|
RICHARD MORNINGSTAR We have a strong relationship. We are now so integrated economically that our economies literally can't function if we don't work together. We are dependent upon each others growth. While we may be competitors in individual instances, it is in our mutual best interests that both of our economies thrive. On a macro-scale, as Alan GREENSPAN pointed out, we are partners, not competitors. We are also working well together politically, both with the new Commission and the new Parliament. We have achieved much success in our cooperative security efforts, especially in important areas such as Southeast Europe. But, the relationship is changing. The Cold War no longer binds us together in a common cause. Europe is no longer as dependent upon the US nuclear umbrella. Europe has accomplished significant integration over the past decade. It is becoming stronger and more unified, politically and economically. This is reflected in several ways. The European Defense process reflects Europe's new found independence and confidence. The introduction of a European Currency, the Euro, also reflects increased European self confidence. Another very important factor is the strengthening of The European Parliament. It is now co-equal to the council in much of EU decision making. This means that European public opinion will play a major role in crafting EU laws. The enlargement process is another crucial factor in the evolving EU identity. You know the US tends to see enlargement from a strategic perspective, whereas for Europe, it is much more. A fundamental dialogue is taking place on what it means to be European. Although we clearly have strategic interests, we have to remember that enlargement is a European issue. Because of these changes, Europe expects, and must be treated as an equal partner. America and Europe must engage as equal partners in a constructive dialogue. Issues As you know, there is a growing list of issues that we are working on. I want to mention a few of these briefly, and then look at how they fit into the public perceptions, and misperceptions of our relationship. Biotechnology is an extremely important issue. There are strong political pressures in Europe and we have to recognize this. We simply ask that the debate focus on the scientific evidence of risks and benefits. The European Statement on the Precautionary Principle is due soon. All indications are that it will be transparent, objective and will help to build public confidence. The real question is whether there will exist sufficient political flexibility, and political will, to implement it in an objective manner. We also welcome the Commission White Paper on Food Safety. However the EU decides to handle food safety, and this is a European issue, we hope the new systems are transparent and objective and that they lead to enhanced consumer confidence. The WTO Seattle shows what happens when US and EU don't agree. Demonstrators did not cause the failure of Seattle. If there had not been one demonstrator in Seattle. I believe the conference would have failed. Political pressures did not cause Seattle to fail. All countries had political pressures. Nobody can say that European Agriculture was not a political issue. Political issues cannot be ignored because they represent real, substantive issues that must be resolved. The civil society issues Mel READ mentioned are also important and must be addressed. I submit that the Geneva process was flawed. The parties went to Seattle with little agreement. Negotiators cannot refuse to show their hand until the last night of the conference. In today's world it is impossible. US and EU agreement on agenda is necessary for a new round, but even that won't be enough. We must agree on an agenda, and we must do our homework in advance with the developing countries and the less developed countries. But both of us must really want to start a new round. I think we do. It will take political leadership to do it. The European Security and Defense policy is another issue that has been in the headlines lately. We strongly support a European defense system that strengthens the NATO alliance. But there are important questions about establishing formal links between the EU structure and NATO. There are also concerns about how to include the non-EU NATO allies in the process. And of course there is a more practical question: Can the EU adequately fund and implement this initiative? Can they make it work? Is there the will to do it when the budget crunch comes? These are not simple issues. They will take time to sort out. We need to be patient. Perceptions Lets take a few minutes and think about the ways these issues reflect some of the public perceptions and misperceptions that often characterize our relationship. Biotechnology is a good one to start with. A fundamental premise of the current public biotech and food safety debate in Europe is that America does not use precaution; that it does not take health and safety issues as seriously as the EU. Conversely, some in the US erroneously perceive that European concerns about Biotech are merely disguised protectionism. Of course these perceptions are not accurate, and yet they continue to shape European and American public opinion when dealing with issues such as GMO's. For the record, the US has always used a high degree of precaution in all areas of health and safety. That is why our regulatory agencies enjoy so much public confidence. Some of these perceived differences merely reflect unique societal preferences. There are numerous examples that show that neither of us has cornered the market on rationality or precaution in the way we live our lives. For example, in America we are obsessed about the health risks of smoking, but we continue to be some of the most overweight people in the world. In Europe, people worry about alleged risks of GM foods but continue to smoke cigarettes by the pack. These aren't fundamental differences in values, just normal differences in attitudes and behaviours. The Biosafety Protocol, which is being negotiated this week; highlights differing perceptions of the weight our societies attach to environmental issues. America is portrayed as unconcerned about the environment and only focused on the costs to business. Again, the truth is that America spends an incredible amount of resources on protecting and cleaning our environment. A recent example being President Clintons's proposal to declare millions of acres of land as wilderness areas, forever protected from commercial development. And Europeans would be surprised to learn about the costly environmental protection measures that American firms undertake voluntarily every day. I can personally testify to that. It is costly, and it is worth it. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of different priorities. Why, some would ask in the US, has the EU only recently begun to curb the use of leaded gasoline, something the US began about 30 years ago. The Data Privacy issue is a good example of a difference in approach that is perceived as a difference in values. The EU believes that regulation of the industry will provide the best means of consumer protection. We believe that the industry, in conjunction with existing consumer protection laws, will provide the best results. Same objective, different approach. We have made a lot of progress and we need to move ahead and reach an agreement in the near future. The Data Privacy and Biotech issues reflect a simple truth; that technology moves faster than governments. Governments everywhere are trying to keep up with the technological revolution sweeping the globe. And if that wasn't difficult enough, free trade requires that the regulators not only keep up, but at the same time make their systems compatible with other systems. It's not easy. Some of these issues also reflect a growing trend to associate "globalization" with Americanization. Most countries, including EU countries, react negatively to the supposed global hegemony of American power and culture. What is not realized is how much globalization has affected Americans. Who do you think was in the streets of Seattle? It was Americans. We are going through our own transition towards globalization and multilateralism since the end of the cold war. It is a complex process. European Security and Defense Policy also reflects differences in perceptions. Congress' refusal to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty gives rise to uncertainty in Europe as to our commitment to the transatlantic security relationship. Some in the U.S. see Europe's efforts to create a distinct EU military capability in the same light. Both perceptions are wrong. But in fact, taking more of the defense burden is something American has been wanting Europe to do for years. Both sides need to understand that the objectives are the same, and work together to build a stronger and more capable NATO. Conclusion What can we conclude? I hope we can conclude that we are not so different. That our differences are largely a matter of perception and that they are manageable. That globalization does not have to mean the end of national identity. That we share many important goals and we must work together to achieve them. But we must never assume the inevitability of an ever-closer relationship. We must take the time to understand the other's concerns and to carefully explain our own positions. We must be aware of the differences in approach, but focus on the shared objectives. If Businesses and Governments can do this, I am confident that this relationship can grow stronger and stronger. RICHARD MORNINGSTAR: "GLOBALLEŞME, ULUSAL KİMLİKLERİN YİTİRİLMESİ DEMEK DEĞİLDİR" ABD-AB Arası Sıkı İlişkiler Bizler rakip değil ortak konumundayız. Ekonomilerimizin gelişmesi, birlikte çalışmamıza bağlı. Siyasi anlamda da birbirimizi iyi anlıyor ve ortak güvenlik çalışmalarını başarıyla yürütüyoruz. İlişkilerimizde Yaşanan Değişiklik Bizi birleştiren şey Soğuk Savaş değil. Avrupa, ABD'nin nükleer gücüne bağımlı olmaktan çıktı. Kendi içinde bütünlüğünü sağladı. Bu bütünlüğün göstergeleri arasında Avrupa savunma süreci, Euro'nun hayata geçmesi ve diğer kurumsal değişiklikler bulunmaktadır. Görüşülen Konular Biyoteknoloji son derece önemli bir mesele. Bu konuda Avrupa'da güçlü siyasi baskı mevcut. Bizce bu mesele bilimsel boyutuyla ele alınmalı. Yakında ortaya çıkacak olan Avrupa İhtiyat İlkeleri Bildirgesi de büyük önem taşımaktadır. Ayrıca Gıda Güvenliği Hakkındaki Beyaz Kitap da bizim için çok önemli. WTO - Dünya Ticaret Örgütü Seattle'da yaşanan olaylar, ABD ve AB işbirliğinin son derece gerekli ve önemli olduğunu göstermiştir. Buradaki başarısızlıkların sebebi göstericiler ya da siyasi baskılar değildir. Avrupa Güvenlik ve Savunma kimliği de son zamanlarda üzerinde durulan konulardan biridir. NATO'yu daha güçlü kılacak çabaların destekçisiyiz. Bu konuda, NATO ve AB arası ilişkiler konusunda, gerekli çalışmalar yapılmalıdır. AB üyesi olmayan NATO müttefiklerinin, bu sürece nasıl dahil edilecekleri konusunda da sorular bulunmaktadır. Kamuoyunun ABD-AB İlişkilerine Bakışı ABD ve AB içindeki biyoteknoloji konusunda yanlış anlaşılmış konular mevcuttur. Taraflar birbirlerinin sağlık ve güvenlik konularında gerektiği kadar ihtiyatlı davranmadıklarını düşünmektedirler. Olaylara bakıştaki bu farklılıklar, toplumların beklentilerini yansıtmaktadır. Örneğin ABD'de sigaranın sağlığa verdiği zarar sürekli gündemde olmasına rağmen, şişmanlık sorunu yaşayan insan sayısının en fazla olduğu ülkelerden biri ABD'dir. Görüşülmekte olan Biyogüvenlik Protokolü, toplumlarımızın çevreyle ilgili konulara ne derece önem verdiğini göstermektedir. ABD, çevreyle değil yalnızca ticari faaliyetlerin maliyetleriyle ilgileniyormuş gibi gösterilmektedir. Ancak Amerika, çevrenin temiz tutulması ve korunması için çok fazla harcama yapmaktadır. Bazen önceliklerimiz farklı olabilir. Örneğin, 'Avrupa kurşunsuz benzin kullanmaya neden daha şimdilerde başladı' sorusunu soranlar olabilir Amerika'da. Değer yargılarındaki farklılığa örnek olarak, Verilerin Gizliliği meselesinin gösterebiliriz. AB içindeki düşünce, tüketiciyi koruyacak en iyi şeyin sanayinin düzenlenmesi olduğu yönündeyken, ABD'de tüketiciyi koruma kanunlarıyla birlikte, bu işi en iyi sanayinin kendisinin yapacağı düşünülmektedir. Amaç aynı ancak, yöntem farklıdır. Bu mesele ve biyoteknoloji meselesi gösteriyor ki, teknoloji hükümetlerden daha hızlı ilerlemektedir. Bu da teknolojik devrime ayak uydurmanın kolay olmadığını göstermektedir. Globalleşmenin Amerikanlaşma olduğu şeklinde düşünceler vardır. AB ülkeleri de dahil olmak üzere birçok ülke Amerikan kültürüne karşı olumsuz bir tavır içindedir. Ancak kimse globalleşmenin Amerikalıları ne denli etkilediğinin farkında değildir. Seattle'daki Dünya Ticaret Örgütü toplantısnı protesto edenler kimlerdiş Tabii ki Amerikalılardı. Soğuk savaşın ardından Amerika da bir dönüşüm yaşamaktadır. Bu da karmaşık bir süreçtir. Avrupa Güvenlik ve Savunma kimliği de olaylara bakışımızdaki farklılığı yansıtmaktadır. Amerikan Kongresinin Nükleer Deneme Yapılmasını Yasaklayan Anlaşmayı onaylamaması, Avrupa'da transatlantik güvenliği açısından şüphe uyandırmaktadır. Aynı şekilde, Avrupa'da bir AB askeri gücü teşkil etme yönündeki çabaları da, ABD'de benzer düşünceler uyandırmaktadır, bu görüşler yanlıştır. ABD ve AB daha güçlü bir NATO için işbirliğine gitmelidir. Sonuç Sonuç olarak birbirimizden çok farklı olmadığımızı görebileceğimizi umuyorum. Globalleşme, ulusal kimliklerin yitirilmesi demek değil. Ortak birçok hedefimiz var. İlişkilerimizi daha da sıkılaştırma yoluna giderken birbirimizin düşüncelerini anlamalı ve ortak hedefler üzerinde yoğunlaşmalıyız.  Elegans'a mail |
|