Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

***** _**-Cr**_

_**•it**_ _**-tt**_

**COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES**

Brussels, 26.07.1995
COM(95)4ll final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

### **_Europe and the US : the way forward_**

#### **_Europe and the US : the way forward_**

INTRODUCTION

EU-US RELATIONS TODAY

Almost everything which happens in the world today is of interest to the EU and the US
Both are global players in economic and political terms. They are also linked by close
security ties and a common interest in handling effectively a wide variety of political and
security issues across the globe. They share a broadly similar set of values, belief in
democratic government, human rights and market economics and have a common interest in
confronting global challenges such as threats to security and stability, weapons proliferation,
unemployment, environmental degradation, drugs, crime and terrorism as well as other issues
such as urban decay, ageing populations etc. Moreover, both share common interests in
developing coherent strategies in order to favour harmonious economic development in the
wider world and to promote, in particular, the stability of the international economic, financial
and monetary system as well as the integration of countries in transition and developing
countries.

How each of the partners decides to deal with the many global challenges which confront
them and whether they decide to do so separately or together, will inevitably colour and
influence their bilateral relationship but disagreement on particular issues is not necessarily
a sign of drift in the relationship. Differences of view in the past have reflected the strong
commitment of each side to an active role in international relations. They have not
undermined the basic strength of the relationship or its commonality of purpose. For in spite
of the growth of other relationships, for each party the EU-US relationship is, and should
remain central, both from a bilateral point of view and as regards its contribution to the
political and economic stability of the world.

The EU-US relationship is both multilateral and bilateral. It involves working together in
many multilateral fora to advance shared objectives. The bilateral relationship was formalised
in the November 1990 Transatlantic Declaration which sets out the common goals of the
partners, the principles of their partnership and provides an institutional framework for
consultation The relationship is of necessity complex. Nonetheless its depth and scope can
be illustrated by reference to a few key facts and figures:

political: EU relations with the US are comprehensive and of the first importance. At
every level, from twice yearly Summits to debriefings on working groups there are
intensive and frequent contacts. By virtue of their political and economic weight, the
EU and US are present in critical areas around the world, (e.g. in the Middle East
peace process and in helping to transform the countries of central and eastern Europe
and the former Soviet Union), often acting together, on occasions disagreeing, but
always needing to be in close contact to exchange information and views and, where

appropriate, following an agreed approach.

security: there are 100,000 US troops in Europe and through NATO the US plays a
crucial part in maintaining stability in Europe.

economic: the EU is responsible for over 50% of all foreign direct investment in the
US, while US investment in the EU represents 40% of total US direct foreign
investment. Around 3 million jobs on each side of the Atlantic depend on these
investments. In 1994 17.6% (95 bn ECU) of EU exports went to the US and 17.3%
(93 bn ECU) of EU imports came from the US. US exports to the EU represented
22% (83 bn ECU) of total US exports and imports from the EU totalled almost 16 4%
(87 bn ECU) of total US imports.

Of course, the end of the Cold War has changed the nature of the relationship. There is no
longer a single, common adversary and the need to guarantee military security has ceased to
be the overriding feature of the relationship. In the new multipolar world both the EU and
US are developing new relations with other partners, the US within APEC and with South
America and the EU with Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean . However these
are not exclusive zones of influence. The EU is present and active in Asia, Africa and Latin
America just as the US is deeply involved in central and eastern Europe and the Middle East
Both partners have interests in all regions of the world.

There can be no return to the time when political and economic issues were subordinate to
the central question of security. Today it is necessary to demonstrate anew why this unique
partnership is more valid than ever, for reasons which have more to do with the future than
a past common heritage. Over several decades both main political parties in the US have
supported moves towards European integration. In each new political generation on both
sides of the Atlantic it is necessary to maintain consensus on the importance of the EU-US
relationship. Changes in the EU in recent years such as the completion of the Internal
Market, the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty and the prospects for EMU as well as the
growing international role of the EU in supporting the efforts of economies in transition and
of developing economies have made it increasingly possible and necessary for Europe to
respond as never before to the challenge of being a full and equal partner for the US.

How can we ensure that the relationship is responsive to the continuing needs of both parties,
so that it remains the stable central core of their relations with the rest of the world? The

purpose of this Communication is to review the main elements of the relationship - security,
political and economic - and to sketch out areas for consideration which can then be brought
together in a new framework. In order to be complete it goes beyond the traditional areas
such as trade and suggests ways in which all aspects of the relationship might be advanced
It makes proposals, taking account of the changes which have occurred in the EU and in
Europe as a whole since the adoption of the 1990 Transatlantic Declaration. Of course,
adapting the EU-US partnership to the needs of the future will take time and will have to wait
in part for institutional changes such as those flowing from the 1GC and the rethinking of the
roles of NATO and the WEU. Nonetheless there is much which can be decided in the

coming months which will enhance the relationship and prepare the ground for future
decisions. Indeed it is impossible to give serious consideration to the future of the
relationship without looking at it in a comprehensive way. In this way a clear signal would

be given at the highest level that the EU and US recognise the need to update the relationship
and have set in motion a credible process for achieving that goal.

**THE COMPONENTS OF A NEW RELATIONSHIP**

It is becoming increasingly difficult in the modern world to maintain a separation between
policy areas, such as defence and security, political co-operation and economic relations. In
order to revitalise the EU-US relationship it is necessary to look at the whole range of areas
for potential co-operation and at the linkages between its security, political and economic
aspects.

**SECURTTY**

Both the European Union and the United States attach great importance to international
security and stability in the volatile conditions of the post-cold war world. Interests may
diverge on specific issues but there is a large measure of agreement on basic principles and
overall objectives. The contributions of the EU and the US to international security and
stability are to a large degree complementary, given the two partners' different structures and
geographical location.

The United States's enduring commitment to European security provides a valuable element
of confidence and continuity in a rapidly changing world. The European Union has helped
to overcome feelings of insecurity in central and eastern Europe during the period when the
paramètres of international security are being redrawn. This has favoured the transition to
systems based on political and economic freedom in remarkably peaceful conditions, except
in the tragic conflict centred on Bosnia and in parts of the former Soviet Union.

Hitherto the European Union's contribution to international security has been largely indirect.
Its network of agreements with the countries of central and eastern Europe, covering political
as well as economic issues, as well as the prospect of Union membership, provide an
incentive to associated countries to work together and to overcome possible sources of
tension. Its partnership agreements with Russia, the Ukraine and other countries of the former
Soviet Union, link them with the wider process of European integration. The Union has also
contributed to European security through multilateral channels, notably the Security Pact
initiative, and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to which the Pact has
now been transferred. The United States's involvement in these frameworks has proved
valuable in ensuring their success.

The European Union is also a force for stability in the Mediterranean region, an area where
the United States, too, has security interests. The Union's agreements with countries on the
southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and its particularly close links with Cyprus,
Malta and Turkey, now backed up by the important package of financial assistance decided
by the Cannes European Council, can help to build support for the principles on which
international peace and cooperation are based, and to counter tendencies which threaten
international stability.

The European Union can also work closely with the US in certain areas of Africa where they

**share a similar analysis of conflict situations and can contribute to developing mechanisms**
**for conflict resolution. To that** **end** **the EU and the US should exchange information on**
**developments in the region and promote joint initiatives in order to favour political dialogue,**
**and to provide humanitarian** **assistance** **as** **well** **as joint responses to rehabilitation needs.**

**The Common Foreign and Security Policy, provided for by the European Union Treaty,**
**considerably enhances the Union's capacity to contribute to European and international**
**security, together with the United States and other partners. By providing the means for the**
**Union to act together, and to marshal the different instruments at its disposal, the CFSP makes**
**the EU a more tangible partner for the United States. Political will is needed, of course,** **if** **the**
**CFSP's full potential is to be realised. The** **1996** **Intergovernmental Conference will be seeking**
**ways to improve policy analysis, to streamline decision-making, and to give the Union more**
**effective forms of external representation.**

**As far as** **security** **and defence are concerned, the European Union Treaty indicates that the**
**Western European Union will be developed as the defence component of the Union and as**
**a** **means** **of strengthening the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance. Even though its**
**operational development is at an early stage, the WEU has already proved its value as an**
**instrument for implementing EU policy decisions, notably in the enforcement of** **the** **embargo**
**against Serbia and Montenegro on the Danube, and, together with NATO, in the Adriatic. The**
**WEU also plays an important role in security aspects of the** **EU's** **administration** **of** **the city**
**of Mostar in Bosnia. The WEU decided at its meeting at Petersberg in Germany in June** **1992**
**that peace-keeping and crisis management should be priorities for future action.**

**The** **IGC** **will be considering how to develop relations between the WEU and the EU within**
**the final perspective of its integration into the European Union. Another important issue is**
**the complementarity of the relationship between NATO and the WEU. The WEU should**
**develop specific operational capacities in such areas as peacekeeping, crisis management and**
**humanitarian operations. There is also a potentially important role for the WEU in taking**
**action in pursuit of European interests outside of the** **NATO** **area. These developments will**
**add significantly to the EU's capacity to act as a partner for the United States in security**
**related fields.**

_**Recommendation**_

_**The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, as well as the enlargement of the European Union**_
_**and of NATO, raise many security related issues which should be the subject of regular**_
_**dialogue between the Union and the United States. Pending future developments in relations**_
_**between the EU, the WEU, NATO and, indeed, the OSCE, in Europe's overall security**_
_**arrangements, and recognising the special role of NA TO in transatlantic security relations,**_
_**the**_ _**EU**_ _**and the US should also concentrate in their dialogue on specific issues**_ _**where**_ _**each has**_
_**a particular contribution to make. These issues could include:**_

_**- EU and NA TO enlargement**_

_**- non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction**_

_**- prevention of the illicit sale of nuclear materials**_

     - _controlling international_ _arms_ _trade_

_- export controls (dual use goods)_

     _the early identification of conflict_

_- preventive diplomacy_

_- the monitoring of human rights and minority problems_

**FOREIGN POLICY**

The objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union and the
foreign policy of the United States are broadly similar, taking into account differences in the
structure and the geographic location of the two parties. These objectives, as set out for the
EU in article J.l of the Treaty, include the preservation of peace and the strengthening of
international security, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final
Act and the Paris Charter, the promotion of international cooperation and the development and
consolidation of democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms. This broad consensus on fundamental values and objectives is reflected in the 1990
Transatlantic Declaration.

The first main challenge in developing EU-US relations in the area of foreign policy is to
derive specific policies from these broad objectives and to agree on an effective mechanisms
for cooperation. The EU-US Summit in Washington on 14 June 1995 provided guidance on
substanial issues where progress can be made through closer cooperation. These include:

-human rights

-nuclear safety

-co-sponsorship of the "Friends of the Federation" between Bosnia and Croatia

-assistance to the Palestinians

-environmental issues in central and eastern Europe

-assistance to emerging democracies in their fight against crime

-the administration of justice in Haiti

Before the end of 1995, concrete projects for joint action should be developed by the Eli and
the US in these areas. Other fruitful areas for foreign policy co-operation include humanitarian
and development assistance.

**6**

**Humanitarian** Assistance: Between them the EU and US provide 86% of official
humanitarian aid (EU Member States 31%, EC 27%,US 28%). Although only 15%
of foreign aid (development plus humanitarian) is channelled through the Commission
almost 50% of the EU's humanitarian assistance is managed by the Commission This
makes the Community the prime interlocutor for the US in this area and explains the
close relationship which has developed. There are regular exchanges of views on
general and operational issues. Since the end of 1993 the European Community
Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and the US Office for Disaster Relief (OFDA) exchange
data. Joint assessment missions are also carried out. ECHO staff has participated in
training in disaster management at the invitation of the US government and the US
Agency for International Development (USAID) now has an official posted to the US
Mission in Brussels. A further ECHO-USAID meeting is scheduled for September

Development co-operation: The United States and the European Union are also major
actors in the field of development co-operation. In 1994 the United States was the
second largest donor, after the Community and its Member States. However in terms
of its percentage of GDP, the United States' foreign aid is currently the lowest of all
official donors - 0.15%.

This situation is likely to deteriorate in the coming years since American official
development assistance is under pressure in the US Congress, in the context of efforts
to reduce the fiscal deficit. Therefore a substantial reduction in development
assistance is to be expected in the next few years.

The US Administration is working to reinforce its co-ordination with the European
Union in this field. The European Union has a strong interest in re-inforcing
co-operation with the US. It is in our mutual self-interest as donors and trading
partners with the developing countries, to support the efforts of the US Administration
to keep development assistance on the political agenda. Indeed, strengthening cooperation with the US would also allow the EU to further develop its ability to
influence donor policies.

For its part, the Commission envisages formalising and reactivating its co-operation
with the US Administration in the field of development co-operation, with a view to

strengthening modes of co-operation with the US Government in priority areas;

jointly reassessing ways of improving the impact and effectiveness of development
aid.

The second challenge on furthering co-operation in foreign policy is to establish effective
mechanisms for consultation and dialogue.

Over the years a wide range of consultation mechanisms have grown up to foster dialogue and
meet different needs. These contacts were formalised in the 1990 Transatlantic Declaration

which provides for .

**7**

**bi-annual consultations between the Presidents of the Council, Commission and US**

**bi-annual consultations between EU Foreign Ministers, the Commission and the US**
**Secretary of State**

**ad-hoc consultations between the Presidency Foreign Minister, or the Troika and the**
**US Secretary of State**

**bi-annual consultations between the Commission and the US government at Cabinet**

**level**

**briefings by the Presidency to US representatives on European political co-operation**
**meetings at Ministerial level**

**in addition mere are many Troika contacts at political director and expert level.** There
**are also regular meeting at sub Cabinet level between the Commission and** the **US**
**Administration. The European Parliament also has regular inter-parliamentary contact**
**with the US Congress.**

**The wide ranging process of consultation on foreign and security matters which** has grown
**up in recent years now needs to be reviewed to take account of political changes** inside the
EU since **the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty and to ensure that it represents the** most
efficient **and operational way of meeting its objectives. There are now so many** meetings
between **the** EU, **in different formats, and the US, discussing such a** huge **range of** issues that
**it** is **difficult to have a sense of overall priorities. Serious attention should be** given to
considering **whether fewer, more focused meetings would lead to better follow-up and to** a
**more visible, coherent policy response to some of the challenges currently confronting** the
**partners. Before the end of the year the Commission, together with the Council, and the US**
**Administration, should review the operation of existing consultation** mechanisms **and** explore
**possibilities for rationalisation and ways of increasing their effectiveness. For example,** the
**periodicity of certain** **pre-scheduled** **meetings could be changed, consultations could be**
**grouped so as to permit a more efficient** use **of resources etc.**

Certain **structural improvements could also be made to the dialogue. Although there** are
**frequent and intensive contacts there are almost no mechanisms** to ensure co-ordination
between **the various layers. Thus each level sets its own agenda without taking into account**
**problems encountered at a lower level and often without ensuring** the necessary coherence
between **trade and economic issues on the one hand and the second and third pillars** on the
other.

A more **coherent approach** is **needed,** bringing **the different** strands of the relationship
together. The 1994 EU-US Summit meeting in Berlin decided to set up three working groups
to set up three working groups to study ways of co-operating on assistance to central and
eastern Europe, on CFSP and third pillar areas. These groups reported in June 1995 and
having completed their tasks were disbanded. The June 1995 EU-US Summit decided to
create a high level group charged with assessing progress in strengthening and further
developing the relationship and with studying ideas for discussion at the December 1995 EU

8

US Summit.

Despite increasing levels of co-operation, the US is critical of the fact that the EU is not
always in a position to speak with one voice or has no or insufficient competence to deal with
matters on which the US would like to have a dialogue with the EU. For example, attempts
to date to begin a process of exchanging information on Third Pillar areas of interest have
been held back by reticence on the EU side. Failure to speak with one voice reduces EU
influence and can, on occasion, even damage EU interests.

Nonetheless, it is possible to further improve political dialogue with the US. This can be
done by building on the process of identifying areas of mutual interest susceptible to cooperation, co-ordination of activities or joint initiatives. It is now important to go beyond the
affirmation of common objectives such as the promotion of democratic values and economic
prosperity throughout the world to concrete actions such as joint demarches vis à vis certain
countries, co-operation on humanitarian and development assistance and in international
organisations such as the UN and OSCE. It is also necessary to find ways of dealing with
issues where the EU and US approaches differ (e.g. recent examples include Cuba, Iran etc)

_Recommendations_

_to intensify dialogue and co-operation in a number of areas including_ _humanitarian_
_and development assistance in addition to the areas identified by the June 1995_ _EU-US_
_Summit._

_to review the current mechanisms for consultation_ _with_ _the US on foreign policy_
_issues_ _with_ _a view to rationalising them and making them more effective._

**ECONOMIC AND TRADE**

There is a high degree of interdependence between the EU and US economies, in terms of
jobs, incomes, investment and technological development. Each market offers the other a
large base with similar levels of development and consumer purchasing power. Annex I sets
out details of the economic relationship. In addition, following the completion of the Uruguay
Round average industrial tariffs between the partners are low and a high proportion of trade
is already duty free. Despite occasional trade disputes, most of this trade is trouble free.
However there are many ways in which trade and economic relations can be further facilitated
e.g. by removing existing impediments. Some can be advanced on a bilateral basis, others
will be best handled in the multilateral context. Tariffs are by no means the most important
of the remaining impediments.

The fact that the EU and the US are the two biggest economies in the world affects their
relationship. Policies pursued in each economy exert a major influence on the other and on
global growth prospects. It is the responsibility of both partners to take account of these
effects in their strategy in order to contribute effectively to international economic stability
This warrants a dialogue which should encompass not only the traditional area of trade but
also macroeconomic issues. Moreover it involves paiticipation in and follow-up of
international initiatives on subjects of global concern such as growth, the environment,

population trends.

The **multilateral trade agenda**

In working together to achieve the successful completion of the Uruguay Round the EU and
US have shown that where they co-operate and aim at the same goal, they can achieve
considerable progress. The common commitment of the EU and US to uphold the multilateral
process and to establish the WTO on a solid basis is crucial to the future of the open world
trading system and is the basis for healthy economic bilateral relationships. Both parties need
to work together to build the WTO into a strong, objective and decisive body. The EU is
concerned by US tendencies to prefer unilateral and special bilateral arrangements over the
multilateral and must use its relationship with the US to stress the advantages for both parties
of the multilateral approach and the damage done by the use or the threat of using unilateral
measures. The EU will therefore continue to oppose such unilateral measures. The EU is
already committed to remaining open to the world, while at the same time developing WTOcompatible trade relations with its neighbours to the East and South, as well as with key
partners further afield. In considering any new regional agreements, both the EU and US will
need to ensure that they are compatible with WTO rules and, more broadly, do not risk
undermining the multilateral trading system.

The EU and US should now concentrate on maintaining the momentum of the multilateral
process working together on a new agenda for further world trade liberalisation. The first
priority is to complete the unfinished business of the Uruguay Round in areas such as
telecommunications and maritime services. The EU must also seek to re-engage the US in
the multilateral process designed to achieve a comprehensive agreement on financial services.
Then there are the issues already identified by the Community as priorities for further work investment, the relationship between trade and competition, the environment and social policy.
The agreement reached by OECD Ministers in May to begin negotiations on a multilateral
investment agreement and to begin discussions in WTO marks an important start to a new
phase of liberalisation.

In addition to this busy agenda there are other areas which the EU and US could explore with
a view to maintaining the momentum of liberalisation and providing a further stimulus to
world trade. These include further tariff reductions, harmonisation and simplification of rules
of origin, including further negotiations on intellectual property rights, government
procurement, strengthening of subsidy disciplines and promotion of deregulation. The EU and
US can act as motors for international change and can contribute significantly to the
multilateral process. Both partners should also seek to work together to bring countries such
as Russia and China into the WTO. As the G7 Summit recognised, we need to develop an
ambitious agenda on these lines for the December 1996 WTO Ministerial meeting in
Singapore.

Another area which should continue to be addressed is US involvement in the European
Energy Charter Treaty, a multilateral treaty to encourage trade, investment and co-operation
in energy. A total of 49 states including all Member States as well as Japan and Australia
and the European Communities, have signed the treaty. Despite participating in all the
negotiations the US has not yet done so.

10

_Recom_ _m endations_

_to make a concerted push_ _with_ _the US over the next year or so to identify the scope_
_for further liberalisation and deregulation worldwide_

_To build up the WTO_ _by completing unfinished business, developing the_ _new_
_WTO work programme and by working together on issues such as the accession of_
_Russia and China to WTO_

_to oppose unilateral action by the US_

_to ensure that all new regional arrangements are WTO compatible and would_
_effectively strengthen the multilateral trading system_

**The** **bilateral** **trade agenda**

Without in any way detracting from EU-US co-operation in multilateral fora, which remains
a central and integral building block of the bilateral relationship, there are areas of economic
activity across the Atlantic where trade and investment flows could be facilitated by
appropriate decisions taken on a bilateral basis by the EU and the US. The business
community needs to be involved in identifying areas where action is needed A number of
ongoing problems need to be resolved and the development of an early warning system should
be further strengthened. At present there are many bilateral negotiations underway which are
seen to be of limited relevance, confined to certain sectors and activities, without being fully
appreciated in their wider context as part of a strong and constantly evolving EU-US
partnership.

Any re-appraisal of EU-US relations should include drawing these different strands together
into an overall approach, setting a clear timeframe for the conclusion of negotiations and
giving sufficient political backing and momentum to the process to attract public and political
as well as business attention. Such a process will be worthwhile in itself but can also serve
to provide the building blocks for possible future initiatives once sufficient political and
technical consideration has been given to the form and direction of closer economic relations
The degree of openness that already exists in economic relations between the EU and US and
the scope for further enhancing relations and removing the obstacles that stand in the way is
such that it is not too ambitious to envisage a major new initiative in EU-US economic
relations.

Towards a Transatlantic Economic Space: creating the building blocks

A new concept is needed to draw all of these elements together : a Transatlantic Economic
Space. This should provide an overall framework within which existing and new initiatives
become part of a coherent, political drive towards closer economic relations. What now needs
to be done is to identify precisely the areas where bilateral agreements can be realistically
achieved which would remove existing obstacles or otherwise enhance transatlantic economic
activity. In this way the building blocks for a Transatlantic Economic Space can be created

11

There are many areas of current or potential co-operation such as customs co-operation,
science and technology, the information society, intellectual property rights, aviation and
maritime transport, steel, public procurement, biotechnology, competition policy etc which
could benefit from the building block approach. However, given the size of the Union and
of the United States, such a Space would have to take into account its effects on the
development of the multilateral system of trade - and on trade by and with third countries as well as the perception of their agreement by the rest of the world.

One of the obstacles to trade most frequently cited by business on both sides of the Atlantic
is the absence of mutual recognition of standards, certification etc. The EU and US often
have different philosophical approaches to the same issues and find different regulatory
responses, thus complicating the operation of businesses which trade in both markets. As a
first step towards resolving some of these difficulties, a recent sub-Cabinet level meeting
between the EU and US agreed on principles for regulatory co-operation. The aim is to
enhance (or where necessary establish) co-operation on technical issues for regulatory projects
of joint interest, to make greater use of each others' technical infrastructure to provide early
warning of divergent or incompatible regulatory initiatives which may have trade implications
In a number of sectors negotiations are underway aiming to reach agreement on mutual
recognition of conformity assessment. This would not change standards on either side of the
Atlantic but would enable firms to seek certification for both EU and US standards with

locally based testing and certified bodies. The negotiations are currently looking at, inter alia,
telecommunications, electrical safety, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Every effort
should be made to conclude these negotiations by the end of 1995. The same principles and
techniques can then be extended to many other areas, such as differences in legal and
commercial practices.

In the period up to the end of December 1995 the Commission proposes to work with the US
Administration to draw up a list of specific objectives to be achieved within a clear timeframe
in a range of areas such as those listed above. These could then be submitted to the Council
for political approval of the objectives and the agreed action plan could be considered by the
EU-US Summit due to take place in December 1995.

It is clear from the above that there are many different options when it comes to choosing the
building blocks for a Transatlantic Economic Space. The possibility of including a Free Trade
Area component in a Transatlantic Economic Space is a further such option which has
attractions but also has a number of drawbacks and therefore deserves serious further study

Free trade areas involving the elimination of duties and other restrictive regulations of
commerce on substantially all trade between the parties can be a way of promoting further
international trade liberalisation provided they are compatible with the rules of the WTO The
Commission has recently set out its views on free trade areas in a Communication to the
Council [1] . Given the recent conclusion of the Uruguay Round it remains to be seen whether
there is realistic scope for further tariff cuts between the EU and the US. No informed
political decision on whether or not to envisage a transatlantic free trade area at some stage
in the future can be taken without first undertaking detailed economic analysis of the existing

Sec (95) 322

**12**

tariff levels, the likely gains and losses which would result from their removal, the impact on
particular sectors and the possibility of their partial exclusion from a free trade area as well
as an assessment of the likely trade creating/trade diverting effects of such a Free Trade Area,
and the implications of the creation of so large a free trade area for the multilateral trading

system.

The Commission is currently carrying out a technical study designed to provide the elements
necessary for political consideration of the issues involved. A similar study is underway in
the US. In order to ensure that there is agreement on the basic facts consideration could be
given to carrying out during 1996 a joint EU-US feasibility study on the advantages and
disadvantages of a transatlantic free trade area. Such a study could also look at the feasibility
of making membership of any such area open to third parties.

It is becoming increasingly important to ensure that transatlantic competition policies do not
diverge in their application. The recent EU-US Competition Agreement represents an
important step in closer co-operation. Consideration should also be given to building on this
co-operation with a view to reaching a greater compatibility between the regulatory systems
of the EU and US markets. One consequence of the creation of a Transatlantic Economic
Space would be that the use of anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures by one side
against the other could be gradually rendered unnecessary.This is a longer term objective. It
is noteworthy that anti dumping and countervailing duties have been maintained in the USCanada Free Trade Area and in NAFTA.

The concept of a Transatlantic Economic Space is also relevant for new Information Society
services. Information Super-Highways are such that geographic borders will no longer act as
natural barriers to trade in services. Since the economies of the EU and the US are service
driven, it is essential that the principle of mutual recognition be applied in the field of
services regulation in order to allow the economic benefits of the Information Society to be
attained. Bilateral discussions on this issue should therefore take place as soon as possible

_Recom_ _m endations_

_to seek to resolve ongoing problems and to strengthen the early_ _warning_ _system_ _with_
_a view to preventing the emergence of future problems_

_to identify potential building blocks for the creation of a Transatlantic_ _Econom_ _ic Space_

_to make as rapid progress as possible in creating them, especially in the current_
_bilateral_ _negotiations_

_to consider further the possibility of including_ _a_ _free trade area component by_ _means_
_of a joint EU-US feasibility study to be carried out in 1996_

_to_ _further develop co-operation on competition policy._

_to enter into bilateral discussions on mutual recognition of services regulations._

**13**

**Macro-economic** issues

There are at least three reasons to strengthen the dialogue on macroeconomic issues between
the United States and the Union as soon as possible.

A macro economic framework which helps to avoid excessive and unpredictable fluctuations
in financial and currency markets would contribute to the harmonious development of trade
between the EU and US. The recent G7 Summit in Halifax pointed out the risks that such
fluctuations present for a sustainable, non inflationary growth as well as for the continued
expansion of international trade. It is in the interest of the EU and the US to work more
closely together in favour of such a framework. Moreover the development of EMU and the
introduction of a single currency will have far reaching implications for the international
monetary system. It is in the interest of the US and of the EU to make sure that the
introduction of the single currency contributes to the stability of the international monetary
system. Furthermore, the orientations chosen for the budgetary policies of the Member States
and of the US exert a reciprocal influence on economic developments in these countries and
are of major importance for international macroeconomic equilibria. Since the coming into
force of the Maastricht Treaty, the broad guidelines of economic policy of the Member States
are adopted by the Council, after discussion at Heads of State level. Furthermore the
orientations of the budgetary policy of the Member States is subject to a Community
discipline. These factors taken together make it advisable for the EU and the US to conduct
a dialogue, at an appropriate level, on their respective orientations concerning macroeconomic
policy.

More and more medium term, structural issues with substantial economic aspects appear on
the international agenda, including on the Community agenda. The two most prominent
issues are employment and the need to reconcile growth with environmental protection In
both domains, the Union is currently preparing political initiatives. Concerning employment,
on which a bilateral dialogue has already commenced in the sub-Cabinet framework. Member
States are due to establish pluriannual programmes, to be assessed by the Commission in coordination with the Council before the end of the year. The relationship between growth and
environment and its political implications are currently discussed by the ECOFIN Council on
the basis of a Communication to the Commission. A more intense dialogue with the US on
the economic aspects of these two issues and on their implications for economic policies
would contribute to deepening the common understanding of these issues.

The US and the EU implement a comprehensive economic and financial strategy in their
relationship with third countries. Both parties are deeply involved in central and eastern
Europe, in the former Soviet Union and in the Mediterranean area. The policies of the Union
and its Member States as well as those of the United States often have a major influence on
the development strategy pursued by third countries. Both parties use a wide range of
instruments: commercial policy, macro-financial assistance, budgetary support, actions in the
framework of Bretton Woods institutions aiming at improving the stability of the
international financial system and the strengthening of surveillance mechanisms, participation
in regional development banks and financing institutions. It is therefore appropriate that the
existing dialogue between the EU and the US, which concentrates at this stage mainly on
political aspects, be systematically extended to macroeconomic and macrofinancial issues

**14**

_**Recommendations**_

_**to extend the**_ _**agenda**_ _**of**_ _**the**_ _**EU-US Summit to**_ _**macroeconomic**_ _**and**_ _**macrofinancial**_
_**issues**_

_**to**_ _**envisage**_ _**a**_ _**dialogue,**_ _**at**_ _**ministerial**_ _**level,**_ _**between**_ _**the US**_ _**Treasury**_ _**and**_ _**the**_ _**Union**_
_**represented**_ _**by the**_ _**Presidency**_ _**of**_ _**the ECOFIN**_ _**and**_ _**the**_ _**Commission**_

_**to**_ _**reinstate the dialogue**_ _**between the**_ _**Treasury and the Commission's services**_ _**aiming,**_
_**among**_ _**others,**_ _**at preparing the contacts at political**_ _**level**_ _**between**_ _**the**_ _**US**_ _**and**_ _**the EU**_

**Other areas of co-operation**

The range of issues which affect the EU and US is so large that a very broad range of EU
policies are potential candidates for co-operation with the US. Some of those fall within the
scope of the EU Treaties, others are matters for which the Member States are also responsible
Rather than attempt to compile an exhaustive list of areas where co-operation does or should
take place, consideration should be given to highlighting a limited number of such areas
which potentially have significant public appeal. The purpose of such an approach is not to
give the areas identified a higher priority but to illustrate to the general public some of the
ways in which the EU-US relationship can directly affect their lives and through co-operation
produce better results than if each partner acted on its own. A number of areas where this
approach could be applied are set out as follows :

**Environment**

Protecting the environment is a double challenge for the EU-US relationship. First of
all each partner needs to aim for the highest possible standards in its domestic policy
but also to seek to take account of the others interests in formulating and applying
policy. In order to accomplish that aim the annually high level EU-US consultations
on environmental issues have provided a forum to exchange information and ideas,
present strategies and devise co-ordinated positions on a number of important issues.
The dialogue has been particularly fruitful in the areas of air pollution, chemicals and
biotechnology in which technical groups hold regular discussions. By pursuing this
dialogue on a periodical basis and alerting each other at an early stage to new
initiatives - many of which will have clear trade implications - environmental
regulations can be made more compatible, more protective of the global environment
and also potential trade conflicts may be averted.

Secondly the EU and US need to work together to assist the world at large to meet
the global challenge of caring for the environment. The need for close co-operation
between the EU and the US is most visible in the international negotiations on global
environmental matters. The EU and the US acting together in international
organisations can be decisive. This includes a number of energy related issues such
as the greenhouse effect and nuclear safety in eastern Europe and the countries of the
former Soviet Union. A strengthening of co-operation in this area could have

**15**

important results, most notably in negotiations concerning the future work of the
Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD), the Intergovernmental Panel on
Forest, those in the Trade and Environment Committee within the WTO, and the
Berlin Mandate Group, which will negotiate on the further commitments under the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The regular EU-US dialogue on environmental matters has established mutual
understanding on bilateral issues and in international fora. Since environmental
considerations are gaining strategic importance in the mainstream of international
politics - the trade/environment interface is a case in point. This mutual dialogue
needs to be further strengthened.

_Recom m endations_

_to strengthen the existing framework for regulatory co-operation in the_ _environmental_
_area,_ _paying due attention to cost and efficiency aspects_ _when_ _setting up new schemes._

_to extend co-operation in the chemical area by including additional aspects,_ _**m**_
_particular the issue of Prior Informed Consent_

_to implement a new phase of co-operation in the area of biotechnology_

_to explore the possibilities of finding comparable emission test procedures_ _and_
_standards for cars, trucks and other mobile sources which could eventually lead to_
_similar technical requirements in more and more sectors of the type approval, and to_
_include common_ _work_ _in international bodies_ _(UNECE)_ _as a means to decrease_
_emissions from all kinds of mobile sources_

_to consult regularly before High Level International Meetings, and to_ _co-ordinate_
_negotiating positions with a view to furthering progress at the multilateral level._

Information Society» Information Technology and Telecommunications

The development of advanced communication and information technologies are
leading the world to a Global Information Society. This will be the backbone of the
economy in the future. The EU and US alike recognise the importance of improving
global interconnection and interoperability of information networks and services. The
G7 Conference held in Brussels on 24-25 February 1995 and the two dialogue
meetings on the Information Society held in November 1994 and July 1995 have
helped reinforce views and paved the way to further co-operation in international fora
vis-à-vis OECD, GATS, NGBT etc.

However key issues having an impact across the world on telecommunications (ie
global satellites, standards, IPR linked to multimedia) need further co-operation rather
than the unilateral approach that the US has so far undertaken.

**16**

_**Recommendations**_

_**to strengthen**_ _**co-operation**_ _**on regulatory issues having a global impact i.e. satellites**_

_**to strengthen co-operation in the fields of standards and research for the important**_
_**interoperability of networks, services and information technologies**_

_**co-operate**_ _**in order to make the best of**_ _**OECD work**_ _**on the subject.**_

**Social Policy and** **Emplnyi^nt**

The G7 Summit in Detroit raised the profile of employment on the international
agenda and since then the Commission has maintained contact with the US
Administration. A teleconference was held in April 1995 to discuss financial
incentives to create jobs, and the Halifax G7 Summit reiterated the urgent priority to
create good quality jobs and reduce unemployment. During meetings over recent
years between the President of the US and the President of the Commission, social
issues and employment in particular, have been discussed regularly. There is clearly
scope for further bilateral contacts with the US in the context of implementation of
both the White Paper on growth competitiveness and employment and the White Paper
on social policy.

Equally a range of social policy issues, such as industrial relations, health and safety
at work, public health, social protection and equal opportunities have received much
attention on both sides of the Atlantic. Here again, there is scope for building further
co-operation.

A particular example is the challenge posed by the ageing of their societies
Managing this transition throws up a huge number of opportunities and challenges
The impact on the health care sector, on public finances, on transport, on employment,
on information technology are among the more obvious areas where the EU and US
systematically exchange information as to the nature of the problems and evolving
policies for dealing with them, as well as consider the possibility of co-operation for
specific purposes. Furthermore, the ageing of population will also have implications
for the equilibrium of public finances, in the EU as in the US, and consequently for
the investment/saving ratio in the world. It is therefore in the interest of both partners
to co-operate in the preparation of political responses to these developments.

_**Recom m endations**_

_**to pursue exchange of information and discussions with the US in the field of**_
_**employment**_

_**to explore further**_ _**with**_ _**the US the possibility of developing a more systematic**_
_**exchange of information and identification of areas of further co-operation on social**_
_**issues.**_

17

_to examine the usefulness of a joint study_ _with_ _the US on the ageing of the population_
_and to co-operate in order to make the best of_ _OECD_ _work on the subject._

Justice and Home Affairs

Apart from building on the initiative, launched at the EU-US Summit in Berlin in July
1994, for co-operation in the fight against organised crime and drug abuse, the EU and
US could also usefully explore the possibilities for co-operation on immigration and
asylum issues. These are areas where the EU and its Member States on the one hand,
and the US on the other, have both shared interests and responsibilities and different
experiences based, among other things, on history and geography. Comparing these
experiences as well as co-ordinating approaches to new developments could be of real
benefit to both sides.

_to explore possibilities for co-operation in the fight against organised crime and drug_
_abuse as_ _well_ _as on immigration and asylum_

Science **and** Technology

The EU and US have been co-operating for many years in the area of science and
technology. At first, co-operation was limited to nuclear research. Later it expanded
into other areas, such as renewable energies, minerals technologies and biotechnology,
but the accent still lies on the nuclear sector. Co-operation takes place under a
number of bilateral agreements as well as through informal contacts and exchanges of
information.

Over the years both sides have felt the need to upgrade their co-operation and to give
it a better structure. This led to the establishment of the EU-US Joint Consultative

Group on Science and Technology in November 1990.

However both sides continue to feel the need for widening the areas of co-operation
and for a clearer situation as regards mutual access, intellectual property rights
protection, equal treatment etc. In May 1994 the US State Department proposed to
the Commission the negotiation of a Framework Agreement for Science and
Technology Co-operation. This proposal still is the subject of exploratory discussions
between the two sides.

_Recom m endations_

_continue the discussion of a comprehensive_ _S&T_ _co-operation agreement, including_
_the examination of the possible benefits for the EU, the areas to be included and the_
_modalities and conditions for co-operation_

_in the meantime further develop co-operation under the existing specific co-operation_
_agreements,_ _while renewing_ _those that have_ _expired;_

**18**

_**examine**_ _**and exploit opportunities for**_ _**co-operation**_ _**at the**_ _**multilateral**_ _**level**_

**Education and Training**

Following a two-year exploratory phase of co-operation in higher education, a draft
Agreement for co-operation in higher education and vocational education and training
has been negotiated and is now before the Council and Parliament for decision. The
main activity proposed is the provision of seed-funding on a competitive basis for a
limited number of EC/US joint consortia projects. Through the stimulation of
innovative forms of transatlantic co-operation and the sharing of experience, the aim
is to improve mutual understanding and bring balanced benefits on both sides. Other
actions within the draft agreement provide a framework for developing other
complementary modes of co-operation in education and training.

**Transport**

Both the aviation and maritime sectors offer opportunities for closer EU/US cooperation.

In the maritime sector, the US has a considerable marine interest and the EU fleet is
still significant in global terms. The EU and US have common interests, in particular
in areas such as safety, crew qualifications and market access.

The US has already indicated its interest in negotiating with the EU in the aviation
sector. In 1992, over 30 million passengers travelled between the EU and the US
At present, a network of bilateral agreements between individual Member States and
the US govern this trade. So that Member States are able to gain the additional
benefits from acting together in this area, the Commission has already proposed that
there should be an EU/US aviation agreement. The aim being to obtain full and equal
access for US and Community carriers to the US and Community markets. This
would bring benefits to consumers and airline companies on both sides of the Atlantic,
and could be a first step in building much closer EU/US links in this area.

**Information and** **Culture**

Informing the general public about developments in the EU and US as well as of the
mutual benefits of closer relations is an essential part of the dialogue. For example,
decision makers and opinion formers in the US need to be aware of the process of
European integration and of its impact on international security and economic
relations. The Commission is currently preparing a medium-term communications
strategy in relation to the US which will be designed to meet some of these needs.
Greater understanding can also be achieved through the strengthening of cultural
activities and links between people on either side of the Atlantic.

**19**

**Urban Decay**

Given the importance which urban problems hold for the EU and for the US which
has given rise to the development of major programmes aimed at tackling problems
in crisis areas, as well as the increasing importance of the urban dimension in EU
policies such as environment, energy, transport and social policy, it is proposed that
a system should be set up to provide for more systematic exchange of experience
between the EU and US. This could take the form of an annual forum involving the
relevant Community and US federal administrations as well as high level outside

experts.

**OTHER LINKS**

It is important to involve a wide range of participants on both sides of the Atlantic for
a number of important reasons. Firstly to provide a clear signal of the seriousness of
intent with which both the EU and the US are proceeding with the process of updating
the relationship. Secondly, in order to provide both the EU and the US with fresh
ideas of practical value which can be taken aboard in the process of updating
Thirdly, meaningful progress cannot be made without substantial non-governmental
involvement.

The business community, parliamentary and Congressional opinion, the academic
world and major foundations are among the sectors of society that should be included
in this process.

**Parliamentary links**

As the section in this Communication on political dialogue shows there are
arrangements for extensive EU-US consultation at Ministerial and administrative level
However there is also a need to involve elected representatives in discussions about
how to strengthen the relationship as well as on the issues of the day. The new
generation of elected representatives in Europe and in the EU is less deeply rooted in
their belief in the primacy of EU-US relations and more regular contact between the
two sides would contribute to better understanding. Some formal links already exist.
For example, the North Atlantic Assembly meets to discuss NATO related issues. A
delegation of the European Parliament meets regularly with the International
Committee of the House of Representatives, and some national EU parliaments have
their own links. However there seems to be a need for a forum which brings together
both Houses of Congress, members of the European Parliament and representatives of
EU national parliaments to discuss the full range of EU-US relations. A decision on
this issue is essentially one for the parliaments themselves to take, but there is no
reason why the EU and the US Administrations should not consult parliamentary
leaders on both sides to see whether the creation of such a forum is considered to be

a useful step and to discuss how it could relate to the updating of the EU-US
relationship as it develops.

20

**Involving The Business Community**

Many organisations exist to foster contacts between businesses in the EU and the US
and these regularly contribute to the identification of policy areas where action is
needed. Recent soundings taken on both sides of the Atlantic reveal a desire among
business leaders for a forum which brings together the Commission and the US
Administration and business leaders in which transatlantic business developments can
be discussed. As a result of these expressions of interest the Commission and the US
Administration have decided to launch a Transatlantic Business Dialogue which will
hold its first Conference in the autumn of 1995. The Dialogue will allow business
leaders to identify problems and opportunities which should be tackled by the public
authorities. The high degree of convergence on both sides of the Atlantic in terms of
preliminary identification of areas for action has already proved to be of value in
helping both administrations to set priorities for their own and the bilateral agenda

_Recom m endations_

_to consult European Parliament, EU national parliaments and Congressional_ _leaders_
_as to their interest in creating a joint_ _forum,_ _and if the response is positive, to discuss_
_how such a forum could be involved in the ongoing updating of the EU-US_
_relationship_

_to proceed_ _with_ _the Transatlantic Business Dialogue conference in autumn 1995 and_
_to consider how to develop the Dialogue further in the light of that conference_

_to consider further w ith the US the possibility of developing new_ _fora_ _for Transatlantic_
_dialogue in the academic community and other sections of society._

**The longer term**

As has been said, some of the components of a revitalised EU-US relationship will take time
to mature, particularly those in the area of security policy. Therefore any overall
formalisation of the relationship cannot be envisaged in the near future. On the EU side, for
example, the IGC will in any event need to be concluded before the nature of such a
formalisation could be given serious consideration. However once the various components
of a new relationship are in place it will then be possible to consider the desirability of
bringing them all together in a single solemn Agreement such as a Transatlantic Treaty

**CONCLUSION**

The EU-US relationship is complex and is changing. It needs to find new ways of working
together and of being seen by the public as relevant and enriching the lives of citizens on both
sides of the Atlantic. As explained in this Communication the Commission proposes that over
the next six months the Council, Commission and, where appropriate, the US Administration
should work towards creating a new framework for the EU-US relationship. Some of the
components are already identified and progress can be made now, others can only be decided

21

in the coming years. However the aim should be to have the EU-US Summit in December
i 995 raise the political profile of the relationship and by expressing a clear decision to update
all aspects of the relationship and launching the measures which give practical expression to
that mtent Such a decision can begin a process which will ensure that the EU-US
relationship continues in the next century to fulfil the role and the promise it has shown m
the twentieth century.

This Communication started by expressing the view that the EU-US relationship remains
central for each of the parties and for the world, whether it is judged in political, economic
or security terms. However, it cannot be relied upon to function in the future on the basis of
structures and priorities relevant to the Cold War era. Therefore, in their common interest,
the EU and US need to invest time and effort in building the framework which will ensure
that the relationship continues to function and prosper in the future.

This Communication contains proposals in all of the main areas of the relationship and reflect
the institutional responsibilities of the Commission, Council and Parliament. Each of the
proposals made would be worth pursuing for its own sake. But for the relationship to be
effectively updated it is necessary to put these individual proposals under a common umbrella,
thereby showing the seriousness of purpose which both the EU and US bring to these vital
tasks. It is therefore proposed that the European Council meeting in December 1995 shouid
formally endorse the EU's wish to update and strengthen its relations with the US in the
framework of a structured partnership, covering the areas described in this Communication
In the period up to December 1995 the Commission, Council and, where appropriate, the US
Administration will work to develop the proposals set out in this Communication with a view
to producing an action plan to accompany a joint statement to be adopted by the EU-US
Summit in December 1995.

_R_ _ecom_ _m endations_

_that the European Council in December should formally endorse the EU's wish to_
_update and strengthen its relationship with the US in the framework of a_ _structured_
_partnership and approve an action plan, based on the proposals in this Communication._

_that this action plan be submitted in the next EU-US Summit for adoption together_
_with_ _a political statement on the strengthening of the relationship._

**2.2.**

**Background note**

**Subject:** **Key data on EU - US trade**

_**The current status in transatlantic**_ _**trade**_

The EU and the US are leading players in the international trade system. Their weight
in global trade and their openness to it are roughly equal: both have a 15-20 % share in
world trade and both have an export/GDP ratio of about 10%.

For the European Union, the US is the single most important trading partner. In 1994
17.6 % of EU exports went to the US and 17.3 % of EU imports originated in the US.
All the other trading partners of the EU had export and import shares of less than
10%.

EU exports 1994 EU12 imports 1994

Based on 10

months data

For the United States, trade with the EU is second only to trade with Canada. In 1994
21.8% of US exports went to the EU and 16.4 % of US imports originated in the EU.

US imports 1994
**US exports 1994**

**Japan**

SourceOECD SourceOECD

**22>**

_Recent trends_ _in_ _EU-US trade_

The EU has lost ground as an exporter to the US in recent years. Canada's and Japan's
exports have grown much faster since 1990 which means that the EU has moved from
top position to third place among exporters to the US market. In relative terms
China/ASEAN have shown the fastest growing exports to the US with an increase in
their share of US goods markets from 8.7% in 1990 to 13% in 1993. If this trend is
maintained, this group of countries will become the third largest exporter to the US in
about three years time.

Regarding exports from the US, there is a similar decline in the relative position of the
EU the share of US exports which go to the EU has fallen from 25% in 1990 to 21%
in 1993. Canada and Latin America, on the other hand, have increased their shares of
US exports and in 1993 Canada became the largest market for US exports with 21.6%
On current trends, Latin America will also, in two years, surpass the EU as destination
for US exports.

These trade figures indicate, to some extent, a relative shift from inter-regional trade to
intra-regional trade in the case of the US. For EU trade, such a trend only exists on the
export side and it is less pronounced than for US trade.

_The bilateral trade balance_

The balance of EU-US trade does not show any significant or structural disequilibrium.
Transatlantic trade flows in goods amounted to about ECU 95 billion in each direction
in 1994. This contrasts with the pronounced structural deficit in US bilateral trade with
Japan (ECU 60 billion in 1994).

**EU-US trade**
**(b*cu)**

**1993** **1994**

**-20-1**

EU exports F I EU imports —o— Balance

Sectoral trade data show that the single most important category in EU-US trade is
"machines, electrical equipment, optical and photographic instruments" which
represented 41% of bilateral trade in 1994. The US had a considerable bilateral surplus

in this category with exports exceeding imports by 28% (ECU 9.4 billion). The US
also recorded a surplus on agricultural products with exports exceeding imports by
about 30% . The EU had surplusses on transportation equipment; textiles & footwear;

and wood, stones & base metals.

Bilateral trade by product group, 1994, billion ECU

EU trade

surplus with

US

-1.6

0.5

0.0

3.9

3.9

-9.4

5.6

-11
###### **Ï!**

EU imports
from US

6.7

2.5

12.8

3.3

9.6

43.0

9.8

5.4

93.2

Agriculture + food industry
Mineral products, oil incl.
Chemical & plastic products

Textiles, footwear & misc. manuf.

Wood, articles of stone & base metals

Mach. & electr. equip. / opt. & photo, instr.
Vehicles, aircraft & transport equipment

Others

TOTAL

EU exports to
US

5.1

3.0

12.8

7.2

13.5

33.6

15.4

4.3

95.0

###### **ISSN 0254-1475**

## **COM(95) 411 final**

# **DOCUMENTS £>**

## **EN it**

##### **Catalogue number : CB-C0-95-449-EN-C** **ISBN 92-77-92892-1**

**Office** **for** **Official Publications of** **the European** **Communities**

**L-2985** **Luxembourg**