strengthening the IAEA: The EU and the US welcome the steps taken earlier 

this month by the Board of Governors of the IAEA that created a new Committee on Safeguards and Verification, which will enhance the IAEA’s effectiveness and strengthen its ability to ensure that nations comply with their NPT 

safeguards obligations. We will work together to ensure all States conclude a 

comprehensive safeguards agreement and an Additional Protocol with the IAEA. 

We agree that the Additional Protocol should become a standard for nuclear cooperation and non-proliferation.

10. Advancing the Proliferation Security Initiative: As we enhance our own capabilities, laws and regulations to improve our readiness for interdiction actions, we 

pledge to strengthen the Proliferation Security Initiative and encourage PSI 

countries to support enhanced cooperation against proliferation networks, including tracking and halting financial transactions related to proliferation.

11. Global Partnership: The EU and the US reaffirm our commitment to the Global 

Partnership Initiative Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass 

Destruction. We will assess ongoing and emerging threats and coordinate our 

non-proliferation cooperation, including with other participating states, to focus 

resources on priority concerns and to make the most effective use of our resources.

12. Enhancing Nuclear Security: We intend to expand and deepen cooperation to enhance the security of nuclear and radiological materials. We welcome the establishment of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) and will cooperate 

closely to implement this important new initiative, including by exploring opportunities under the GTRI to reduce the threat posed by radiological dispersal devices and by identifying specific radiological threat reduction projects that could 

be implemented.

13. Ensuring Radioactive Source Security: We remain concerned by the risks posed 

by the potential use of radioactive sources for terrorist purposes. We will work 

towards having effective controls applied by the end of 2005 in accordance with 

the IAEA Guidance on the Import and Export of Radioactive Sources. We will 

support IAEA efforts to assist countries that need such assistance to establish 

effective and sustainable controls.

14. Rationalizing Multilateral Disarmament Work: We will continue to cooperate in 

order to overcome the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament and pursue 

reforming of the UN General Assembly’s First Committee on disarmament and 

international security. These initiatives are part of our broader efforts to 

streamline and make the multilateral disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation machinery more responsive.

15. The EU and the US take special note of the Conference to Consider and Adopt 

Amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material 

(CPPNM) that will take place at the IAEA, July 4–8 2005, and we urge all 

States Parties to the CPPNM to attend and fully support adoption of an amended Convention. 

22

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES WORKING TOGETHER TO PROMOTE

PEACE, PROSPERITY AND PROGRESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

1. At our Summit in Dromoland last year, the European Union and the United 

States pledged our support to the governments and the peoples of the Middle 

East who have expressed their determination to meet the challenges of modernization, to advance political, social and economic progress, to strengthen democracy, and to respect and promote human rights. We offered this support in 

a spirit of partnership as well as respect and friendship.

2. Since then, we have strengthened our dialogue on our respective efforts towards 

promoting progress and stability in the Broader Middle East and the Mediterranean.

3. At the June 2004 Summit, we reaffirmed our commitment to a just, comprehensive, and lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our common 

vision of the co-existence of two states, Palestine and Israel, by the creation of 

an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state with contiguity in the 

West Bank living side by side with Israel and its neighbours in peace and security.

4. Since then, we have witnessed the successful election of a new leader by the 

Palestinian people. We are now at a moment of opportunity, and, with our partners in the region, we must seize it. In order to achieve and maintain a lasting 

peace, we recognize the importance of building a climate of mutual trust and 

cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.

5. We endorse the May 9, 2005, declaration of the Quartet. We stress the importance of a complete and peaceful Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the 

northern West Bank in a manner consistent with the road map. We urge the 

parties to respect their commitments and to refrain from unilateral actions that 

could prejudge final status issues. We further pledge our full support to the mission of the Quartet’s Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement James Wolfensohn, 

and we will work with him and the parties to promote viable economic and social development.

6. We support the holding of free, fair, and transparent multi-party legislative 

elections in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, under the 2 scrutiny of 

international observers and with full freedom of movement for candidates and 

voters, as another vital step forward on the path towards building a reformed 

and accountable Palestinian Authority.

7. We desire that the Israeli and Palestinian people live in a secure and stable environment. We affirm our support for the mission of General William Ward and 

will pursue in close coordination our respective efforts to assist the Palestinian 

security forces. As is required under the roadmap, there must be effective action 

against terrorism, dismantling of terrorist infrastructure, a freeze on all settlement activity, and dismantling of outposts.

8. The European Union and the United States share the objective of a peaceful, 

secure, democratic, and prosperous broader Middle East and Mediterranean region. With close to ÷3 billion annually in grants and loans from the EU and 

approximately $2.2 billion in assistance and loan guarantees from the U.S., we 

are the major donors of assistance to the region.

9. Through our respective efforts, we seek to promote, in close cooperation with 

our partners, human rights and democracy, increased access to education and 

economic opportunities through modern and open societies, closer integration 

within the region and with the global economy. Our ongoing cooperation to promote peace throughout the region will help our partners to reap the full benefit 

of their efforts and our support.

10. We welcome the accomplishments of the Barcelona Process which were reviewed 

at the 7th Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Luxembourg ahead of 

the 10th anniversary leaders meeting in November, as well as the U.S. Middle 

East Partnership Initiative, launched in 2002. We reaffirm our support for the 

G8’s Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative. We welcome in particular 

the establishment of the Forum for the Future and look forward to its next 

meeting in Bahrain this autumn.

11. We have instructed our respective experts on the region to intensify their cooperation in order to strengthen further our support for reform and democratic 

development.

23

12. We welcome the successful elections that have recently taken place in Afghanistan, the Palestinian Territories, Iraq and Lebanon.

13. While notable progress has been made in a number of countries, significant 

challenges remain. We welcome the amendment to the Egyptian constitution as 

progress towards a more broadly-based representative government and encourage the Government of Egypt to play a leadership role by opening its forthcoming elections to international observers. In these, as in all other elections, 

we stress the importance of freedom of speech, freedom of association and unfettered access to the media, for all candidates.

14. We share the goal of a peaceful, united and stable Iraq and will continue our 

cooperative efforts towards this end. The confirmation of the Iraqi Transitional 

Government following the successful election in January represents an important landmark in the political reconstruction of Iraq. We condemn the terrorist 

acts of forces seeking to disrupt the lives of the Iraqi people and the political 

transition process.

15. Two days from today, at the request of the Iraqi Transitional Government, we 

will co-host a conference of nations to express international support for Iraq’s 

political transformation, economic recovery, and reconstruction, and strengthening of public order and the rule of law, in accordance with UNSCR 1546 

(2004). We have worked closely together to prepare for this important event and 

we will pursue these efforts in following up the Conference. Working with the 

Iraqi authorities, the UN, and other relevant actors, we will seek to contribute 

to the constitutional process and to support the elections which will take place 

on the basis of the new Constitution.

16. We recognize the withdrawal of Syrian military personnel from Lebanon as a 

positive first step toward Syria’s compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559. We remain insistent that Resolution 1559 be implemented in its entirety, including the disarming of all militias, and the complete and full withdrawal of all Syrian intelligence operatives, as well as an end to interference 

in Lebanon’s internal affairs. We reaffirm our full support for the United Nations’ efforts towards these ends.

17. We urge full cooperation by all parties with the independent international commission of enquiry of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq 

Hariri, established by UNSCR 1595 (2005).

18. We welcome the events that have taken place this year in Lebanon in furtherance of the democratic process, including the recent elections. We recognize the 

inherent difficulties facing the new government and remain committed to working with the people of Lebanon to strengthen democratic institutions and promote peace and stability.

19. Once the Lebanese government has defined its reform agenda and should it so 

request, we will consider convening an international conference to consolidate 

support for the Lebanese people and the new government. 

EU–US WORKING TOGETHER TO FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL PIRACY AND COUNTERFEITING

Growing global piracy and counterfeiting threatens the competitiveness of innovative industries, the livelihoods of creative artists and workers, and the health and 

safety of consumers in the European Union, the United States and beyond. Driven 

by new technologies that make it easy to rapidly produce infringing goods in commercial quantities and by fraudulent organizations, including organized criminal 

syndicates, that use the Internet and global trading lanes to distribute and sell 

those goods worldwide, this illicit activity substantially deprives rights holders of a 

legitimate income from their ideas, designs, brands and inventions. According to the 

World Customs Organization (WCO), pirated and counterfeit goods account for 

roughly seven to nine percent of global trade, and customs seizures of intellectual 

property infringing goods at EU external frontiers and US borders have increased 

dramatically in recent years, with a 1000% increase in intercepted counterfeit goods 

by EU Customs between 1998 and 2004. The last five years saw a tripling of seizures of counterfeit goods by US Customs. 

We are committed to working effectively to combat piracy and counterfeiting at 

home and abroad and recently have taken heightened measures to strengthen our 

respective IP enforcement efforts. In April 2004, the EU adopted a directive aimed 

at harmonizing enforcement of intellectual property rights, while in July 2004 a new 

Customs Regulation came into force which aims at improving mechanisms for cusVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:22 Oct 05, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\EET\062205\21975.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
24

toms action against counterfeit and pirated goods. In October 2004, the United 

States announced a Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) designed to reduce trade in pirated and counterfeit goods, dismantle criminal networks that traffic 

in fakes, and help small businesses secure and enforce their intellectual property 

rights. In November 2004, the European Commission adopted a strategy for enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries. This strategy set out guidelines for the European Commission’s actions towards a reduction of the level of intellectual property violations in third countries, using political dialogue and technical assistance. 

To further the efforts noted previously and to strengthen cooperation on intellectual property issues to promote innovation and protect health and safety, the EU 

and the US will take the following actions: 

1. Promote Strong and Effective Enforcement Internally and at our Borders. 

• Promote and uphold laws, regulations and/or procedures which provide, 

where appropriate, for:

— Customs authority to retain or suspend the release of suspected goods 

without the need for a formal complaint from a private party or right 

holder; 

— Strong deterrence against piracy and counterfeiting; 

— Judicial authority to seize suspected infringing goods; 

— Disposal and destruction, where appropriate, of pirated and counterfeit 

goods and equipment and materials used to produce such goods; and 

— Predictable and clear judicial proceedings and transparent policies and 

guidelines related to intellectual property enforcement; and ??Publish information related to our respective intellectual property enforcement actions, including relevant statistical information. 

2. Strengthen Cooperation to Reduce Global Piracy and Counterfeiting. 

• Include effective intellectual property rights protection and enforcement 

rules in our regional and bilateral agreements;

• Send a clear and consistent message to priority countries on the importance 

of effectively enforcing global intellectual property rules, and work together 

with those countries to secure commitments and implement actions to reduce 

piracy and counterfeiting levels, including through bilateral consultations;

• Make intellectual property rights enforcement a key focus of our trade capacity building technical assistance to third countries, and improve coordination 

of our respective efforts in this area with a view to avoiding duplication, and 

to exchanging best practices and lessons learned; and

• Establish informal mechanisms for IPR, customs, and law enforcement experts to exchange views on best practices in addressing piracy and counterfeit problems in third countries. 

3. Foster Public-Private Partnerships to Protect Intellectual Property. 

• Work with our respective private sectors to exchange information on the 

risks of global piracy and counterfeiting and best practices to secure and enforce their rights at home and abroad;

• Encourage our private sectors to take an active part in the fight against 

global piracy and counterfeiting and assist competent enforcement authorities as well as the WTO and WIPO in promoting the observation of international commitments in the field of intellectual property; and

• Promote the establishment and support the efforts of networks, associations 

and organizations of intellectual property rights holders in third countries. 

ENERGY SECURITY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The European Union and the United States share a long tradition of working together to promote strong economic growth and improve energy security. We pursue 

this through such mechanisms as the International Energy Agency, the G–8 initiatives and the Bonn ‘‘Renewables 2004’’ Action Plan. 

By working together the European Union and the United States intend to cooperate to promote sound energy policies, improve energy security and foster economic 

growth and development. We recognize the need for stronger actions to increase energy security and reduce the economic impact of high and volatile energy prices. 

We recognize that one of the greatest needs for developing countries today is to 

provide the basic energy services necessary to lift their citizens out of poverty. We 

25

believe that the advancement and deployment of technology can contribute to the 

solution of the problem. By developing clean, efficient, affordable energy technologies for the longer term, while continuing to improve and deploy the current 

generation of lower-emission technologies, we can help all nations, including developing countries, meet the energy needs of their people and grow their economies. 

The European Union and the United States recognize the important potential that 

can result from further efforts. We will continue to address energy efficiency 

through effective policy measures and technology, and focus our efforts on achieving 

security of supply and helping the developing world to address energy challenges. 

To further these objectives, the European Union and the United States will focus 

their activities in the following areas of common action:

• Working in partnership with developing countries to help them reduce poverty by promoting energy efficient policies and the use of renewable energy 

sources, as well as deploying advanced, efficient, affordable energy technologies to help meet their energy needs.

• Working together through the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum to foster the development and deployment of clean, efficient technologies, especially 

in key developing economies, as global reliance on fossil fuels, particularly 

coal, continues.

• Promoting our work on hydrogen technologies and the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy.

• Working together to ensure the continued safe operation of existing nuclear 

generation and to exchange experience on nuclear safety measures and control. We take note of the efforts of those states who will continue to use nuclear energy, to develop more advanced technologies that would be safer, more 

reliable, and more resistant to diversion and proliferation.

• Continuing work to advance all forms of renewable energy, and to promote 

the use of renewable and energy efficiency technology and policy measures, 

including promotion of energy conservation. As members of the Renewable 

Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), we will place a greater 

emphasis on cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities.

• Working together to promote the development, deployment and adoption of 

cleaner, more efficient diesel vehicle technologies, including by seeking to better align our regulatory standards for diesel engines and fuels.

• Working through the international Methane to Markets Partnership to capture and use methane as a clean-burning energy source from coal mines, 

landfills and oil and gas systems. 

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES INITIATIVE TO ENHANCE

TRANSATLANTIC ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND GROWTH

At the 2004 Dromoland Summit, we committed to finding ways to:

• further transatlantic economic integration,

• spur innovation and job creation, and

• realize the competitive potential of our economies.

We called on our businesses and citizens to join in a vigorous discussion and directed our senior officials to explore means to eliminate impediments to further economic integration and to develop a forward-looking strategy to enhance our economic partnership. We thank all who participated in our discussions and who contributed hundreds of written submissions and comments. 

These consultations underscored that our citizens desire to have access to the 

widest possible range of goods and services while enjoying the protection of high 

public health, environment and safety standards. Stakeholders called for stronger 

collaboration between our regulatory authorities to minimize unnecessary regulatory 

divergences. They asked us to promote the efficient and safe flow of people and 

products across the Atlantic, stressed the benefits of further integration of our capital markets and called for protection of intellectual property rights. They asked us 

to facilitate investment, make progress on services, improve procurement opportunities, further cooperation in competition policy, and stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship in areas ranging from basic research to business start-ups, so that our 

businesses remain competitive in the global economy. 

26

A Forward-Looking Agenda 

By removing the impediments to trade and investment, increasing integration of 

markets, and enabling more dynamic private commercial activity, we seek to enhance economic growth and innovation across the Atlantic, make progress towards 

integration of the transatlantic market and strengthen our joint leadership in the 

global economy. We know this will be a multi-year effort and seek regular reports 

on progress. We are actively engaged in addressing many aspects of this work in 

the multilateral trade liberalization 2 negotiations of the World Trade Organization 

(WTO), and we support early and ambitious conclusions to Doha Development Agenda by the end of 2006. For this purpose and in order to fully realize the development 

dimension of this crucial WTO round, we re-iterate our utmost commitment to 

achieve by this year’s Hong Kong Ministerial ambitious and balanced progress in 

the areas of market access for trade in industrial and agricultural products, services, as well as in the multilateral rule making agenda. 

To expand economic opportunity, promote prosperity, and maintain the health and 

safety of our peoples, the European Union and the United States will work together 

to:

• promote regulatory cooperation and establish a high-level Regulatory Cooperation Forum;

• stimulate open and competitive capital markets;

• spur innovation and technological development by promoting cooperation in 

a wide range of areas, including research and development, space, education 

and exchanges, information and communications technologies, and health and 

medical technologies;

• enhance trade and transport security while facilitating the movement of people and goods;

• develop and help disseminate energy efficiency technologies;

• support effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, at 

home and abroad, in line with the highest international standards;

• take measures to facilitate investment flows that contribute to sustained economic growth;

• explore ways to exchange certain confidential information in international 

competition cases;

• improve transatlantic procurement opportunities; and

• reinforce cooperation on services (mutual recognition of professional qualifications and aviation).

Initial work we will undertake is described in more detail in the Annex to this 

Declaration. 

Ensuring Coordination and Measuring Success 

We look to our senior levels of government to carry forward the tasks we have 

outlined in this Declaration. We encourage them to meet regularly with their 3 

transatlantic counterparts to establish work programs, review progress, and advance areas of cooperation we have agreed on today. These work programs should 

be developed in the next six months and include objectives and timelines to help 

measure progress. Those responsible will report to leaders at each EU–US Summit 

on progress made under this initiative. Taking into account our strengthening global 

partnership, we will keep under continuous review the strategic priorities and structures of our dialogues to ensure they are fully adapted to meet the challenges 

ahead. 

Promoting Legislative Cooperation 

Recognizing the importance of our respective legislatures in furthering transatlantic integration, we encourage legislators on both sides of the Atlantic (including 

the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue) to meet regularly, notably to discuss economic policy issues and regulatory matters, with a particular focus on their potential transatlantic impact. 

Continuing Stakeholder Consultations 

Many of the ideas we are pursuing to promote transatlantic economic integration 

stem from the stakeholder consultation process launched at the 2004 Summit, and 

we will continue to consult regularly with stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic, 

including through the Transatlantic Business Dialogue and the Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue. 

27

THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION INITIATIVE TO ENHANCE

TRANSATLANTIC ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND GROWTH

ANNEX

To implement the Declaration on Enhancing Transatlantic Economic Integration 

and Growth we will undertake the following: 

Promoting Regulatory and Standards Cooperation 

We recognize the importance of EU–US regulatory cooperation for the well-being 

of our citizens and commercial relations, and note the rich network of cooperative 

exchanges already underway. Our aim is to build effective mechanisms to promote 

better quality regulation, and minimize unnecessary regulatory divergences to facilitate transatlantic trade and investment and increase consumer confidence in the 

transatlantic market. 

To achieve this we will encourage enhanced regulatory cooperation under the 

2005 Roadmap for EU–US Regulatory Cooperation, including: establishment of a 

senior-level dialogue on best regulatory policies and practices; identification of resources and mechanisms to support exchanges for EU and US regulatory experts; 

and expansion of successful sectoral initiatives. We will further encourage dialogue 

on standards issues. 

Further, we will establish a EU–US high-level Regulatory Cooperation Forum, 

through which senior European Commission, US and, where appropriate, other European Community regulators would be encouraged to exchange views, share experiences, and learn from each other regarding general or crosscutting regulatory cooperation approaches and practices of mutual interest. This forum is intended to 

complement the informal OMB–EC dialogue and separate sectoral regulatory cooperation activities between the European Commission and the US. We will continue to use the EU–US Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue, referred to below, 

as the venue for financial regulatory discussions. 

This informal mechanism should promote enhanced cooperation in line with the 

2002 Guidelines for Regulatory Cooperation and Transparency and should also be 

the focal point for exchanges and discussion of annual regulatory work programs. 

Such a review could help identify additional prospective areas/priorities for EU–US 

regulatory cooperation, and facilitate early warning about possible divergent regulatory approaches. 

Regulators should autonomously assess progress for ongoing cooperation activities 

and set objectives with specific actions to be achieved within the next year. The 

compilation of these plans, jointly agreed upon by European and US regulators, 

would constitute priorities for EU–US regulatory cooperation to be submitted annually at the EU–US Summit. 

The forum should organize meetings and conferences on regulatory issues of mutual interest. To gain broader perspective, other regulators as well as representatives from academia, think-tanks, businesses, NGOs and other organizations will be 

invited to participate, as appropriate. 

We look forward to annual updates on work in each of our many regulatory dialogues. We will consider the most appropriate instruments or approaches to advance 

our cooperation on a case-by-case basis, taking into account developments in regulatory cooperation. 

Stimulating Open and Competitive Capital Markets 

Dynamic capital markets are a catalyst for growth and innovation. Our aim is to 

increase the integration and efficiency of our respective capital markets and work 

together to make transatlantic financial markets operate seamlessly. To achieve 

this, we will continue to use the EU–US Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue 

(FMRD) to (1) anticipate, identify and discuss financial regulatory issues, by continuing to review legislative and regulatory developments (including implementation 

and enforcement) and (2) promote progress on issues of concern to each other. 

Among other areas, we will focus the discussion on: implementation and enforcement of financial market reforms; promoting convergence of accounting standards 

as soon as possible; removing barriers to further integration of clearing and settlement systems; encouraging competition among trade execution venues; promoting 

deeper and wider capital markets; making progress on deregistration reform and on 

insurance issues; making progress on adoption and implementation of Basel II; and 

taking steps to help build the transatlantic venture capital market. 

The EU and the US share common concerns in the fight against corporate and 

financial fraud, money laundering, financing of terrorism, tax evasion, corruption 

and other malpractices. The Commission and Member States will work together 

with the US, as appropriate, to encourage adoption of the highest standards of 

28

transparency, exchange of information and cooperation among competent authorities. 

The EU and the US would also explore ways to improve our dialogue on macroeconomic and structural issues of common interest in ways that complement discussions in other fora such as the G–7. 

Spurring Innovation and the Development of Technology 

The EU and the US will increasingly rely on innovation and advanced technologies to stimulate economic growth and prosperity. Our aim is to increase 

synergies across the Atlantic as we become more knowledge-based economies. 

To achieve this, we will work to:

• encourage collaboration on long-term basic research within the context of the 

EU–US Science and Technology agreement, and develop exchanges of good 

practices concerning the policies needed to support science and innovation;

• promote cooperation using civilian space-based technologies for sustainable 

development, science/exploration, and deepening the knowledge society;

• support an international dialogue and cooperative activities for the responsible development and use of the emerging field of nanotechnology;

• renew and reinforce the EU–US agreement on Higher Education and Vocational Training, which includes the Fulbright/European Union program, to 

boost education cooperation and transatlantic exchanges between our citizens;

• encourage the commercial application of output from research, identifying cooperative actions to improve rapid commercialization, using, inter alia, incubator environments, venture capital and technology transfer;

• promote E-accessibility for the disabled, elderly and other citizens with accessibility issues;

• encourage deployment of key innovative technologies such as broadband and 

radio frequency identification devices, without prejudice to consumer and data 

protection;

• encourage collaboration on development and take up of Intelligent Transport 

Systems/ Telematics for intelligent vehicles;

• establish a dialogue on cyber-security to bring together regulators, law enforcement and, as appropriate, intelligence agencies;

• support OECD efforts to develop an approach to international redress for 

international internet purchases;

• cooperate to tackle spam through joint enforcement initiatives, and explore 

ways to fight against illegal ‘‘spy ware’’ and ‘‘malware;’’ and

• explore cooperative work on health and medical technologies. 

Enhancing Trade, Travel and Security 

Ensuring the security of people and goods in transit is fundamental to deepening 

the EU–US relationship. Our aim is to create a more secure and efficient transatlantic and global supply chain by developing and adopting effective, compatible security standards and customs benefits. We welcome progress made to secure the 

end-to-end supply chain under the 2004 EU–US Agreement on Enhanced Customs 

Cooperation. Our joint efforts contributed significantly to development of the World 

Customs Organization framework of standards for security and facilitation. We 

strongly support adoption of this framework by the WCO Council in June 2005, and 

are committed to its implementation. We will build on this progress to continue 

working toward avoiding adverse consequences for transatlantic shippers, including 

by working to ensure the compatibility of the EU’s Authorized Economic Operator 

concept and the US C–TPAT Program. We also will seek compatible practices and 

standards to enhance air transport security and facilitate air cargo traffic. We agree 

to pursue measures to facilitate business and tourist travel, including consideration 

of a ‘‘trusted persons’’ initiative, and explore means to increase cooperation in research and development of security-related technologies. The EU and the US continue to support on-going discussions on reciprocal visa exempt travel for short-term 

stays for our citizens. 

Promoting Energy Efficiency 

The EU and the US will work together, to advance energy security, renewables, 

energy efficiency and economic development, as highlighted in the attachment to 

this Annex. We recognize the benefits that can result from sustained and coordinated policies on energy efficiency. We wish to support developing countries in their 

efforts to meet their basic energy needs by promoting sound energy policies and apVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:22 Oct 05, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\EET\062205\21975.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
29

plying new, clean energy technologies. We will continue to work together to promote 

clean and efficient carbon sequestration technologies, all forms of renewable energy, 

and the next generation of hydrogen and other clean and safe energy technologies. 

Protection of Intellectual Property Rights 

Growing global piracy and counterfeiting threatens the competitiveness of innovative industries, the livelihoods of creative artists and workers, and the health and 

safety of consumers in the European Union, the United States and beyond. We are 

committed to effectively combating piracy and counterfeiting at home and abroad. 

The EU and the US will coordinate our respective efforts, as highlighted in the Declaration we have issued today. To enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the 

patent system more generally, the EU and the US will work together to ensure 

progress in international fora. 

Investment 

Investment flows are a vital part of our transatlantic economic relationship, with 

bilateral direct foreign investment standing at nearly $2 trillion and growing by the 

day. To further promote economic growth, jobs, competitiveness and consumer benefits, we undertake to facilitate transatlantic investment opportunities to the fullest, 

including by providing efficient, comprehensive and easily accessible information on 

investment regimes and policies to attract investment, with a special focus on informing small and medium enterprises. We agree to discuss any significant remaining obstacles to transatlantic investment that the other party identifies, and will 

consider how to address and reduce such obstacles with a view to promoting closer 

transatlantic economic integration. 

Competition Policy and Enforcement 

As our economies have become ever more intertwined, the enforcement of competition laws by authorities on one side of the Atlantic increasingly has consequences 

for the other jurisdiction. The European Commission and US competition authorities 

cooperate intensively under the 1991 and 1998 agreements, coordinating enforcement activities and exchanging non-confidential information. To further enhance 

this cooperation, our authorities will explore ways to allow them to exchange certain 

confidential information, including with respect to international cartels. 

Procurement 

The European Union and the United States recognize the benefits of open and 

competitive procurement markets. The EU and US should reinforce their co-ordination and co-operation with a view to fostering progress in plurilateral negotiations 

on government procurement, both via the GPA and via expansion of GPA membership. In addition, taking into account progress in other fora, notably the GPA, both 

sides will consider how to go beyond existing and future GPA commitments at the 

EU–US bilateral level. This could include enhancing the use of electronic procurement on both sides. 

Services 

We should continue cooperation on aviation issues, including safety, security and 

liberalization, including achievement of a comprehensive first-step EU–US air services agreement as soon as possible. Such an agreement would unlock substantial 

benefits by providing valuable new business opportunities, to the benefit of EU and 

US airlines, airports, tourism, business links, cargo transport and consumers. 

Mutual recognition of professional qualifications can facilitate the movement of 

professionals, encourage greater opportunities, and foster competition in the services 

sector. We encourage competent authorities on both sides to look into the mutual 

recognition of professional qualifications, notably in sectors where economic interest 

or need has been substantiated by suppliers and/or users of professional services, 

such as is the case in the field of architectural services. 

DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The European Union and the United States Working Together to Promote Democracy 

and Support Freedom, the Rule of Law and Human Rights Worldwide 

The European Union and the United States believe that the spread of accountable 

and representative government, the rule of law, and respect for human rights as 

enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are a strategic priority 

as well as a moral necessity. We will continue to work together to advance these 

priorities around the world. 

30

The work of the United Nations is central both to democracy and human rights. We 

welcome the proposals put forward by Kofi Annan to renew the UN’s commitment 

and enhance its effectiveness in these areas. Specifically, we value the UN Secretary General’s initiatives for reforming the UN human rights mechanisms and 

for creating a Peace building Commission. We pledge to support the establishment 

of the UN Democracy Fund to assist countries in strengthening civil society and 

democratic institutions. 

We express our admiration and pledge our support for all those engaged in the defense of freedom, democracy and human rights, in many cases at great personal 

risk. 

We are encouraged by the efforts of many governments to open their societies and 

political systems. Recognizing that democratic reform is a process that deserves 

our support, we promise our solidarity and support to those promoting democracy 

around the world, be it in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. We will continue to support pluralism and the development 

of civil society, and will encourage the political participation of women and minorities. 

Free and fair elections are central to democracy. We congratulate the many thousands of citizens who have participated in organizing and observing elections in 

their own countries and abroad. We pledge to support the work of the United Nations in assisting in the organization of elections and will work together in multilateral fora to further strengthen international election standards and to spread 

the implementation of objective and fair election assessment mechanisms. We 

support the principles of impartially-conducted and transparent election administration and observation and commend the efforts undertaken by various regional 

organizations such as the OSCE or civil society in this context. We will continue 

to support the holding of free and fair elections in countries undergoing or desiring democratic transitions, including in Afghanistan, Haiti, DRC, Iraq, and in the 

Palestinian territories. 

Democracy is not just a matter of elections; it must be anchored in democratic institutions, separation of powers, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance, good governance, and justice. Our assistance to third countries increasingly takes into account the need to sustain democracy in all these dimensions. 

We have worked closely to create a Europe whole, free, and at peace; both the EU 

and NATO have played an important part in this, and continue to do so. We are 

confident that the reform process in the Balkans will further the region’s successful integration into Europe. The European Neighborhood Policy and U.S. support 

for democratic and economic transitions will contribute further to stability, prosperity and partnership. We will in particular continue to coordinate our efforts to 

promote democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in Belarus. 

We are witnessing a growing desire for reform in the Middle East and welcome recent democratic developments. Democratic elections in the Palestinian territories, 

Iraq, and Lebanon have successfully taken place. We recognize the importance of 

transparent and fair elections and the need to expand freedom and opportunity 

across the region. We reaffirm our commitments made at Dromoland and Sea Island, and our support for the Forum for the Future and other elements of the G–

8 BMENA Initiative. Recognizing that the threat of conflict can undermine democratic reforms, we commit ourselves to support those who are working for the resolution of conflicts, in the Middle East and elsewhere. 

We have both encouraged the growth of democratic institutions in many countries 

in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We acknowledge the important contributions 

by regional and multilateral organizations, as well as initiatives such as the Community of Democracies, to promote democracy and respect for fundamental human 

rights. 

We recognize that differences in history, culture and society mean that the paths 

taken towards democracy and the rule of law will be different and that the systems of government that result will be varied, reflecting local traditions and preferences. Democracy, while it is based on universal values, will not be uniform. 

However, the desire for justice, freedom, human rights, and accountable and representative government is universal. In the long term, only systems responsive to 

the wishes of the people they govern can achieve political stability. 

31

EU-US DECLARATION

WORKING TOGETHER TO PROMOTE PEACE, STABILITY, PROSPERITY, AND GOOD

GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA

1. We remain committed to combining and accelerating our efforts in support of 

Africa and its leadership, while acknowledging its ownership of present and future African development.

2. We share the same belief that solidarity is an essential principle that should 

guide our action and that we, together with all other members of the international community, have an obligation to assist African efforts in the quest for 

peace, stability, democracy and prosperity. We share the same objectives with 

poverty eradication as the primary aim of our relations with the developing 

world and we therefore undertake to increase our efforts to assist Sub Saharan 

Africa in its efforts to achieve sustainable economic growth and reach the internationally agreed goals contained in the Millennium Declarations.

3. We share the same hope built on the realisation that today there is an environment and leadership in much of Africa with a genuine commitment to better 

governance and a new resolve to take care of Africa’s own conflicts.

4. We are working to support Africa’s efforts to expand peace and security across 

the continent. In this context, we welcome that an increasing number of African 

nations are committing themselves to holding democratic elections, thereby paving the way for more representative government. Improving respect for human 

rights and governance, consolidating democratic processes and reforming the security sector are central prerequisites for development. African nations are undertaking increased efforts to resolve conflicts and have achieved important 

progress in establishing their own security structures through the African 

Union and its Peace and Security Council as well as at the sub-regional level.

5. Together we have been working to strengthen the African Union and other regional organisations that aim to improve stability in Africa and we are collaborating on the G8/African Union action plan to enhance capacity for peace support operations. We are committed to continue to assist African peace support 

operations as the EU has done through its African Peace Facility and contributions from its Member States and the US through the Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative by increased contributions to enhance the Peace Support Operations capacity and support for ongoing operations in Africa.

6. The African Union/NEPAD have provided Africa with an ambitious vision and 

strategy for the 21st century. We will work closely with the African Union as 

a key political interlocutor in our relations with Africa.

7. The African Union and the sub-regional organisations have decisively assumed 

responsibility and leadership for resolving many of the armed conflicts that for 

so long have marred the continent. We are prepared to contribute to these efforts through:

• Supporting broad and inclusive processes of implementing the comprehensive 

peace agreement in Sudan, capable of reconciling and accommodating the aspirations of all sectors of society and all regions of the country, while ensuring 

that the fight against impunity from violations of international humanitarian 

law and human rights law is sustained. To end the continuing violence and 

suffering of hundred of thousands in Darfur is an immediate priority. We reaffirm our strong support for the AU leadership in resolving the crisis and 

urge the parties to commit themselves wholeheartedly to resolve the conflict 

peacefully and engage constructively in the AU-sponsored negotiations in 

Abuja.

• Reaffirming our continued support to the Somalia reconciliation process and 

assisting the Somali people and institutions, in their efforts to re-establish 

stability and governance. We are also committed to support efforts to resolve 

the border stalemate between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Both processes have 

much to contribute towards stability, development and security in the strategic region of the Horn of Africa.

• Combining support for stability in the Great Lakes region, including through 

the disarmament of armed groups, Security Sector Reform in the Democratic 

Republic of Congo, assistance in the organisation of the coming democratic 

elections in Burundi and the DRC and international observation thereof, and 

participation aimed at a successful outcome of the International Conference 

32

on the Great Lakes region. We have instructed the Joint Contact Group to 

continue to work together in order to address the problems in the region.

• Continuing to support a regional approach to peace and security in West Africa, with a view to enhancing conflict management in ECOWAS and particularly by supporting United Nations and African efforts to consolidate transition processes in Coˆte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau and 

encouraging national reconciliation in Togo.

8. Effective and well-governed states are critical to a peaceful and secure environment and protecting human rights; encouraging transparent and accountable 

public management and private sector growth delivering essential services and 

allowing resources to be used effectively. We will support the African Peer Review Mechanism as an important tool for peer learning and reforms it will trigger at the country level.

9. The EU and the US note with deep concern the continuing governance and 

human rights crisis in Zimbabwe, which has led to a near breakdown of the economic situation of one of the most promising economies in Africa and caused 

huge flows of Zimbabweans to flee to neighbouring countries. We call upon the 

Government of Zimbabwe to reverse anti-democratic policies and to open a genuine dialogue with all stakeholders. We also note that serious food shortages are 

looming in Zimbabwe, and we stand ready, as in the past, to assist the 

Zimbabwean people with food aid and other humanitarian assistance.

10. Life expectancy is increasing in every continent except Africa, where it has fallen for the last 20 years. HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis continue to affect 

too many people in Africa. We are committed to continue our support for the 

Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria. We recognise the importance of education and gender equality for life expectancy and agree to intensify efforts in 

this regard.

11. We commit to work together to address both the immediate needs and the underlying causes of natural disasters and complex emergencies which plague the 

continent, including through collaboration on the assessment process, to ensure 

that needs are identified in an accurate and timely fashion, that assistance is 

appropriately targeted and arrives in time to save lives. Together, we commit 

to urgently increasing both our funding and engagement in these humanitarian 

emergencies.

12. To ensure a longer-term solution to the problem of famine and poverty in Africa, 

we will work with AU/NEPAD to support implementation of its Comprehensive 

African Agricultural Development Plan, which will help expand production and 

market opportunities, enhance agricultural productivity, and thus reduce the 

risk facing Africa’s poorest farmers. We further commit to support AU/NEPAD’s 

efforts to increase regional economic integration in Africa as an important element of efforts to increase agricultural productivity, open our market to allow 

African exports to enter duty free until 2015 and, in this regard, will undertake 

efforts to promote accession of African countries to the WTO.

13. These commitments require resources. These should come from many sources, 

as set out at Monterrey, including increased foreign direct investment, trade, remittances, public aid and private charitable contributions. We recall the responsibility of developing countries for their own development through good governance, the rule of law, and sound policies, and the crucial importance of national 

ownership for development strategies. We stand ready to increase our financial 

assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa to meet urgent needs, promote development 

and economic growth, reinforce sound policies and good governance and support 

their efforts towards meeting the Millennium Goals.

14. In today’s globalised world, developments in one continent often have immediate 

and far-reaching repercussions on life in other continents. Peace, stability and 

better economic prospects for all people in Africa are therefore in the interest 

of Americans and Europeans alike. The long road towards sustainable social, 

political, and economic development in Africa is a road that Africa should not 

be left to walk alone. 

33

EU–US DECLARATION ON THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE

SANFRANCISCO CHARTER. 

1. Sixty years ago, on June 26th, 1945 the San Francisco Charter creating the 

United Nations was signed. Born out of the desire ‘‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice . . . has brought untold sorrow to 

mankind’’ (Preamble of the Charter of the UN), the United Nations has ever 

since provided the framework for the nations of the world to strive for peace 

and security, prosperity and international cooperation based on respect of international law. We salute the groundbreaking work accomplished six decades ago 

by the authors of the Charter and we rededicate ourselves to the noble principles and values embodied in this fundamental text.

2. Today, the world faces threats and challenges, both old and new, which can only 

be addressed in common, based on a spirit of cooperation, shared institutions, 

and a rule-based international system as exemplified by the United Nations.

3. True to the inspiration of the San Francisco Charter, the nations of the world 

are called to define a new international consensus on the ways and means to 

manage together the burning questions of our time. In this respect, the High 

Level Event on Millennium Review in September of this year provides an opportunity to assess the implementation of the commitments of the Millennium Declaration and the results of the major UN Summits and Conferences.

4. It also offers the occasion for the international community to promote the emergence of a United Nations better oriented towards the threats and challenges 

of our time, more responsive to the needs of its members and more efficient and 

effective in the way it operates.

5. The European Union and the United States share the objective of such a renewed United Nations and are willing to cooperate closely in order to contribute 

to a balanced and ambitious outcome of the September High Level Meeting. 

They share, inter alia, the perspective that the interlinked dimensions of peace 

and security, human rights, rule of law, democracy, and development need to 

be addressed coherently, within more efficient and transparent institutions and 

procedures.

6. Satisfactory solutions need to be found in the crucial areas of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The creation of a properly configured 

Peace building Commission can provide useful and timely guidance for the management of post-conflict situations.

7. Achieving the development goals of the Millennium Declaration will require significant additional resources, which should come from many sources, as set out 

at Monterrey, including increased foreign direct investment, trade, remittances, 

public aid and private charitable contributions. Developing countries will need 

to make concerted efforts in their own development through good governance, 

the rule of law, respect for human rights and sound policies that promote sustainable development and empower individuals to participate more fully and 

freely in economic activity. We underline the importance of national ownership 

for development strategies. We stand ready to increase our financial assistance 

to countries with good governance and sound policies and transparent, ambitious and accountable strategies to achieve long-term economic growth and 

reach the internationally-agreed development goals in the Millennium Declaration.

8. The strengthening and mainstreaming of the dimensions of human rights, rule 

of law and democracy should be achieved, inter alia, through the creation of a 

new, effective and credible Human Rights Council and the establishment of a 

UN Democracy Fund.

9. The improvement of the overall performance of the UN system will imply major 

reforms in the budget and management areas, including accountability and 

oversight mechanisms

10. On these issues as well as on other questions that will be on the agenda of the 

High-Level meeting, the US and the European Union will consult closely in the 

weeks and months to come in order to contribute to a successful and substantive 

outcome in September. 

34

2005 ROADMAP FOR U.S.–EU REGULATORY COOPERATION

The United States and the EU have highlighted at past U.S.–EU Summits the 

increasing importance of improved regulatory cooperation between U.S. and European Commission authorities for a strong transatlantic relationship. Stakeholders 

on both sides of the Atlantic have called upon the governments to expand and deepen these activities. In many cases U.S. and European Commission regulators already have active and constructive expert dialogues—and substantial cooperation is 

underway. Yet there remains much work to be done to better realize the mutual 

benefits of more extensive and effective U.S.–EU regulatory cooperation. 

In June 2004, the United States and European Commission issued the Roadmap 

for U.S.–EU Regulatory Cooperation to provide a framework for cooperation on a 

broad range of important horizontal and sectoral areas. Implementation of the 2002 

U.S.–EU Guidelines on Regulatory Cooperation and Transparency and the Regulatory Cooperation Roadmap have yielded good progress in a number of regulatory 

areas, but the scope for potential cooperation is far broader. Our objective is to build 

upon successful regulatory dialogues and promote effective cooperative mechanisms. 

For each policy context identified, we will consider the most appropriate instruments to advance cooperative work, while also reflecting lessons learned from past 

experiences. We aim to promote better quality regulation, minimize regulatory 

divergences, increase consumer confidence, and facilitate transatlantic commerce, 

while respecting the regulatory autonomy of each party. 

This 2005 Roadmap outlines a range of proposed cooperative initiatives that the 

United States and the European Commission intend to advance in the coming 

year—both specific sectoral activities, as well as horizontal initiatives to address 

cross-cutting matters. This work will evolve as each side continuously examines 

areas of mutual interest for regulatory cooperation, and considers input from interested transatlantic stakeholders. Further information about a number of these cooperative activities is available at: http://www.ustr.gov/World—Regions/Europe—

Mediterranean/Europe/Section—Index.html and http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise—policy/gov—relations/interntl—regul—coop—eu—us/ index.htm 

I. REGULATORY COOPERATION: HORIZONTAL INITIATIVES

A. OMB–EC Dialogue: 

Establish an informal dialogue led jointly by the U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the relevant services of the European Commission to discuss 

general regulatory policies and practices of mutual interest. This dialogue could include relevant regulatory authorities in the U.S. Government and the European 

Commission, as appropriate. This dialogue will address, subject to mutual agreement, such topics as good regulatory practices, transparency provisions and public 

consultation, impact assessment methodologies, and risk assessment methodologies. 

Through such exchanges, U.S. and European Commission officials will gain an enhanced understanding of each other’s regulatory practices, which could encourage 

compatible regulatory practices and tools. 

B. U.S.–EU Experts Exchange Program: 

Identify resources and mechanisms to promote exchanges of U.S. and European 

regulatory experts in specific areas/projects of mutual interest that otherwise cannot 

be funded through existing regulatory agency budgets. In the short-term, the United 

States could leverage existing programs such as the State Department’s International Visitor Program and the Fellowship of Hope program. The European Commission will explore availabilities within its existing mechanisms. Over the longerterm, funding should be sought to support a fund dedicated to U.S.–EU personnel 

exchanges. To maximize support for the creation of such a program, it should be 

promoted as a cross-cutting initiative to enhance the transatlantic economic relationship. 

II. REGULATORY COOPERATION: SECTORAL ACTIVITIES

1. Pharmaceuticals 

1.1 Human medicinal products

Objective: Cooperation between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 

DG Enterprise and Industry/Pharmaceuticals Unit and the European Medicines 

Agency (EMEA) on matters related to ensuring the safety, quality, and efficacy 

of pharmaceutical products.

Progress/Results: In the past year, FDA, DG Enterprise and Industry and the 

EMEA substantially enhanced their regulatory dialogue and expanded their exVerDate Mar 21 2002 10:22 Oct 05, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\EET\062205\21975.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
35

change of information and data on pharmaceuticals. Facilitated by the FDA–DG 

Enterprise and Industry-EMEA confidentiality arrangement signed in 2003, our 

authorities concluded in September 2004 an Implementation Plan for Medicinal 

Products for Human Use under which they have promoted scientific personnel 

exchanges and joint meetings; shared respective draft guidance documents on 

a variety of issues, including drug safety issues, adverse reactions, drug manufacturing quality and policy issues. Under the Implementation Plan, FDA and 

the EC also initiated a pilot program to support parallel scientific advice on 

pharmaceuticals. FDA, DG Enterprise and Industry and EMEA continue to collaborate effectively on the harmonization of technical requirements for registering pharmaceuticals through the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH).

Next Steps: FDA, DG Enterprise and Industry and EMEA will proceed with 

the broad range of robust cooperative work outlined in the Implementation 

Plan, including sharing of regulatory and inspectional information, scientific exchanges, and parallel scientific advice. The FDA and EMEA have also started 

cooperation in a new area of parallel advice—pharmacogenomics. FDA, DG Enterprise and Industry and EMEA will consider additional issues for possible cooperation. 

1.2. Veterinary medicinal products

Objective: Enhance the existing regulatory dialogue between the FDA and the 

European Commission and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), building 

upon ongoing cooperative activities in the International Cooperation on 

Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Products (VICH).

Next Steps: The FDA and the European Commission and the EMEA will cooperate, where appropriate, on: 1) harmonized guidelines for regulatory requirements where significant differences exist among VICH members; 2) the global 

response to significant emerging issues and science that impact on regulatory 

requirements within VICH regions and/or adopted VICH guidelines; and 3) promotion of consultation and communication mechanisms that result in wider 

international awareness and acceptance of VICH guidelines. FDA leads US activities on all matters except for the veterinary biologics activities led by USDA. 

2. Automobile Safety 

Objective: Cooperation between the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and DG Enterprise and Industry/Automobile Unit in 

areas of automobile safety regulations.

Progress/Results: Under the NHTSA–DG Enterprise and Industry regulatory 

dialogue established by a June 2003 exchange of letters, we have agreed to pursue regulatory cooperation on safety of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and vehicle 

compatibility. Our authorities are discussing other possible topics.

Next Steps: Develop agreed workplans for these regulatory cooperation projects 

and proceed with implementation. Consider additional topics that may be suitable for cooperation, such as future collision mitigation technologies, electronic 

stability systems and harmonisation at the global level of dummies used in sideimpact crash tests. Discuss ways to promote a science-based approach to global 

technical regulations under the United Nations 1998 Agreement. 

3. Information and Communications Technology Standards in Regulations 

Objective: Cooperation between the U.S. Department of Commerce and DG 

Enterprise and Industry and DG Information Society on the use of information 

and communication technology (ICT) standards in accordance with the Terms 

of Reference established in March 2004.

Next Steps: Develop work plans and time tables for the topics identified under 

this dialogue. Initial projects under this dialogue include information exchange 

on e-accessibility, security, and biometrics. 

4. Cosmetics 

Objective: Cooperation between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

and DG Enterprise and Industry/Cosmetics Unit regarding: (a) alternative (i.e., 

non-animal) testing methods; (b) respective regulatory approaches applied in 

the areas of hair dyes and sunscreen ingredients (UV filters); and (c) other 

projects of mutual interest.

36

Progress/Results:

— General regulatory cooperation in the field of cosmetics: FDA and the 

EC have re-energized cooperation in cosmetics and certain over-thecounter drugs harmonization activities under the Cosmetics Harmonization and International Cooperation (CHIC) process. The last meeting 

took place in March 2005, where new terms of reference to guide future 

cooperation were developed and approved. In the framework of CHIC, 

FDA and DG Enterprise have exchanged extensive information on our 

respective regulatory systems, safety concerns, and alternative test 

methods, including the discussion on the establishment of a rapid alert 

system to exchange data on adverse reactions

— Alternative methods to animal testing: The U.S. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) 

and the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods 

(ECVAM) are collaborating closely on the development and validation of 

alternative test methods to animal testing for cosmetic ingredients.

Next Steps: The cooperation on the development of alternative methods needs 

further strengthening through bilateral contacts with the aim of mutual acceptance of alternative methods. FDA and DG Enterprise and Industry will continue to discuss other important issues in the field of cosmetics regulation, such 

as cosmetics labelling, standardized labelling for sunscreens and the regulation 

of hair dyes in the framework of bilateral meetings and within the multilateral 

CHIC-process, which has proven a valuable multilateral forum for discussion. 

5. Consumer Product Safety 

Objective: Cooperation between the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and DG SANCO in association with DG Enterprise and Industry 

regarding the safety of consumer products.

Progress/Results: CPSC and DG SANCO launched a senior-level dialogue and 

signed an exchange of letters in February 2005 to implement mutually agreed 

Guidelines for Information Exchange intended to strengthen bilateral communication and to improve U.S and EU consumer health and safety protection.

Next Steps: Building on the Guidelines for Information Exchange, develop an 

agreed implementation plan for a program of specific cooperative projects to be 

pursued in the area of consumer product safety, which might include the exchange of rapid alerts. 

6. Consumer Protection Enforcement Cooperation 

Objective: Develop mutual assistance mechanisms in the field of cross-border 

consumer protection enforcement cooperation. Build on the existing informal 

dialogue between the European Commission/DG SANCO and the U.S. Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) in the ways foreseen by article 18 of Regulation 2006/

2004 on consumer protection cooperation (CPC), including through the possible 

establishment of a EU/US mutual assistance agreement.

Next Steps: Congress has considered, and the Senate has passed, legislation 

mirroring the CPC provisions on cross-border consumer protection enforcement. 

Upon passage of such legislation, a Recommendation of the European Commission endorsing the negotiation of an agreement with the US could be proposed 

to the Council. 

7. Unfair Commercial Practices 

Objective: Establish regulatory dialogue between the FTC and DG SANCO on 

unfair commercial practices. This dialogue will aim at increasing convergence 

in this area.

Next Steps: DG SANCO to present the recently adopted Directive on unfair 

commercial practices to the FTC and compare it with U.S. federal law on unfair 

practices. 

8. Nutritional Labeling 

Objective: Cooperation between FDA and DG SANCO on issues of mutual interest in the field of nutritional labelling.

Progress/Results: Experts from FDA and DG SANCO are engaged in discussions on regulatory issues relating to health claims, nutrition labeling, fortification, supplements, and infant formula. Specific areas under discussion include: 

1) possible collaboration on the EU’s Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) 

37

and the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) for nutrients; and 2) cooperation on food labels.

Next Steps: Identify specific activities for cooperation on technical issues such 

as reference values for nutrient labeling, nutrient definitions, and energy conversion factors. Pursue a confidentiality arrangement to facilitate the sharing 

of non-public information in this subject area. 

9. Food Safety 

a.1. Objective: Cooperation between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), DG SANCO and DG Enterprise and Industry on broad range of food 

safety issues of mutual interest.

Progress/Results: In mid-2004, FDA and DG SANCO launched bilateral discussions aimed at: (a) understanding better our respective food safety systems; 

(b) building confidence; and (c) exploring new ways to accomplish food safety 

goals and regulatory cooperation projects of mutual interests. Senior officials at 

FDA and DG SANCO have conducted a number of productive meetings to advance this cooperative work. FDA and SANCO experts have identified specific 

regulatory cooperation projects in the areas of seafood and dairy. FDA and DG 

SANCO concluded an exchange of letters in June 2005 to facilitate the sharing 

of non-public data/information.

Next Steps: Identify additional specific regulatory cooperation projects and specific information to be shared.

a.2. Objective: Cooperation between DG SANCO and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) on legislation concerning meat and meat products.

Progress/Results: In September 2004, FSIS, FDA and DG SANCO had a seminar aimed at understanding better our respective food safety systems related 

to meat and meat products with particular regard to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP). The meeting was successful and the main goal was 

reached. However it appeared evident that the two systems, although based on 

the same principles, are still different for important points.

Next Steps: Continue the discussion between FSIS and SANCO in order to explore how to concretely pursue equivalence between the respective HACCP 

based control systems for meat and meat products.

b. Objective: Cooperation between FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on food safety issues, including information sharing on risk assessments.

Progress/Results: FDA and EFSA have initiated a cooperative regulatory dialogue and are pursuing a confidentiality agreement to facilitate the sharing of 

non-public information and data. FDA is assisting EFSA in the development of 

a strategy for the conduct of microbial risk assessments.

Next Steps: Conclude an arrangement between FDA and EFSA to facilitate the 

sharing of data/information.

c. Objective: Establish new regulatory dialogue between the USDA, EFSA and 

DG SANCO in order to provide greater transparency regarding each side’s development of risk assessments for animal, plant, and consumer safety.

Next Steps: Establish informal dialogue between USDA and EFSA with discussions targeting risk assessments methodologies and identifying possible areas 

for further discussion and sharing of information. 

10. Marine Equipment 

Objective: Consistent with the objectives of the U.S.–EC Marine Equipment 

MRA, enhance the regulatory dialogue between the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

and DG Energy and Transport and DG Trade assisted by the European Marine 

Safety Agency (EMSA) aimed at increased convergence of U.S. and EU technical 

regulations for marine equipment.

Next Steps: USCG and EC to develop an agreed workplan for pursuing regulatory cooperation bilaterally and in the International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) aimed at achieving equivalent U.S. and EU technical regulations for specific marine equipment and expanding the product scope of the U.S.–EC Marine 

Equipment MRA. 

38

11. Eco-Design 

Objective: Cooperation between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and DGs Energy and Transport, Environment and Enterprise and Industry in the area of eco-design of energy-using products at the appropriate technical level.

Next Steps: EPA and the EC to explore possibilities to share experience on respective approaches relative to: the eco-design of energy-using products (EuP), 

Integrated Product Policy (IPP), restrictions on hazardous substances (RoHS) 

and waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Consider other activities that may be of interest for further information exchanges. 

12. Chemicals 

Objective: Pursue informal cooperative dialogue, in the spirit of the U.S.–EU 

Guidelines on Regulatory Cooperation, between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DG Environment, DG Enterprise and Industry and DG 

Health and Consumer Protection and relevant agencies on chemicals related 

issues of mutual interest.

Progress/Results: The U.S. EPA hosted the 2nd transatlantic environment 

conference on chemicals which addressed the EU’s proposed REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) legislation, the globally harmonized system (GHS) for the classification and labeling of chemicals, pollution 

prevention techniques, access to information and genomics. EPA hosted EC experts on its approach to the risk assessment of new chemicals and integrated 

QSAR modeling programs. Further exchange of experience and training programmes could be explored for respective staff. The U.S. EPA and the European 

Commission are also collaborating in the OECD framework on the development 

of the Global High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals information Portal.

Next Steps: The EC and United States will continue to dialogue on the development of the Global HPV Portal. 

13. Energy Efficiency 

Objective: Building upon the existing cooperative dialogue between the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Energy and the 

European Commission’s DG Energy and Transport, engage on a broad range of 

energy efficiency issues of mutual interest.

Next Steps: The United States and EC will build on the Energy-Efficiency Labeling Programs for Office Equipment (‘‘Energy Star’’) to encourage energy efficiency while retaining the philosophical basis and market-focused approach of 

the existing program. This program currently covers computers, monitors, printers, fax machines, copiers, scanners, and multi-function devices. Both parties 

are currently considering the conditions for renewing the Energy Star Agreement. 

This year, and into next, the U.S. and the EC will cooperate on revising the 

specifications for imaging equipment (printers, copiers, scanners, fax machines, 

mailing machines, and multifunction devices) and computers. The intention of 

these revisions is to make the specifications more stringent, such that ENERGY 

STAR qualified models represent the top performers in the market without a 

sacrifice in features or performance. 

14. Telecommunications and Radiocommunications Equipment, Electromagnetic 

Compatibility 

Objective: Building on existing regulatory dialogues between the U.S. Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) and the European Commission, and the 

U.S.–EC Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA), pursue enhanced cooperation 

on regulatory approaches in the areas of telecommunications, 

radiocommunications equipment and electro-magnetic compatibility.

Next Steps: The FCC and EC to consult on regulatory developments in our respective markets and consider cooperative approaches for achieving consistent 

regulatory treatment of telecommunications and radiocommunications products 

whenever possible. 

15. Medical Devices 

Objective: Enhance the existing regulatory dialogue between the FDA and DG 

Enterprise and Industry and DG Trade on medical devices, building upon ongoing cooperative activities in the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) and 

consistent with the objectives of the U.S.–EC MRA annex on medical devices.

39

Next Steps: FDA, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and DG Enterprise and Industry and DG Trade to discuss implementation of the U.S.–EC 

MRA annex on medical devices and develop an agreed approach for bringing the 

MRA annex into operation. In the context of the Global Harmonization Task 

Force (GHTF), our regulatory authorities will promote cooperative activities, including the preparation of guidance documents and compatible regulatory approaches for medical devices.

Æ