U.S.-European Union Summit Scenesetter

Real Audio of Briefing 

Copyright (c)2002 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045, USA.   For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202) 824-0520.

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: This is intended to provide a brief overview of the summit and what it's about. You should know that this is the second official summit of the Bush administration with the European Union. The last one was in June of last year in Sweden. The agenda of this as well as last year's meeting reflects the fact that the E.U. has evolved into an entity that is now a(n) economic and monetary union and is working towards a common security and political strategy.

       Counterterrorism is our top priority at this particular meeting. Since September 11 the cooperation between Europe and the United States on counterterrorism has been extremely close, and that includes in areas like law enforcement and cutting off the flow of financing to terrorists and terrorist organizations.

       Regional, political and security issues are our second major focus of attention. And there there's been very, very deep, ongoing cooperation on issues such as the Middle East, the Balkans and Afghanistan.

       On the Middle East, I'd just mention quickly that the EU is part of a group called the Quartet now that includes the United States, Russia and the secretary-general of the United Nations. So they were very supportive of Secretary Powell's recent mission to the Middle East.

       Trade, of course, will be discussed, and we will get into that more during the discussion period. It's worth highlighting at the beginning that it's a very big trade relationship and investment relationship, some $540 billion in two-way trade and some $1.3 trillion in two-way investment. Nevertheless, there's obviously a number of issues and differences at any point in time, and we'll certainly be talking about those during the summit.

       The last topic that I'm sure will be discussed is the way in which our economic interests, our global responsibilities and our fundamental values impel both the EU and the United States to take an interest in the difficulties of developing countries. And we have been working on that both in the trade area, Doha, but also Monterrey, at the U.N. Conference on the Financing for Development, where both the European Union and the United States made major new commitments to the development process. And I think we will undoubtedly talk about how we can carry out that cooperation on development issues into upcoming meetings, like the Rome food summit and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg later this year.

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Do you want to add anything at this point, or should we go to questions?

       (Off-mike comments among administration officials.)

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I could run through the format.

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: The agenda? Okay, we'll do that, then.

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.)

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yeah. There will be three substantive sessions on Thursday, followed by a press availability and a brief session -- more of a photo op -- with the two private-sector transatlantic dialogues.

       The substantive sessions will be, as I said, three: a short, restricted session with the heads only -- for the EU, President Aznar and Prodi -- then a plenary session, approximately one hour; and a one-hour lunch. And these will -- that will be a working lunch, so that meeting will continue, the discussions will continue over lunch. And it's got agenda items: counterterrorism and regional security for the plenary session, economics and trade for the lunch. And of course, that's -- as all agenda items, although it's written down, it's also subject to last-minute change. We'll see what happens.

       MODERATOR: Thank you. We're ready for questions. (Prolonged pause.)

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: (Off mike.)

       MODERATOR: Unusually reserved. (Laughter.)

       Okay. Yes? As always, please identify yourself and wait for the microphone.

       Q (Name inaudible) -- Turkey's Anatolia News Agency. Turkish leaders have asked a certain date for beginning membership negotiations with the EU. Turkey's economy minister, Kemal Dervis, said that it would have a tremendous effect on Turkey's ailing economy.

       Do you agree with this, and do you support this position?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: We have been very supportive of the strong and growing relationship, economic and otherwise, between Turkey and the European Union. We've welcomed -- worked hard to encourage the customs union that's now in place. And we know that there have been discussions between Turkey and the European Union on the accession process. This is fundamentally an issue between Turkey and the European Union, of course. But we certainly see the value of strengthening the links between Turkey as a European nation and a nation that's increasingly playing a strong role, not only on economic issues, but in areas like Afghanistan, where they will be assuming responsibility for the International Security Assistance Force -- the leadership of it. They won't, you know -- .

       MODERATOR: Michael.

       Q Michael Backfisch (sp), Handelsblatt. There has been some mixed signals on the steel tariffs question. Some people speak of retaliation on the part of the United States, other people speak of compensation; at least they don't exclude it. Could you give us some clue about the pre-summit mood?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, certainly, on the part of the United States -- well, let me just put it in the broader context. And **** referred to that, that our trade and investment relationship between the United States and the European Union is extremely broad. And we both have -- we both recognize that we have leadership responsibilities through the global trading system as well as the responsibility to manage this enormous bilateral trade relationship responsibly, because it obviously has an important impact on our -- on both of our economies and on the health of the world economy. So our approach to any specific bilateral issue has to be looked at in those terms. And certainly we are cognizant of that broader responsibility as we approach any bilateral issue such as the steel issue.

       So from the standpoint of the United States, it's extremely important that we work out our differences within the procedures and the obligations of the WTO. And so that will certainly be our orientation in the discussion on steel during the summit and in the various meetings associated with the summit.

       MODERATOR: Mark.

       Q Mark Shavon (sp), NRC Handelsblad, the Netherlands. I have a follow-up question on that, and a more general question.

       The follow-up question is, since the steel tariff decision has been taken, the war of words has sort of increased. I wonder how you -- whether you could say a little bit more about the peace process. (Laughter.) I mean, we all know what the next step can sound like, but what do you actually hope to achieve?

       And my more general question, am I right in assuming that this U.S.-EU tradition is seen as a somewhat strange bird? I mean, is it really necessary? Can't you meet everybody all the time?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: On the first question about the "peace process" -- well, the peace process seems to us, in any sort of dispute about a contract between two parties and the interpretation of that contract and whether one party is complying with the contract or not, is to have a third-party process that both parties accept as the way to provide the definitive interpretation of what the contract says and what the parties' obligations are under the contract. And that has to do with whether, you know, the European Union feels that we acted outside the boundaries of the safeguard agreement or whether they feel that they are entitled to take certain steps at a certain stage.

       Our fundamental point is that there are processes within the WTO to determine whether a country has complied with obligations, and no other party has the right unilaterally to make a definitive judgment on the other party's compliance. And so that, we believe, is the framework for the -- as you referred to as the peace process.

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I could maybe take a crack at your second question. To be sure, we talk with the European Union as well as European Union member states at all levels very, very intensively and as part of this very strong partnership that Europe and the United States have. At the same time, there are many things that within Europe are handled out of or coordinated in Brussels, and it's very valuable for us, at least once a year, to be able to have the opportunity to sit down and take stock. And I'll just give you two examples.

       I mentioned fighting terrorism as the number one priority for the United States at this moment. Within Europe, the task of working on the -- cutting off the flow of financing to terrorists is something that has increasingly been done in Brussels. And late last year, the European Union, as the European Union, made some welcome designations of terrorist organizations and terrorist individuals, and that was done at community level, and we found it very useful that the EU as such was taking action on this, and we responded very, very quickly to add the organizations that the EU had identified to our list of terrorist organizations whose assets we would freeze. And then, once we had had a chance to examine the individuals that the Europeans had put on their list, we did the same.

       A second example might be Afghanistan. Here, as it became clear last year that political events in Afghanistan were moving very, very quickly and that we needed to be able to talk about the reconstruction effort, this is something that the EU, as an entity, decided to take on. And so when it was necessary to organize the international community to support Afghan reconstruction, the United States, Japan and the EU started a process of organizing donor meetings. And at the culmination of that process in Tokyo, the EU, as the EU, made a very, very substantial commitment of resources to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, as did the United States. So this was cooperation that took place at that level. And that's another reason why having these meetings between the leadership of the EU, the presidency and president of the commission, as well as the president of the United States, you know, has been very, very useful in helping each of us carry out our responsibilities in the world.

       MODERATOR: Next up here.

       Q (Name and affiliation inaudible) -- Amsterdam. I'd like to take you back to steel. How far are you on talks about exemption for European industries? Do you expect anything to come out of this summit or perhaps the talks between Zoellick and Lamy?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: On exemptions, on exclusions? I think you're aware that there is a well-defined, very transparent process for dealing with the very many exclusion requests that are being made. We have gotten past the first stage, which is for those companies that are desirous of exclusions -- and these can be -- you know, they can be American companies asking because they need these supplies, they can be foreign companies.

       They have all registered their interests and provided the basic information on what product it is they're seeking the exclusion and so forth. There now is a process, a period in which there's public comment -- I think it's until the 13th of May -- for those others to comment on the requests. And presumably there will be some who will oppose those requests. And then there will be a process of decision making.

       Now, even as we are beginning to analyze the many requests that have come in, and we want to do this is a way that is responsible -- that is to say, that on the one hand it does not undermine the measures that the president has taken, on the other hand that it responds to legitimate concerns. They can be problems of short supply or very specialized products that are really not available in the United States in adequate amounts. And so that process is going on. I wouldn't want to speculate on any specific announcements in the immediate term. What I can say is that we are taking this very seriously, and that obviously there are many companies in Europe that have interests in these exclusions. And we have been very open in working with them to understand as clearly as possible what their interests and needs are. And we will continue to operate in that way.

       MODERATOR: In the middle here.

       Q Edward Aldin (sp) from the Financial Times. We haven't heard an awful lot from the president directly about the state of U.S.-European relations. Is he concerned at all by the apparent deterioration in relations? Does he want to take active steps to try to improve the climate of relations between the two?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, the president will be going to Europe next month for his third trip. And we're very much looking forward to that. I wouldn't -- I don't necessarily accept the premise of the question, which is -- and I'd put it another way: of course we look to Europe as a country with which we have staggering economic interests -- I think there are $1.9 trillion of two-way trade and investment -- a community of strategic interests. The premier security organization of the United States is NATO, which is not, obviously, with the E.U., but it is with Europe.

       It is something of a cottage industry to write about splits between the United States and Europe, and it has been that way for 40 years, (getting ?) on 50 years. Last year the questions would not have been about fuel, they would have been about climate change. And we're in a much -- next year they will likely be about something else. I don't mean to suggest that steel is not a major issue, that climate issue was not a major issue. But all things in perspective, which is part of an answer, and the other part is of course we were --

       The president is in personal contact with key European leaders all the time. This was certainly true -- it was true before September 11th, and it is true manyfold more after September 11th. And so the -- from where I sit, the question is -- I would put it another way. We look at this summit as part of building, of maintaining and developing our relationship with Europe, looking into the 21st century. And there will always be issues on which we differ. I look upon these as quarrels in the family. And there are huge issues on which we and the Europeans and the European Union have a responsibility to act together, and we are meeting that responsibility: in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in the war on terrorism.

       MODERATOR: Thanks.

       Here in the middle.

       Q Hi. It's about steel again, I'm afraid.

       MODERATOR: If you could say your news organization.

       Q Oh, I'm sorry. Doug Palmer with Reuters News Service. Just -- actually, on the subject of compensation and retaliation, I'm just a little confused about where the U.S. stands on the topic of compensation. Is there any likelihood that the U.S. will provide some compensation to the EU and other trading partners, you know, without being required to do that by a WTO panel, you know, meaning here in the immediate future?

       And then, on the issue of retaliation, the U.S. seems to be saying that it has the right to retaliate against the EU because of the provisional safeguards that they've imposed, but is arguing that the EU doesn't have the right to retaliate against the United States for the safeguard actions that it's taken. It seems like that's a distinction that would be lost on most people. But if you could address that issue; does the U.S. really feel as though it has the right to retaliate, and is there any serious consideration of compensation as a way of resolving the dispute?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: As you know, Doug, the safeguards agreement in the WTO does have a provision that requires a party taking a safeguard action to consult with other interested parties. And among the things that it consults on is the possibility of rebalancing, which I think is what you have in mind when you refer to "compensation." And that means whether there would be adjustments in other tariffs, probably in other products, to maintain the balance of -- overall balance of concessions that have been provided in previous agreements.

       The WTO is not -- did not mandate this rebalancing, and in fact, in the -- all of the other safeguard measures, definitive safeguard measures that have been taken in the history of the WTO, you include our steel ones, there are 32, no country has actually concluded a rebalancing agreement.

       With respect to retaliation, our fundamental position is, if there is a disagreement about our compliance with the WTO under the safeguard action that we took, or the EU's compliance with the WTO under the safeguard action that it is taking, the proper recourse for the other party is to go through dispute settlement.

       That is certainly the first inclination on the part of the United States, and we hope that that will be the first inclination on the part of the European Union.

       MODERATOR: We've got time for two or three more.

       Did you want to add something? Okay. Then next up here.

       Q Charles Groenhuijsen with Dutch Public TV. A clarification, please. You mentioned the fact that you're going through these requests for -- about steel until the 13th of May, right?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: For the product exclusions?

       Q Yeah. And then you mentioned the fact that others can comment after that. Does it mean --

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: No, no. Actually, the first period has already passed -- I think it was the 26th of April -- where anybody who had an interest, who previously had indicated an interest in a product exclusion had to restate that and provide certain basic information so that the Commerce Department could sort out the merits of the case. As you know, in all of our procedures, anything we do, we allow the opportunity for others who have another point of view to comment. And that's what will happen now, between now and May 13th, that those who disagree with such requests or exclusions have the opportunity to make their case. All right? Now, we are starting to process the information that we've received from the requests, but in fairness, we obviously have to take into account any other points of view. So that's the sequence of steps that is involved here.

       Q But these requests are not public.

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yeah, they are. They're all up on the website. You can access them yourself and spend days -- (laughter) -- searching through them. And the rebuttals will also be put up on the website. So it's a totally transparent process.

       MODERATOR: Let's see, we've got a question in the back.

       Q Thank you. Hello. This is -- (name inaudible) -- from Turkish Star TV. I have a specific -- I'm sorry I'm late, maybe you said it earlier, and please do excuse me if this is a repetition. But the Turkish government stresses that it is very important for the European Union to give a date for the membership negotiations to start. And I wonder, in, you know, during the summit between the United States and the European Union, whether you're going to share the same vision and do raise the issue, you know, on these meetings.

       Thank you.

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: We did actually take up a very similar question at the very first one. And I think what I'd suggest is that you get the transcript on that question and answer.

       This is an issue that we talk with our European friends about a lot, the whole issue of the accession process, but it is not something that is specifically on the agenda. But for the substance, I just encourage you to go back to the first Q&A.

       MODERATOR: Okay. I think we'll take one final question from Michael. This will be the last one.

       Q Michael Baxter (sp), Channel (Split ?). Foreign Sales Corporations are also on the trade agenda. The WTO has already decided on that in principle; now the only thing which is open are the figures. Are there any signals of compromise on the part of the United States? Is there something like a road map you can offer to the European Union?

       SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Obviously, the FSC discussion will be one of the subjects discussed. We, of course, will comply with our WTO obligations. I think that one of the things that will be discussed is how we do that within our constitutional system and the division of powers that we have. Obviously, any legislation involves the Congress; the Congress is the one that legislates. And I think that there will be a very good discussion of how we would approach that issue when the summit occurs.

       MODERATOR: Thank you all very much. A reminder, this was a background briefing, so any attribution should be to "senior administration officials."

Copyright (c)2002 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202)824-0520.