WRITTEN QUESTION E-1720/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Joint EU and US bloc vis-à-vis the rest of the world by widening the remit of the TABD.
Date: 2003-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, United States, World Trade Organisation, economic relations, globalisation, government, trade relations, trade restriction, type of business

C 78 E/722

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

No formal responses were received by the Commission from the Irish Government regarding the
application of VAT to postal services as set out in its Communication ‘A strategy to improve the operation
of the VAT system within the context of the internal market’ (1).

(1) COM(2000) 348 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0772)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1720/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Joint EU and US bloc vis-à-vis the rest of the world by widening the remit of the TABD

1. With the reactivation of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD), is the Commission trying to
keep the divergent interests of the EU and US, with their very different social systems, Kyoto obligations,
concepts of international law enforcement, attitudes to war and arms, development aid to the Third World
and respect for the United Nations, completely separate?

2.
Is a broader remit for the TABD consistent with its original terms of reference, which were to build
bridges between policymakers and private actors on either side of the Atlantic, or is it now a question of
ensuring that, as far as possible, the EU and US present a united front as a single trading bloc at
international level?

3.
Against which other countries in the world is this joint venture on the part of the EU and US
directed? What common interests need to be defended vis-à-vis Japan, Russia, China and all the countries
of the Third World, and why?

4.
In connection with the considerations set out above, does the Commission apply benchmarks to
determine cases in which economic cooperation between the EU and US is desirable and those in which it
is not? Can the Commission disclose what these benchmarks are?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

1.
The Commission refers to the reply given to the Honourable Member in the Written Question
E-1719/03 (1). The Commission welcomes and supports the relaunching of the Trans-Atlantic Business
Dialogue (TABD). Its specific aim is to help solve differences in transatlantic economic relations and
contribute to dismantling of barriers to trade.

2.
There is no plan for a broader remit for the TABD. The role of the TABD will continue to be that of
building bridges between Union and United States businesses and governments. Moreover, in the area of
multilateralism, TABD has the potential to contribute to the DOHA process and World Trade Organisation
(WTO) matters in general, with benefit for other countries as well. Therefore, its role is certainly not to
ensure the existence of a single trading bloc at international level.

3.
The TABD is not directed against any other countries in the world. Common trade interests with the
countries referred to by the Honourable Member, as well as those between the Union and the United
States, are discussed in various multilateral and bilateral fora. Should they be of interest to business, dealing
with such issues within the TABD is possible. For instance, the WTO negotiations have been widely
discussed in the TABD in the past.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/723

In the TABD process it is up to business to identify the issues on which they wish to give
4.
recommendations to the governments. The Commission considers the TABD as an important interlocutor
the TABD is
in transatlantic economic relations. The implementation of
considered based on their own merit and in respect of
the
Commission. As a general rule the Commission gives positive consideration to all efforts to dismantle
barriers to transatlantic trade and to reduce transaction costs for doing business. In doing so, it takes into
account also other policy considerations, and in particular those related to the common commercial policy
and the competitiveness of the European enterprises.

the acquis and the competencies of

the recommendations of

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 219.

(2004/C 78 E/0773)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1747/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject: Israel (cid:1) removal of restriction on movement from and to the occupied territories

According to information from Amnesty International, the Israeli Government has recently decided to
require all foreigners entering Gaza to sign a ‘declaration of waiver’ exonerating Israel of any liability in the
event of their death or injury. Amnesty International states that entry to the occupied territories has been
denied to AI members refusing to sign this declaration, significantly hampering the organisation’s work.
Fears are being expressed that this tactic is an attempt to relieve the Israeli authorities of their duty to
ensure that the armed forces respect human rights in all circumstances. It is also considered likely to
impede outside monitoring and scrutiny of the conduct of the Israeli army and to lead to an immediate
increase in killings in Gaza.

Does the Commission intend to put pressure on the Israeli Government in order to:

1. have the new restriction on movement from and to the occupied territories lifted, and

2.

call for the posting of international monitors in Israel and the occupied territories, in order to ensure
that it abides by international standards?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Following parallel demarches in Israel by the Union Troïka and in Athens by the Greek Presidency, the
Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Commission formally raised with the
Israeli Ambassador to the Union the restrictive security measures in place at the Erez Crossing on 23 May
2003.

The Commission underlined that the current practise of denying access, requesting information beyond
customary norm, and demanding a security waiver to be signed by international staff entering Gaza was of
particular concern because Commission/ECHO staff and contractors in general do not carry diplomatic
passports. The Commission was aware of Israeli security concerns and fully understood the increased
sensitivity in the wake of recent bombings in Tel Aviv carried out by foreign passport holders. However,
the near-total closure was disproportionate, and several measures newly introduced, e.g. waiver forms and
detailed information on humanitarian projects, have no apparent relation to security concerns.

It further stated that if these restrictive measures continued, international donors would have to consider
suspending operations in the Gaza Strip and that a new deterioration of the humanitarian situation was
not in Israel’s security interests.