EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DELEGATION FOR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES Report on the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue 63rd EP/US Congress Interparliamentary Meeting 3-8 October 2007 Washington, D.C. and Nevada The regular parliamentary exchange with the House of Representatives (TLD: 5-8 October) was preceded, on 3-5 October, by a series of meetings in Washington, DC. The EP Delegation was received on Capitol Hill by House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi; it was received in the Senate by Majority leader Harry Reid and officially welcomed on the Senate floor. Contacts with the Administration took place at Cabinet level, with Secretary for Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and US Trade Representative Susan Schwab. The US State Department also organized a briefing with responsible officials in the key areas of the Delegation's interest, and contacts with the Department of Defence also took place. In preparation for the TEC (Transatlantic Economic Council) meeting of 8-9 November 2007, an exchange of views took place on 5 October between the three Transatlantic Dialogues instituted under the New Transatlantic Agenda (i.e. the Legislators', Business and Consumers' Dialogues) as well as with other economic and business organizations. On 5 October, the Bureau of the Delegation discussed TEC during a working breakfast. attended by journalists from the European economic and financial press. The 63rd European Parliament/US Congress Interparliamentary meeting and Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue (TLD) took place in Las Vegas, Nevada on 5-8 October, with a Delegation of 9 Members of the House of Representatives led by Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D- Nevada), and included five working sessions. The Delegations visited Nellis Air Force base, and heard also a presentation by the US Department of Energy on the Yukka mountain nuclear waste project. * * * CR/695443EN.doc 1 PE 397.114v01-00 The Commission greatly assisted the Delegation by providing extensive briefings in oral and written form, and by making material arrangements. On 4 October, Ambassador John Bruton hosted a reception in its honour; he subsequently accompanied the Delegation for the whole duration of its mission Ambassador of Portugal Joao de Vallera, on behalf of the EU Council Presidency, also briefed the Delegation on 4 October. * * * During the TLD meeting, the demise of former TLD Chair, Representative Jo-Ann Davis, was announced. A eulogy was pronounced. Ms Davis was fondly remembered by those who had known her. * * * MEETING WITH SECRETARY MICHAEL CHERTOFF - 4 OCTOBER, 14.30-15.15 Secretary Chertoff focused, in his introductory remarks, on the provisions (contained in the SAFE Ports Act) for 100% scan of goods. He indicated that, while 100% radiation scanning was operated at the US port of entry, he considered it "unreasonable" to impose this requirement overseas. However, he had not been "persuasive enough" with Congress. It was necessary, therefore, to study adverse impact on trade, extend deadlines, negotiate agreements with the exporting Countries. Following questions from European Parliament Members, Secretary Chertoff indicated that the US would of course have to accept reciprocity on this issue, and that the necessary technologies were available (the US would, in fact, pay for the necessary equipments). The main constraints were of architectural nature (space availability), but issues of competition between ports were also important. With regard to visa waiver legislation,, he reminded that the key criterion was the 3% visa refusal rate. The Administration had sought to make this a "flexible rate" and to treat all EU Member States in an equal manner. This issue was now in the hands of Congress. Secretary Chertoff also answered questions about - Data Protection (PNR, SWIFT) and the need to find convergence on "basic principles", also in view of review procedures and the conclusion of final agreements, - the level of controls on private aircraft (including CIA rendition flights), - the nature of imminent security threats in both the US and Europe : he identified "local plots by small groups of home-grown terrorists" as the most dangerous threat, and as the major challenge for internal security forces, - effectiveness depended on adequate technology and "critical infrastructure"; at the same time, democratic accountability was of importance. The Chairman, Mr Jonathan Evans thanked Secretary Chertoff and stressed the importance of continuing the close relationship established between the Secretary and the European Parliament. CR/695443EN.doc 2 PE 397.114v01-00 MEETING WITH US TRADE REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN SCHWAB - 4 OCTOBER, 16.00-17.00 Secretary Schwab introduced the discussion by praising the EU's Visitor Programme, who had afforded her, in the course of her visit years ago, the first close insight in the working of the European Union. She stressed that the US was fully aware of the need of fighting protectionist tendencies, of keeping open markets and open trade: this effort, in her view, amounted to a "positive sum game". The Transatlantic relationship was a key element of the "network of historic relationships" maintained by the US in the economic area. She then focussed on two issues: - the TEC exercise The Transatlantic Economic Council was an exercise with a dual objective: "problem solving" and "relationship building ". It had identified priority "lighthouse projects", and strived to deal in an organized way with the "patchwork of trade barriers" present in Transatlantic exchanges. Among the elements to take into consideration were: IP rights protection, and possible joint US/EU strategies towards third countries, regulatory cooperation, and relations between Administrations and independent bodies and agencies, specific "systemic" trade restrictions, such as the phytosanitary obstacles maintained by the EU on US beef, poultry, pork exports, - the situation of the Doha Round The USTR considered that the main question, for the US and the EU, was:"how do we get advanced developed countries on board?" India and Brazil were "supposedly" representing developing countries, but they clearly were uncomfortable with certain liberalizing measures and should contribute more. It was important to clinch the deal "within 6 months", or the loss of momentum would prove crucial. Ms Schwab then answered questions by the European Parliament Delegation. She stressed that: -in the context of the Doha Round, the US had made many unilateral concessions which had not served any purpose, and had not solved the logjams. This was clearly not the right procedure, -there was no single "dealmaker issue" which could "clinch the deal", -European countries heavily involved in agriculture should also "look to the future" and to structural economic modifications already underway. CR/695443EN.doc 3 PE 397.114v01-00 The formal TLD sessions were co-chaired by Mr. Jonathan EVANS, MEP, Chairman of the EP Delegation, and by Ms Shelley BERKLEY, Chair of the US TLD Delegation. 1ST SESSION – SATURDAY, 6 OCTOBER - 9.00-11.00 Middle East The discussion was introduced by Mr Dennis Ross, from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In his presentation, Mr Ross stressed the following issues: - with regard to relations with Iran, he considered that the EU and the US "should not send a negative message only". The nuclear dossier was "casting a shadow over the whole region", and was used by the Iranian regime in order to exert pressure on all governments. Basically, the whole Iranian elite shared the objective of obtaining nuclear capabilities, "but not all at the same price". The US didn't want a nuclear Iran, which could spell the end of the NPT and set the stage for a "nuclear Middle East". Iran was enjoying a "monumental windfall" from the Iraq crisis and rising oil prices: the appropriate strategy was to squeeze Iran economically; and "cut the economic lifeline". A third resolution in the Security Council would be necessary to this effect. Iran's political strategy in the Middle East was to avoid any agreement between Israel and Palestine leading to a two-state solution; to this effect, it could use both Hezbollah and Hamas. - with regard to the Middle East Peace Process, important progress had been achieved in 2000, but perspectives for the new peace Conference were not positive. It was important to institute a "credible political process", but without raising high expectations. It should be clear that, as a strategy, "unilateralism was over": unilateral withdrawals by Israel, just like release of prisoners "in lump numbers", did not achieve positive results. "Milestones for performance" should be set, as well as "an ongoing process" for monitoring developments. In the following discussion, the European side considered that "no one had the key for these problems"; it was not sure that tougher sanctions would really hurt Iran, but it was positive that Russia had contributed to the adoption of two UN resolutions. Compliance with the sanctions regime by companies (whether European or American) was problematic, and the sanctions foreseen by the "Lantos bill" left many doubts as to their effectiveness. Europe had also to take into account its public opinion; a new, tougher resolution in the UN was not possible until new developments had taken place in public opinion. The US side considered that, with regard to the Middle East, many opportunities had been missed in recent years, and if no initiatives were taken, the West Bank would "go the way Gaza did". Syria was in the process of acquiring arms on a massive scale, and "Turkey was an important lever on Syria". In this framework, the effects of the House bill on the Armenian genocide should also be taken into account. With regard to Iran, if bombing was not an option, then "something else has to work". There was, in the US, the perception that the EU did not share in the opinion that Iran presented an extreme danger. Economic pressure could lead to results, since "all surveys showed that the majority of Iranians don't support the regime".