Sample Speeches

The U.S. and Europe: Seeking Comm on Ground
After dinner remarks by David L. Aaron
Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade

European Legal Studies Center Conference
Columbia Law School, New York, New York

April 16 , 1999

Page 3


We ' ve continued our intensive discussions over the safe harbor principles,and have made good progress. I am hopeful of a resolution before the end of June that will protect both privacy and the flow of information necessary to growing commerce between our continents.

Let me just mention two more issues: bananas and beef. Both disputes involve European regulations that contravene global trade rules. The WTO has ruled against Europe several times in the banana dispute. Europe has said it ' s prepared to accept the latest ruling. Let ' s hope that ' s true.

The issue in the beef hormone case is complicated by the fact that European regulations have no scientific basis. And they ' ve been politically stampeded by the mad cow scare. They face a May 13 deadline to comply on the WTO ruling, which they say they can ' t meet. As with bananas, we ' d prefer a negotiated settlement. But we are prepared to retaliate if the EU continues its refusal to respect WTO decisions.

But negotiations when regulatory issues become crises is not the best answer. We need to work on these issues in advance.

As a vehicle for an expanded dialogue, both sides have committed to a Transatlantic Economic Partnership initiative. The TEP will help us to tackle regulatory issues in a more systematic way. First, we will review technical standards to remove barriers and avoid conflicts while protecting health and safety. And second, we will work to guarantee that regulatory processes in agriculture such as biotechnology are transparent, predictable and scientific; and improve cooperation on concerns such as food safety.

The Transatlantic Business Dialogue is another innovative channel created by the Clinton Administration for dealing with common regulatory problems. The TABD is made up of corporate heads from both sides of the Atlantic, who come together to make recommendations to senior U.S. and EU officials.

The TABD has been unusually effective. It has stimulating numerous agreements, such as the U.S.-EU Mutual Recognition Agreement, which will save U.S. companies a billion dollars a year in six sectors from telecommunications to pharmaceuticals. It has even led to business solutions to standards problems such as third-generation wireless technology.

In conclusion, let me acknowledge that we have differences with Europe , and probably always will. But the continued relationship is vital to both. It is worth a lot of effort to keep the relationship healthy. We are committed to putting in the work, and from all indications the Europeans are, as well.

A cooperative relationship between the U.S. and Europe is vital to the rest of the world. My own view is that the U.S. and the EU are best positioned to achieve harmonization between us, because we share similar levels of standards for protecting our health, consumers and the environment. And this provides opportunity for global progress.

The new Europe has a full plate of internal issues at hand, but it must keep its gaze cast outward. Together, we must do what only we two can. If the U.S. and Europe can exercise the right kind of unselfish economic leadership, we can secure a brighter economic future for the entire world.