Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Transatlantic Dialogue: how to improve the Transatlantic Relationship
Date: 2004-06-03
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU relations, United States, bilateral relations, economic interdependence, globalisation

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/49

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Transatlantic Dialogue: how to
improve the Transatlantic Relationship’

(2004/C 241/15)

On 16 and 17 July 2003 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its
Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion entitled ‘Transatlantic Dialogue: how to
improve the Transatlantic Relationship’.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the
subject, adopted its opinion on 20 April 2004. The rapporteur was Ms Belabed.

At its 409th plenary session (meeting of 3 June), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion, with 160 votes in favour, 15 against and 18 abstentions.

1. Executive summary

tunities to participate in the decisions that determine their
living and working conditions.

EU–US relations have a long, mutually beneficial history
A.
and rely on strong foundations of shared basic convictions of
open, democratic societies. Both the EU and the US committed
themselves to a full and equal partnership in a changed geo-
strategic environment
the Cold War.
Although this changed environment has challenged the rela-
tions on several occasions, the foundations of the partnership
remain in place.

following the end of

Public opinion on both sides of

B.
the Atlantic shows
common ground as well as differences. While differences are
more distinct in foreign policy issues, there is more common
ground than one would expect on economic, social and envir-
onmental issues and there is widespread consensus that contin-
uous and intense dialogue is necessary not only in the long-
term interests of the EU and the US, but also for the rest of the
world.

C.
The Transatlantic Economy has become even more inter-
twined over time with direct investments clearly ahead of trade
in importance. Although trade disputes mark the headlines,
they account
transatlantic commerce.
Growing economic interdependence leads to tensions reaching
beyond the borders affecting fundamental domestic issues such
as taxation, governance or regulation.

for less than 1 % of

D.
Economic performance of the EU and the US shows a
mixed picture which shows that both economies have their
strengths and weaknesses. Both economies face important chal-
lenges in the years ahead, which give rise to the necessity for
increased dialogue and cooperation in order to make the
economy work smoothly for people on both sides.

E.
The changes in geopolitical challenges and threats have
challenged the relationship on many occasions. Building and
enhancing good governance, including social partners and civil
society structures all over the world may be a useful contribu-
tion to making the world safer and improving citizen's oppor-

F.
Although globalisation has opened the door to many
benefits, promoted open societies and open economies as well
as an increase in trade, foreign investment and world-wide
wealth, it has not had positive effects for all. The EU and the
US, by combining their efforts, can contribute to give effect to
the economic, social and environmental potential of globalisa-
tion by improving governance both at national and at interna-
tional level, including social and civil dialogue.

Both sides underline the strategic importance of the EU-
G.
US relationship and the multilateral context, as global chal-
lenges require combined forces. Recent proposals to improve
the institutional arrangements for transatlantic relations have
underlined the importance of a sustained and intense dialogue
both with a view to developing the relation and with a view to
cooperating with international institutions and other parts of
the world.

H.
The EESC strongly supports transatlantic cooperation and
recommends that it be strengthened and broadened both in
terms of involving the widest possible range of interests and
actors and in terms of developing and broadening the approach
to include issues relevant for the Dialogues and their respective
constituencies on both sides of the Atlantic.

In line with the Irish Presidency,

I.
the EESC strongly
supports transatlantic cooperation and the constructive involve-
ment of relevant communities of interest from American and
European Civil Society. The EESC therefore advocates strength-
ening and broadening civil society networks including the
Dialogues and is ready to contribute to increased information
and interaction between these networks and dialogues, which
could lead to regular and continuous cooperation and to estab-
lishing a Transatlantic and/or US Economic and Social
Committee.

C 241/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

The EESC offers to serve as a forum for promoting the
J.
dialogue and bringing together
the relevant parties. The
Committee in this context offers to organise a conference
together with the relevant actors and institutions to strengthen
the dialogue. The benefit of a reinforced dialogue would consist
in activating civil society on both sides of the Atlantic not only
in the long-term interest of the EU and the US but also for the
rest of the world.

the Pew Research Center) (3). Public opinion in the US and
Europe shows common ground as well as differences (4). Amer-
icans and Europeans share the basic convictions of open demo-
cratic societies, respect for human rights and the rule of law, as
well as the belief in market-based economic policies (5). Their
values, however, are not always identical. When asked whether
Europeans and Americans have different social and cultural
values, majorities on both sides of the Atlantic overwhelmingly
agreed (83 % of US and 79 % of European respondents (6)).

2. Background

2.1
EU-US relations have a long, mutually beneficial history
and were especially intense during the Cold War. The Marshall
Plan for European Recovery was one of the most important
elements of this era. Following the end of the Cold War, the US
and the EU adopted a series of documents in order to lay down
the principles and provide for a framework for their future
environment (1).
cooperation in a
Promoting peace, stability and economic growth, responding to
global challenges, cooperating in the economic area as well as
building bridges over the Atlantic were at the core of these
agreements. In the Bonn Declaration adopted at the 21 June
1999 EU-US summit in Bonn, both sides committed themselves
to a ‘full and equal partnership’
in economic, political and
security affairs.

changed geo-strategic

2.2
These agreements which the EESC supported and which
have created a set of institutional arrangements, among which
the Transatlantic Dialogues, have made it possible for the social
partners and civil society to participate in the efforts.

During the 1990s and in recent years, the relationship
2.3
has lived through different cycles in which the countries on
both sides of the Atlantic had to adjust with more or less ease
to new realities. While the foundations of a strong transatlantic
partnership remain in place, these changes have led to transat-
lantic tensions and disagreements, partly due to differences in
views and orientations, partly to perceived inadequacies in the
institutional arrangements (2).

2.4
To facilitate the dialogue and orient policy towards
common goals, it may be useful to have a look at the opinions
of people concerned expressed in surveys and opinion polls
(such as those done by the German Marshall Fund of the US or

(1) Transatlantic Declaration (1990), New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA)
and EU-US Joint Action Plan (1995), Transatlantic Economic Part-
nership and New Transatlantic Marketplace (1998).

(2) Cf. Christopher J. Makins (President of the Atlantic Council of the
United States): Renewing the Transatlantic Partnership: Why and
How? Statement prepared for The Subcommittee on Europe of the
House International Relations Committee, 11.6.2003.

2.5
Although Americans were more internationalist in 2002
than prior to September 11, 2001, Americans and Europeans
differ widely on foreign policy issues such as US global leader-
ship or on how to respond to threats (7). Both Americans and
Europeans see unilateralism as a problem. Both view the
United Nations favourably and want to strengthen it, but Amer-
icans are willing to bypass the UN if required by national
interest. Although soft power grows out of both US culture
and US policies (8), Europe places a greater emphasis on it (9)
and large majorities on both sides of the Atlantic say that the
EU's soft power can have influence to solve world problems
through diplomacy, trade or development aid (10).

2.6
Americans were more supportive in 2003 of having a
strong European partner, while Europeans were less willing to
rely on the United States on the foreign policy front (11). While
the Iraq war has most likely influenced this shift in European
views,
seem more positively
disposed to the European Union.

‘unexpectedly the Americans

This lack of symmetry, with Europeans feeling worse about the
US and Americans feeling better about the EU,
is surprising
and potentially significant for policy-makers on both sides of
the Atlantic’ (12).

(3) See: Transatlantic Trends 2003, a survey done by the German
Marshall Fund of the United States and Pew Research Center: Public
more internationalist than in 1990s; Released 12.12.2002; http://
people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=656

(4) Transatlantic Trends 2003.
(5) Christopher J. Makins (President of the Atlantic Council of the
United States): Renewing the Transatlantic Partnership: Why and
How? Statement prepared for The Subcommittee on Europe of the
House International Relations Committee, 11.6.2003.

(6) Transatlantic Trends 2003.
(7) Pew Research Center: Public more internationalist than in 1990s;
Released 12.12.2002; http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?Pa-
geID=656

(8) Joseph Nye Jr: Propaganda isn't the Way: Soft Power, The Interna-
tional Herald Tribune, 10.1.2003; www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/
opeds/2003/nye_soft_power_iht_011003.htm

(9) Robert Kagan: Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the

New World Order, Knopf 2003.

(10) Transatlantic Trends 2003.
(11) Transatlantic Trends 2003.
(12) Transatlantic Trends 2003.

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/51

2.7
On social issues, business and the environment, there
are more shared perspectives than one might expect, which are
not, however, reflected at government level. While it is known
that Europeans care about the social and environmental dimen-
sion Europe has added to political democracy, Americans, too,
place an emphasis on support for the needy and on protecting
the environment. The economy, education and social security
dominate the public's policy agenda in the US (1). While Ameri-
cans feel empowered and applaud individual enterprise, two-
thirds see the need for a government safety net for the needy (2)
and to guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to
sleep. More than 50 % say government should help the needy
even if it means going deeper into debt, 86 % agree that there
needs to be stricter laws and regulations to protect the environ-
ment, 65 % agree that people should be willing to pay higher
prices in order to protect the environment, half the people say
the tax system is unfair to them and there is a considerable
amount of support (over 75 %) for restricting and controlling
people coming into the US to live there. Americans also seem
to share the Europeans' concern about Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs) to some extent, as 92 % of them are in
favour of labelling GMOs (3).

There is widespread consensus that a more thorough,
2.8
intense and continuous dialogue is necessary in order to build
on common interests, outweigh the differences and to recog-
nise shared interest in a common agenda in many areas of the
world economy. The EESC in previous opinions has recognised
the importance of the transatlantic partnership and emphasised
that a broadly-based partnership and cooperation must be
based on mutual understanding and respect for each other's
visions, values, interests and models of society (4).

3.2 EU–US economic and commercial relations

As the Quinlan Report (5) on Transatlantic Economic
3.2.1
Relations shows, the transatlantic economy has become even
more intertwined and interdependent since the fall of the Berlin
Wall, and foreign investment is clearly ahead of trade in impor-
tance.

3.2.2
For example, roughly half of US FDI in the 1990s
went to Europe. Europe's investment stake in the US in 2000
was nearly 25 % larger than America's stake in Europe.
In
2001, and throughout most of the 1990s, Europe accounted
for half of total global earnings of US companies. US firms
invested more than twice as much capital in the Netherlands as
in Mexico. There is more European investment in Texas alone
than all US investment in Japan.

for

than 20 % of

Although transatlantic trade disputes hit the headlines,
3.2.3
trade itself accounts
transatlantic
less
commerce, and EU-US trade disputes for less than 1 % of trans-
atlantic commerce. Despite an early warning mechanism devel-
oped in 1999, disputes over trade-defence mechanisms (such as
safeguard measures, anti-dumping and counterveiling duties),
subsidy-related issues,
intellectual property rights and other
measures in areas such as steel, bananas, beef hormones,
genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
trademarks/geogra-
indications have caused serious disagreement and
phical
disputes. As of 16 March 2004, the EU had 14 active WTO
disputes underway with the US (6). In the most recent case
concerning Foreign Sales Corporations the EU has imposed
tariffs on a series of US products as long as the underlying Act,
which has been ruled illegal by the WTO, is not adapted to
WTO rules.

3. Dimensions of transatlantic relations

The most

3.1
important dimensions underlying Transat-
lantic relations are the following: EU-US economic and
commercial relations, global policy and security, globalisation
— international economic, social and environmental develop-
ment, transatlantic institutions, commitment to the transatlantic
partnership and multilateral governance.

3.2.4
Some of the tensions between the EU and the US
result from growing economic interdependence. In many cases
they are not traditional ‘at-the-border’ trade disputes, but reach
beyond the border and affect such fundamental domestic issues
as the ways Americans and Europeans are taxed, how our
societies are governed, or how our economies are regulated (7).

(1) Pew Research Center: Economy, Education, Social Security Domi-
nate Public's Policy agenda, Released: 6.9.2001, www.people-
press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=33

(2) Pew Research Center: The 2004 Political Landscape, Page 39ff; Cate-
gories comprise: completely agree and mostly agree, www.people-
press.org

(3) ABC-Survey according to Süddeutsche Zeitung, 19.8.2003.
(4) EESC: Re-invigorating the transatlantic partnership and dialogue (OJ

C221 of 7.8.2001).

(5) Joseph P. Quinlan: Drifting apart or Growing together? the Primacy
of the Transatlantic Economy. Washington, DC, Center for Transat-
lantic Relations, 2003.

(6) EU-Commission: General Overview of Active WTO Dispute Settle-
ment Cases involving the EC as complainant or defendant. http://
europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/newround/index_en.htm

(7) Joseph P. Quinlan: Drifting apart or Growing together? the Primacy
of the Transatlantic Economy. Washington, DC, Center for Transat-
lantic Relations, 2003

C 241/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

3.2.5
Performance of the EU and US economies shows a
mixed picture. Contrary to the widespread view that the US
economy outperforms the European one, even IMF and OECD
data show that Europe has done better in some areas (1): It is
true that overall growth rates in the US have been higher than
in Europe, but
living standards, as measured by GDP per
person, have risen faster in the EU than in the US.

On labour productivity,

3.2.6
there are mixed numbers,
depending on the time span considered. US productivity on
average is higher than EU productivity since 1995, but lower
for the longer period 1990 to 2002. Even while the average is
higher in the US, five European countries have done better.
Unemployment on average is higher in Europe, but seven
countries show lower unemployment than the US.

Unemployment is a problem both for the economy as
3.2.7
a whole — as it means resources are being unused — and for
people, especially if unemployment is accompanied by a lack
of social protection.
In addition to macro-economic policy,
factors like the structure of the labour market, education levels,
or the way social protection systems are designed can greatly
influence participation rates. Unemployment,
together with
inequality in incomes, a lack of social protection as well as
education levels is one of the factors influencing and explaining
poverty rates.

On average Europe has higher taxes than the US.
3.2.8
However, this does not necessarily constitute a competitive
disadvantage. If taxes are spent well, they can boost an econo-
my's productivity. The World Economic Forum has recognised
this in changing the calculation method for public budgets
which resulted in the fact that Finland outperformed the US
according to the 2003-2004 Global Competitiveness Report,
while Sweden and Denmark also have improved their position
now ranking third and fourth (formerly 5th and 10th) (2).

3.2.9
Looking at productivity and taxes at the same time we
see that higher taxes do not necessarily impede productivity. Of
the five countries showing higher productivity growth than the
US since 1995: Belgium, Austria, Finland, Greece and Ireland
and the six countries that have higher productivity levels:
Germany,
Ireland, France, Belgium and
Norway (which is not an EU member), only Ireland is a low-tax
country.

the Netherlands,

3.2.10
The lesson from this is: the EU and US economies
are strongly linked. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Both economies face important challenges in the years ahead,

(1) Philippe Legrain: Europe's mighty Economy, http://www.philippele-

grain.com/Articles/europe'smightyec.html

which gives rise to the necessity for increased dialogue and
cooperation in order to make the economy work smoothly for
people on both sides.

3.3 Global policy and security

The shift

3.3.1
from the Cold War, a situation strongly
marked by similar interests between the EU and US, to a situa-
tion in which the principal strategic challenges have different
geographical origins and in which the nature of threats has
changed, has resulted in diverging viewpoints as to how these
should be dealt with.

3.3.2
Globalisation's potential for good is immense and it
has opened the door to many benefits. There are, nevertheless,
deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings
of the global economy. Seen through the eyes of the vast
majority of men and women, globalisation has not met their
simple and legitimate aspirations for decent jobs and a better
future for their children. As open societies are threatened by
global
terrorism, global governance needs to focus on the
concerns and aspirations of people and to improve account-
ability and democracy at both national and international level
to increase global security. Globalisation needs to be based on
universally shared values and respect for human rights and
individual dignity (3).
If globalisation is managed better, the
world can come closer together and become more prosperous.
Better globalisation is the key to a better and more secure life
for people everywhere in the 21st century. If it continues to be
poorly managed discontent with globalisation will grow.

3.3.3
In this context, fighting corruption, dictatorships and
failed governments as well as building social partners and civil
society structures all over the world, especially in countries
where good governance structures are weak or have yet to
develop, may be a useful contribution to making the world
safer and improving citizens' opportunities to participate in the
decisions that determine their living and working conditions.

3.3.4
The EESC's contributions to building and strength-
ening social and civil dialogue in future EU member states as
well as in third countries have a long-standing tradition. The
EESC has also been an active partner in the EU's Barcelona
process, which may constitute a useful basis to build on. In
addition, supporting the process of democratisation and the
building of social partners in Iraq, for instance, may become a
common project of the EU and the US.

(2) World Economic Forum: Global Competitiveness Report 2003 –

(3) ILO: A fair Globalisation: Creating opportunities for all, Geneva,

2004; http://www.weforum.org

24.2.2004.

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/53

3.3.5
The security of transports is also a sector inviting
enhanced cooperation between the US and the EU. The
EESC (1) sees ‘an urgent need for the EU to take the lead inter-
nationally in developing a broader framework for security
which will also address the causes of terrorism and not only
seek to eliminate its effects. […] Given the international char-
acter of maritime and air transport, security requirements
should be based on reciprocal arrangements, informally applied
and enforced without discrimination, whilst allowing for the
most efficient flow of trade’. Moreover, the EESC warned that
‘the European philosophy and culture sustains a strong respect
for human rights and any reaction to threats of terrorism
should not disregard these long-cherished principles’. The US/
EU agreement on container security (November 2003) and its
implementation offer an opportunity for discussion in the
Transatlantic dialogue. The US and EU are also cooperating at
international level in the ILO on seafarers' identity and at the
International Maritime Organisation jointly with the ILO on the
safety and security of port facilities.

3.4 Globalisation — international economic, social and environ-

mental development

3.4.1
Globalisation has opened the door to many benefits,
promoted open societies and open economies and encouraged
a freer exchange of goods, ideas and knowledge. A truly global
conscience is beginning to emerge, which is sensitive to the
inequities of poverty, non-respect of freedom of association,
gender discrimination, child labour and environmental degrada-
tion wherever these may occur (2).

However, despite an increase in trade, foreign invest-
3.4.2
ment and worldwide wealth, globalisation has not had positive
effects for all. The worldwide reduction of barriers to trade and
capital movements as well as for services and movements of
persons has facilitated global sourcing for companies, but it has
also created the conditions for worldwide competition with
worrying impacts on workers, taxes and the financial sustain-
ability of social protection systems and services of general
interest. Worldwide it has led to an increase in poverty in 54
countries since 1990 (3). Inequality between and within coun-
tries has increased, the stability of the world economy is threa-
tened by the volatilities of the financial markets as well as by
macro-economic imbalances such as currency relations or trade
imbalances.

(1) EESC: Opinions CESE 156/2002 and OJ C32 of 5.2.2004
(2) ILO: A fair Globalisation: Creating opportunities for all, Geneva,

24.12.2004.

(3) UNHDR 2003, according to: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 9.7.2003.

3.4.3
The EU and US when combining their efforts can
contribute to fully displaying the economic, social and environ-
mental potential of globalisation by improving governance
both at national and at international level as well as improving
rules for international trade, investment, finance and migration
by taking into account all interests, rights and responsibilities
and thus achieving a more broadly-based and equitable distri-
bution of the benefits of growth, that can provide security and
stability for the benefit of all.

In this context, global governance needs

to be
3.4.4
improved.
International organisations, which currently have
different mandates, need to coordinate their efforts. A better
management of globalisation requires coordinated work of the
WTO, IMF, World Bank and OECD with other international
organisations, in particular with the ILO and the UN as well as
improved governance of these institutions, including social and
civil dialogue.

the US Treasury Department

3.4.5
The EESC underlines the importance of respecting and
implementing core labour standards and welcomes the efforts
of
to maintain the forward
momentum in the recognition of core labour standards by the
World Bank and the IMF as an important issue to be integrated
into their development agenda (4).

3.4.6
The EESC questions the International Monetary Fund's
promotion of radical labour market deregulation in Europe (5),
considering that this could have serious implications for the
European Model of society and pointing out that social safety
nets constitute much needed automatic stabilisers in economic
downturns.

There is a growing concern on both sides of

the
3.4.7
Atlantic about jobs being exported to other regions due to
technological possibilities,
trade barriers, as well as
fewer
competitive advantages through different regulation systems,
which basically consists in lower labour, environmental and
animal protection standards. Economists have largely accepted
the trend as a logical phenomenon of free trade (6), which has
made possible the easy transfer of jobs to low-wage countries.
This is expected to cause future long-term structural unemploy-
ment. As both the EU treaties and the draft for the future EU
Constitution call for improving living and working conditions,
there is some thinking needed about raising labour and envir-
onmental standards and living and working conditions in these
countries while at the same time maintaining and improving
them in Europe and the US.

(4) US Department of the Treasury: 2002 Report to Congress on Labor

Issues and the International Financial Institutions, 31.3.2003.

(5) IMF (International Monetary Fund) World Economic Outlook, April
2003, Chapter IV: ‘Unemployment and labour market institutions:
why reforms pay off’.

(6) Preparing America to Compete Globally: A Forum on Offshoring,
Institution, 3.3.2004; www.brook.edu/comm/op-ed/

Brookings
20040303offshoring.htm

C 241/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

3.4.8
In the wake of the corporate scandals in recent years,
public opinion in the US has become more critical of corpora-
tions: 77 % of Americans say there is too much power concen-
trated in the hands of a few big companies, 62 % say that busi-
ness corporations make too much profit (1). Corporate Govern-
ance is thus a major issue.
In addition to concrete actions
already taken and under way such as Sarbanes-Oxley in the US,
the Revision of the OECD Corporate Governance Principles
and activities on EU and national level, coordinated efforts are
required to make sure corporations are governed in a respon-
sible way that takes into account the interests of all of their
stakeholders.

Both the EU and US have pushed for progress in the
3.4.9
Doha round. To ensure that civil society views are better incor-
the European
porated into the negotiations at EU level,
Commission's DG Trade is
society in the
involving civil
preparation and follow-up to the negotiations and the EESC is
fully involved in this process. The EESC will also take the initia-
tive to organise a dialogue with its partners in all continents in
order to contribute more effectively to the process and in this
respect will organise a conference on WTO issues (2) in July
2004.

3.4.10
Environment and climate change are clearly areas
where populations on both sides share concerns, but govern-
ments have rather differing views. The Pentagon has recently
released a study on the security effects of different scenarios on
climate change. In the light of the ongoing dissent over ratifica-
tion of the Kyoto protocol, the potential effects of climate
change certainly are one of the important, albeit difficult, issues
to be discussed.

The EESC has also underlined the importance of
3.4.11
sustainable development on several occasions. While solemn
declarations have been made in international meetings and
agreements including the Earth Summit, the Millennium Goals
or the Lisbon Strategy, concrete action still is lagging behind.
The EESC therefore underlines its call for progress expressed in
several opinions (3).

3.4.13
Agricultural trade is one of the most difficult topics
together with issues such as mad cow disease (BSE), beef
hormones, the system of farming, food safety and Genetically
Modified Organisms (GMOs). The EU and US have a lot of
trade and commercial cooperation in the agrobusiness field.
These two big trading partners have had some trade policy
difficulties over GMOs and hormones. It is important to recog-
nise that the EU and US have reached constructive compro-
mises in the ongoing Doha Round especially in the agricultural
sector. The EU has underlined the role of the European agri-
cultural model respecting the environment and animal welfare
and moderate reforms in the agriculture policy, where it would
be very important to take into account the non-trade concerns
and preferences of developing countries in the forthcoming
trade agreements and rules.

The latest EU enlargement presents the EU with its
3.4.14
greatest challenge to date and at the same time constitutes a
dynamic process towards the unification of Europe, strength-
ening peace, security and prosperity throughout the continent.
Both the EU and US are interested in the development of the
new EU member states, as well as in improving relations with
Russia and the EU's new neighbours and promoting respect for
human rights and democracy.

3.5 Transatlantic institutions

3.5.1
The institutional arrangements provided for by the
agreements of the 1990s have been a source of some dissatis-
faction. Reasons for this have been: the asymmetry of power
between the EU and US, the differing memberships of NATO,
EU and other institutions, the incomplete integration of the EU
and a general dissatisfaction with the EU-US summit (4).

3.5.2
Recent proposals to improve the institutional arrange-
ments show that the most important factor for progress is the
launching of sustained and intense dialogue on the most
important issues in whichever institutional setting seems the
most appropriate. Unfortunately none of
the approaches
adequately takes into account the benefits that can be achieved
by including social partners and civil society.

3.6 Commitment
governance (5)

to

transatlantic partnership and multilateral

The EU has emphasised the role of

3.4.12
food safety,
consumer protection and animal welfare in the Doha-WTO-
negotiations besides the trade policy measures. The EU thinks
that it is necessary to have better, more transparent rules for
international trade related to food safety.

(1) Pew Research Center 2004 political landscape.
(2) The contribution of civil society to the work of the WTO, 8.7.2004,

EESC, Brussels.

(3) The Lisbon Strategy and Sustainable Development, OJ C95 of
23/04/2003; Towards a global partnership for sustainable develop-
ment Brussels, 30.5.2002, OJ C221 of 17.9.2002.

3.6.1
Both sides underline the strategic importance of the
EU–US relationship and the multilateral context, as global chal-
lenges require combined forces.

(4) Christopher J. Makins (President of the Atlantic Council of the
United States): Renewing the Transatlantic Partnership: Why and
How? Statement prepared for The Subcommittee on Europe of the
House International Relations Committee, 11.6.2003.

(5) Multilateral governance means decision-making within the set of
International Institutions like the UN, the WTO, the IMF, the World
Bank, the ILO, the OECD etc.

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/55

As the European Council stated in December 2003,
3.6.2
irreplaceable and the EU
‘the transatlantic relationship is
remains
fully committed to a constructive, balanced and
forward-looking partnership with our transatlantic partners’ (1).

4. Improving the Transatlantic Partnership — why and

how?

The EESC agrees with the European Council that it is
3.6.3
vital to maintain a permanent dialogue as strategic partners
and welcomes the Council's intention to encourage all forms of
dialogue between legislative bodies and civil societies on both
sides of the Atlantic.

3.6.4 Working together bilaterally and within the frame-
work of multilateral institutions, the transatlantic partners will
combine the vision and capabilities needed to address the chal-
lenges of our time.

3.6.5
A series of different initiatives underway have outlined
the importance and necessity of ongoing and deepened transat-
lantic cooperation. The German Marshall fund of the United
States and the Transatlantic Policy Network have been among
the most active organisations to work on the EU–US relation-
ship. Their activities range from analysing public opinion on
both sides of the Atlantic, including economic aspects of the
relationship, to organising contacts and conferences and to
making recommendations and strategies for the future of EU-
US relations.

3.6.6
The Transatlantic Policy Network has developed a 10-
point - 10-year action plan to strengthen Transatlantic Partner-
ship, to be implemented from 2005 through 2015 on the basis
of
for
jointly agreed objectives, actions and benchmarks
interest:
progress. The strategy builds on four areas of
Economic, Defence and Security, Political and Institutional (2).

3.6.7 While this programme constitutes a valuable effort to
develop the relationship,
the social
the EESC regrets that
dimension of the relationship is hardly mentioned.

3.6.8
On the economic side, there is a long-standing debate
on the Transatlantic Market (3). TPN calls for deepening and
broadening the transatlantic market, others have gone further
calling for a Transatlantic Free Trade Area. In the light of the
experiences of both EU integration and NAFTA,
the EESC
argues in favour of an approach which combines the economic,
social and environmental dimension based on economic, social
and territorial cohesion. This is also consistent with the draft
for
the EU constitution which calls for a social market
economy as one of the goals of the Union.

4.1
A strong transatlantic partnership is an important
driving force in dealing with the challenges ahead. Both Europe
and the US are cooperating bilaterally and through the support
of international institutions with different parts of the world
based on their respective values, convictions and policies.
Economic and social cohesion, social and civil dialogue consti-
tute basic elements of European governance, while they are
in the United States. These different
much less important
approaches may therefore lead to conflicting recommendations
and cooperation models in the regions concerned.

4.1.1
For instance, while the US is the driving force in the
creation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas on the model of
the NAFTA agreement, other voices in the region have argued
for drawing on the European Integration experience. Actors as
diverse as the Brazilian Government, Mexico's President Vicente
Fox (‘NAFTA plus’), US Representatives and a network of trade
unions have called for an alternative to the FTAA that would
include elements similar to the EU such as a development fund
to reduce disparities, free movement of persons, participation
in decision-making, common currency and enforceable social
standards (4).

4.1.2
Taking another example, economic and social reforms
in the future Member States of Central and Eastern Europe in
the past 10–15 years have been supported both by the EU and
international organisations, such as the IMF and the World
Bank. As the EU has only limited competence and legal patri-
mony in some areas — e.g. social protection systems —
reforms in these areas have been driven by the international
institutions oriented on a model of society with underlying
values and principles that are not fully compatible with the
European Model of society which may create problems when
the new countries join (5).

4.2
If Europe wants a stronger voice on the international
stage, it will have to integrate further in order to enhance its
ability to speak out and act in the international community. In
this context, the EESC welcomes the efforts undertaken by the
Irish Presidency and hopes
in
Member States' positions will
to reaching a
consensus on the future constitution.

recent developments

contribute

that

4.3
The Transatlantic Partnership has created a set of institu-
tional arrangements including governments as well as legisla-
tors and civil society networks. Civil society participates in the
form of different Transatlantic Dialogues which seem to be
unequally active:

(1) European Council — Presidency Conclusions ....
(2) Transatlantic Policy Network: A Strategy to strengthen Transatlantic

Partnership, Washington-Brussels — 4.12.2003.

(3) Cf. The Transatlantic Market: a leitmotiv for economic cooperation,

Erika Mann, MEP, November 2003.

(4) Sarah Anderson, John Cavanagh: Lessons of European Integration
for the Americas, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, February
2004.

(5) EESC: Economic and social consequences of enlargement in the

candidate countries, OJ C85 of 8.4.2003

C 241/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.9.2004

4.3.1
The Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) was the
first and for a time the most active of the dialogues. Neverthe-
less, there were some doubts over its effectiveness and over the
implementation of results. It was reinvigorated at the EU-US
summit 2003. The two new co-presidents recently declared
that they saw the need to revive the TABD to help create a
barrier-free transatlantic market and stimulate transatlantic
economic cooperation.

4.3.2
The Transatlantic Labour Dialogue (TALD) has mostly
taken place within the existing trade union confederations. In
order to contribute fully to the Transatlantic Dialogue and to
developing the social dimension of EU-US relations, the TALD
needs to be strengthened. During 2001-2003, a joint project
on ‘Improving the transatlantic dialogue — the world of work’
from multinational
together union representatives
brought
companies through a series of training workshops.

Over six years, the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue
4.3.3
(TACD) has developed into the most active of the dialogues. It
discusses issues of concern to both sides such as GMOs, unsoli-
cited commercial email
(spam), digital copyright, as well as
issues affecting consumers in developing countries, bringing
together consumer representatives from the EU and the US and
representing consumer perspectives to the two administrations.

4.3.4
The Transatlantic Environmental Dialogue (TAED)
lasted less than two years due to funding difficulties, but is a
vital element with regard to the environmental issues at stake.

5. Proposals — recommendations

In line with the Irish Presidency of

5.1
the European
Council, which aims at ensuring a solid and productive political
and economic transatlantic relationship,
the EESC strongly
supports the transatlantic cooperation and recommends that it
be strengthened and broadened both in terms of involving the
widest possible range of interests and actors and in terms of
developing and broadening the approach to include issues rele-
vant for the dialogues and their respective constituencies on
both sides of the Atlantic.

5.2
The EESC strongly supports the constructive involve-
ment of relevant communities of interest from American and
European civil society. The Dialogue Structure, established by
the agreements in the 1990s, is a useful instrument which can
and should be further developed to include a broader range of
civil society networks.

5.2.1
To make these dialogues and networks work effec-
tively, it will be necessary to build on their respective interests,
aspirations and concerns and on core topics of mutual interest
for the partners concerned. It may be useful to have a thorough
debate on their role and mission as well as on improving their
effectiveness. This includes developing common understanding
of their role on both sides of the Atlantic, especially with
governments and parliaments, which are important political
partners of the dialogues.

4.3.5
Existing institutionalised cooperation between the two
parliaments has been developed to become the Transatlantic
Legislators' Dialogue, which now holds video-conferences and
bi-annual meetings.

Drawing on past experiences,

5.2.2
these dialogues and
networks should have equal access to governments and high-
level officials, which would make their functioning and work
more attractive to their respective interest groups. Strength-
ening them also requires that the outcomes of their considera-
tions are better taken into account in political decisions.

4.3.6
The informal transatlantic farmers' dialogue needs to
be strengthened and integrated into the transatlantic dialogues
and networks, taking on board issues such as GMOs, hormones
and, in particular, the European model of agriculture..

4.3.7
In addition, the European Commission has launched
two people-to-people initiatives in the field of education and
policy-making, involving EU centres in American universities
as well as think tanks, academic institutions and networks at
local level.

4.3.8

Other informal dialogues complete the picture.

5.2.3
Keeping the dialogues and networks going and
strengthening them requires commitment and financial funding
including core costs. In this context, the EESC points out that
funding should include support for meetings, which may be
necessary to find common ground, and for the development of
common projects.

In the long-run, the EESC would be ready to contri-
5.2.4
bute to increased information on and interaction between these
dialogues and networks which could lead to regular and contin-
uous cooperation. The establishment of a Transatlantic and/or
US Economic and Social Committee should also be considered.

4.4
The EESC, based on its consultative role within Europe
and its cooperation activities with social partners and civil
society throughout the world, may be well placed to serve as a
forum for promoting the dialogue and bringing together the
relevant parties.

5.3
The issues to be dealt with should build on the respec-
tive interests, aspirations and concerns of the dialogues and
networks and their constituencies. The Dialogues have already
decided on or suggested issues they would like to deal with and
formulated objectives they would like to reach.

28.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/57

5.3.1
The TABD has recently renewed its dedication to
strengthening the transatlantic relationship and to fostering
global economic cooperation and development. The TABD has
to pursue a core agenda driven by its
committed itself
members.
It intends to proactively identify upcoming chal-
lenges and give concrete high-level business input to the EU-US
legislative and policy agenda developing key recommendations
to the US administration and the EU Commission. It intends to
come up with solutions to transatlantic economic, trade and
investment problems and to recommend areas for joint action
by governments on both sides of the Atlantic. Four areas of
priority have been identified recently: trade liberalisation and
international
the Doha round,
accounting standards and security and trade issues. Its goal is
‘to help establish a barrier-free transatlantic market, which will
serve as a catalyst for global trade liberalisation and prosperity
and to stimulate innovation, investment and economic growth
and create new jobs’. The TABD also intends to monitor the
governments' progress on the implementation of its recommen-
dations (1).

intellectual property rights,

5.3.2
For the TALD, trade unions attach importance to the
vital nature of the transatlantic relationship and considering the
ways it can be effectively widened and deepened. Trade unions
have for many years developed their bilateral relationships and
would like to see the Transatlantic Labour dialogue expanded.
There are numerous possible topics in the areas of social,
economic and labour dimensions that could be discussed. Job
dislocation which occurs on both sides of the Atlantic could be
subject to an exchange of best response practices. In the wake
of large corporate collapses, improving corporate governance
to enhance accountability and the voice of workers is another
issue. Reviewing social protection, health care, education and
training, occupational safety and health, pension systems, wider
industrial relations including framework agreements and devel-
opment assistance in respect of international core labour stan-
dards are other relevant topics subject to dialogue (2).

5.3.3
The TACD develops and makes joint consumer policy
recommendations to the US government and the European
Union to promote consumer interests in EU and US policy
formulation. 45 EU and 20 US consumer organisations partici-
pate, mainly through membership of the working groups, on

Brussels, 3 June 2004.

food-related issues, e-commerce, trade, economic issues and
intellectual property which develop and produce common
TACD policy positions.
Its priorities for government action
Intellectual Property Rules on
2003–2004 comprise Global
Access to Medicines, Genetically Modified Organisms, Nutri-
tional Labelling, Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail
(Spam), Internet Fraud and Consumer Redress, Product Labels
and Trade Rules, Transparency and Early Warning (3).

5.3.4
The Transatlantic Environmental Dialogue regrettably
has collapsed but given the importance of developments such
as the effects of global warming; activities of transatlantic civil
society networks in this area should therefore be encouraged.

5.4
The EESC may be a useful platform for giving transat-
lantic dialogues and networks a stronger voice and enhancing
their interaction.

The EESC in this context offers to organise a confer-
5.4.1
ence together with the relevant actors. The purpose of such a
conference would be to encourage the development of transat-
to
lantic civil
issues,
society networks on environmental
the
develop common understanding on the importance of
dialogue at non-governmental level, the topics to be dealt with
and what would be the best ways to achieve their respective
goals and strategies and to exchange views and work together.

In preparing the conference, the EESC would contact
5.4.2
the relevant actors and institutions in order to identify the rele-
vant parts of civil society to be represented in the conference,
take up their interests and concerns as well as the topics they
would like to deal with and build the ground for cooperation.

5.4.3
The benefit of a reinforced dialogue would consist in
activating civil society on both sides of the Atlantic, creating
effective networks, fostering an exchange of views within and
between transatlantic civil society networks including the Dialo-
gues, provide high level access to government, help form good
professional relationships between these networks and dialo-
gues and government/administration. It would thus strengthen
and improve the institutional structures not only in the long-
term interest of the EU and US but also for the rest of the
world.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

(1) TABD comments and documents, distributed at the study group

meeting in Dublin, 24.3.2004.

(2) Trade union message to the study group meeting in Dublin,

24.3.2004.

(3) TACD Website: www.tacd.org