sign in sign up
<<
Home , Angela Merkel, Volker Kauder

Translation

Transcript of speech by Federal at the "Globalization and Transatlantic Economic Partnership"

Conference of the CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group on 19 March 2007 in

Volker Kauder,

Bob Kimmitt,

Senator,

Bundestag colleagues, and

Guests (who have come here in great numbers this Monday morning, impressively so!),

The CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group – at this point, a very sincere thank you from me to – has addressed an issue which is of interest to many, not only with regard to the transatlantic economic partnership itself but also, I am sure, with regard to the question of transatlantic relations in general. And so I would like to start by making a few basic remarks about transatlantic relations.

I believe that a close partnership with the of America – and what I say also applies to Canada – is and remains inextricably linked with the success of the . History has shown us time and time again – and I think this becomes even more obvious after the enlargement of the European Union – that

European integration is always accompanied by close transatlantic relations.

If we think back, then we notice – even in the debates about the

Elysee Treaty – that, in light of the very particular relationship between - 2 - and France, the question as to whether reference should also be made to transatlantic relations played an important role even in the early 1960s. Current discussions about defence issues also show that these matters are very closely linked and belong together. Therefore, I am firmly convinced that – perhaps more so today than in the past, but indeed throughout the entire history of the Federal

Republic of Germany – attempts at unilateral action have never benefited anyone.

On the contrary, we should always remember to discuss all issues together in a spirit of trust to avoid divisions.

Ladies and gentlemen, from a German perspective, too, the transatlantic partnership has always been the mainstay of . The fact that today we are united in peace and freedom is very largely due to the fact that Germany was integrated not only into the European Union, but also into Alliance.

Without the United States of America, without the former President George Bush, sen., father of the current President, would definitely have become much more difficult. Since then, with German , with the end of the

Cold War, the world has changed.

Today we live in an era in which it can be said that no one can tackle the new challenges single-handedly – neither the European Union nor the United States of

America. The fight against terrorism, the fight against completely new threats is a fight that requires the countries which feel committed to the values of the

Western community, the values of democracy and freedom, and the dignity of individuals, to stand together in agreement.

That is why we must try, whenever we are thinking about solutions and crises, to take this common value base as a starting point for finding common solutions, to regional crises, for example. That is why we have also made great efforts to - 3 - encourage the Middle East Quartet to resume its work with a view to finding possible solutions to the problems in the Middle East. Agreement is also needed with regard to the issue of preventing nuclear armament – an issue which is currently on the agenda in association with Iran. I believe it was a good sign that we were able to adopt a further resolution in the UN Security Council a few days ago, but at the same time that we made it clear to Iran once again that the door is open for . There are no closed doors.

Of course, agreement is also needed if we are to reduce barriers in order to improve economic cooperation worldwide. We have various fora and institutions for this purpose. This year, Germany holds both the Presidency of the EU Council during the first six months and the G8 Presidency all year. This means that we will have an opportunity to discuss many related issues at the G8 Summit in

Heiligendamm with the United States of America, with Canada and, of course, also with Japan, our European partners and . And so, from a German perspective also, perhaps it is a good year for putting the issue of the transatlantic economic partnership specifically on the agenda once again.

Like everything in a changing world, our diverse relations also need to be re- examined regularly, and we must ask ourselves what is still relevant today and what has to move forward again within a particular time period. And things being the way they are, the dense global network of economic relations – has just spoken about the challenges of globalization – has given rise to protectionist tendencies not only in European countries but also in the United

States of America, and many people are simply afraid of the new situation with regard to competition, and in response to this fear they believe that everyone can just withdraw back to their own area and that would solve the problems. I am firmly convinced that this path is fundamentally wrong. There is no denying that we absolutely need a global trade agreement. And I am very grateful that the US - 4 - Government has also shown a great deal of interest here at this point. I hope we can make good use of the short time remaining to make progress here. It is mainly a question of eliminating customs duties. However, on this point, I would add that everyone has to make a move on this issue. This means, it is crucial that developing countries also demonstrate that they are interested in reaching agreement.

Emerging economies – such as and , to name but a few – will pose us with completely new challenges. After all, in the past we did not have the same competitive pressure as we do today. And if one looks only at the population trends there, if one looks at how many hundreds of thousands of engineers are trained in China every year, and at the speed at which progress is being made there, then we know that, over the coming years, these countries will no longer merely be an extended workbench but will pour onto the markets with their own research efforts and know-how, thus making competition tougher for us.

Of course, this means that we must also unite our efforts and pool our resources.

As I see it, we are also faced with common challenges, for example when it comes to protecting intellectual property. We know that the countries in Europe, and in the same way, Canada and the United States of America can only apply their knowledge and creativity to the benefit of us all if the world abides by specific rules. However, if it is considered opportune not to respect intellectual property, not to recognize patents, then, even if we apply all our own intellectual skills, we will not reap any real benefit. Therefore, it is in our common interest that specific regulations be implemented worldwide. Even in China, for example, there is growing acceptance because Chinese inventions are in turn being called into question by others which is why there is now an incentive to address this issue. - 5 - And so I am firmly convinced that the protection of intellectual property will also be an important issue at the G8 Summit in because this is an issue which we must all tackle together. Time and again, experience has shown that joint action by Europe, the United States of America and Canada – regardless of the area in question – makes much more of an impression worldwide than when each country fights its own corner and sets different priorities at different times.

There are a range of global issues with which we are deeply occupied. I will name two: energy supply and climate change. I am pleased to see that, particularly with regard to the issue of how we are responding to climate change, there is more openness in the United States of America. We have still to reach agreement on many aspects of how we should proceed. But, compared to the time when I was still Environment Minister, there is now a measure of open-mindedness here.

When I say this, I am not referring only to the Administration, but also in particular to Congress and the Senate where the attitude that this was not a special issue had become firmly established over the years.

When we talk about the independence of energy supplies or the security of energy supplies, these are things which are of particular relevance to the issue of climate change. Dear Mr Kimmitt, to be honest, I am a little envious of the United

States of America, because there it could still be so easy to save on CO2 emissions. Here in Europe, we have already done much. In the United States of

America, on the other hand, it is still comparatively easy to do something without its being felt. In this respect, it would be possible to achieve a fair amount relatively quickly.

And then, of course, we also have the issue which we have come here today to discuss – but I wanted to put it into the broader context of cooperation on security - 6 - policy, cooperation on energy, with the question of the fight against protectionism and the worldwide use of generally applicable standards. And then there is the question as to how much energy we should invest in which of these areas? How could we cooperate better when the urgency for cooperation is so clear and obvious? And here, I believe, the issue of the transatlantic economic partnership is a very important one.

Like every important issue, this is not really a new issue either. Indeed, some colleagues have been addressing it for a long time. I can see Mr Lauk, who knows a lot about it, and has done for years now; I can't see , maybe he hasn't arrived yet; I can see Matthias Wissmann, who has been drawing attention to this issue for a long time. I must admit that, when he repeatedly mentioned this issue in the mid-1990s, I couldn't really relate to what he was saying, but rather wondered what he was talking about. But some things have changed since then.

At the time, the focus was perhaps more on tariff barriers to trade. To address this, we have since developed multilateral cooperation mechanisms as part of the

Doha Round. However, other issues have become very apparent and need to be dealt with. The intention is for this to happen here today.

We know how dense trade links are, and that over 3,000 German companies have operations in the United States of America. They account for three-quarters of a million jobs there. In the same way, US companies in Germany employ over half a million people. The volume of trade is impressive: 120 billion US dollars. –

For the sake of simplicity, I am citing data on relations with the United States only, and would ask the Canadians to forgive me for not mentioning both countries each and every time. – Furthermore, eight million people travel between the

United States and Germany every year. Of course, this figure is even higher when we count trips to and from Canada – so you can see that we are talking about an impressive number of people. - 7 - In light of all this, it would surely make sense to cooperate more closely in our transatlantic economic relations, and to look at where this could happen. Yes, we do have different rules for regulation and accounting, safety standards, energy efficiency requirements and much more, but the spirit in which they were created was the same. In the European Union, the shaping of the internal market has shown us that agreeing on common standards is one of the requirements for making the internal market more efficient. This starts with very simple issues, but ones which are difficult to change, and progresses on to many detailed rules.

In the European Union, we have (and I would like to say this in all honesty to our

American friends – sometimes much to our regret, but we are learning how to deal with it) a law-making mechanism which is a type of hybrid between Anglo-

Saxon and Continental European law-making, if I may express it in those terms as a non-lawyer. For the German legal tradition is based much more strongly on a deterministic legal system whereas the Anglo-Saxon legal system focuses more on issues of liability. In the directives of the European Union, then, we find a mixture which everyone attempts to use to their advantage. And so in Germany we are not always happy about it, but we are used to thinking in these categories.

Of course, we also know from our own positive experience that the setting of norms also makes markets secure, for a while at least. Germany can look back on some wonderful achievements here. For example, the former Minister for Post and

Telecommunications, Mr Schwarz-Schilling, who at the end of the eighties, when none of us had ever seen a mobile phone, had the farsightedness to divide up frequency bands in such a way that throughout Europe and in many parts of Asia we had similar or the same frequencies, and thus mobile phones could spread much more quickly than was the case in the United States. This means that one can happily give away some of one's own standards, which, of course, not everyone does. However, from the broader political perspective, it should be our - 8 - aim. And so in Davos – Bob Kimmitt was also there –

Mandelson made what I think is a very interesting proposal at the Transatlantic

Business Round Table: namely, when he asked us, first of all, to be willing to talk together about the areas that have not yet been regulated so that we can prevent completely divergent standards from becoming established in these areas as well.

Entirely new technologies are emerging constantly. In Davos, for example, nano- technology was mentioned, an area where standardization is not yet so advanced.

Of course, we don't have to fight to the last for each and every standard. After all, it is not vitally important, as it were, that I conduct a thousand test runs for a windscreen wiper or that the wiper has to cover an angle of 175° rather than 179°, or that the crash angle for car tests must be this or that. Nor are there any major differences when it comes to licensing new medicines, because safety is a high priority both in North America and in Europe. Nevertheless, all companies have to work through completely different procedures.

And when you think about it – Elmar Brok is here now; I was just talking about you, Elmar – when you think about how product development costs, for example, for cars, represent a huge share of overall costs, just under ten percent, and that testing regulations represent a large part of this, then you know how much money is at stake. And I have not even begun talking about accounting rules and all the other kinds of rules that have been developed. If perhaps we could look at those parts which have developed differently, and recognize the manner in which the other party deals with it, this in itself would represent a major step forward. I know that the whole thing can very quickly be categorized as being "something good"; in practice, however, a lot of hard work is involved. For that reason, such a process requires many partners. It requires a willingness on the part of the private sector.

Because if the private sector does everything in its power to prevent this happening, then we politicians can at this point do what we like – we sometimes - 9 - joke that we can do headstands if we like – and it will be prevented from happening all the same because all private-sector representatives have many friends in the various parliaments, which means that they can try to block everything at all levels. In other words, goodwill is required from large groups on both sides.

But, from many talks with private-sector representatives, I also know that there is now an awareness of how much material outlay, how much money it costs overall to have different approaches. And because everyone nowadays has to do the calculations and weigh up whether they want to invest their money in research or in additional procedures on the other continent, whether they want to put their money into the common fight to protect intellectual property or into things which are not all that different from each other, I think that there is now a tendency in the private sector to say: "Let us cooperate more closely here; overall, it will be good for us." I can see quite a group of critical people today who are willing to go down such a path. Of course, we know that this is not possible without the parliaments. For it is in the parliaments that the laws are made. But here, too, I see promising signs which have to be strengthened. That is also why I am so thankful that today's meeting has been a parliamentary initiative.

Many, not only in the German Bundestag but also in the European Parliament, are supporters of this path. After all, the European Parliament approved 650,000 for a study on reducing transatlantic trade barriers. And it is my sincere wish that we should look at this study in close cooperation with the Transatlantic Business

Dialogue; for if we do not, we will once again be doing the same work twice.

I also know, and would like to express my gratitude for this, that the Federation of

German Industries (BDI), like various chambers of commerce, is particularly - 10 - committed to transatlantic relations. A sincere thank you for that. I also know that a resolution was passed in the Senate, but that it now seems to be subject to the discontinuity process. Nevertheless, the knowledge which has been acquired will not be forgotten. In other words, a start is being made here. And, I believe, together with the American parliamentarians we want to foster this start. In any case, we should all push this issue again in our encounters with others. I am very grateful to the US of the Treasury and also, of course, to his Deputy,

Bob Kimmitt, among others, for playing a very special part in this in the run-up to the EU-USA Summit, which will take place on 30 April. The has now also once again become particularly involved. European Commissioner

Verheugen has been addressing this issue for a long time but I think that because

Commission President José Barroso is now also addressing it, the entire process has once again gained momentum. And that is a good thing. That is why such a wide range of preparatory work is going on in this area.

I believe that we have to achieve two things. First, we must take a few concrete examples to show that we really want to make a difference, and that people realize that this is our aim. There must be a situation where one sector is envious of the other because things have been happening in one sector, but not yet in the other. And, on the other hand, the issue in itself is a new one on the agenda of possible transatlantic cooperation measures. And to me that means we've come full circle, when we think about where we used to cooperate.

There has always been an economic relationship, there has always been the protection afforded to Germany by the United States and NATO, there has been the presence of troops who have served in Germany. This has given rise to a dense cultural network between Germany, Canada and the United States – from learning the language of the other right through to personal friendships. This has had many positive effects, some far into the interior of the American continent. – - 11 - We know how big America is; we mostly come to the east coast, a little to the west coast; but we are not fully aware of the different mentalities and cultures.

After the end of the Cold War, we came to realize that our military cooperation was still urgently required. The Europeans had the experience of not being able to cope with the conflicts in the Balkans on their own. Without NATO, we would not have the situation that we have today. And we have cooperated in many joint activities, particularly after 11 September 2001, in the fight against terror.

However, the withdrawal of many American troops after the end of the Cold War also took something away from the breadth of our relations. Therefore, I believe it is very important that, as we face the issue of how we can tackle the challenges of globalization, we can once again find an issue which unites us and say: "Yes, we who have a common value base, who are united by a common understanding of humanity, freedom and democracy are also capable of providing similar answers to the challenges of globalization". And that is why this issue, besides the economic benefits, besides the many details which still have to be cleared up, also has for me an overall dimension which I think should not be underestimated, which is very important to me personally at least. And therefore I am pleased that the many who have flocked here today – if I may put it that way – to this conference have thus shown that the issue is important to them.

Once again, I would like to sincerely thank our colleagues in the German

Bundestag for taking up this issue. For this is an issue which has to be brought home to many – small and medium-sized enterprises, the chambers of industry and commerce, all those who have international operations. And that is why I sincerely wish this conference every success, and would once again like to thank

Bob Kimmitt for travelling so far to be here. I know that he can't complain about not having enough trips in his schedule. The fact that he has come specially to - 12 - this conference is a sign that our American friends also set great store by this issue. And kind regards to the Treasury Secretary!