President. The next item is the Council and Commission statements on transatlantic relations.

  Roche, Council. Mr President, the transatlantic relationship is a co-element in Ireland's presidency programme and we are working very hard to reaffirm the strength, depth and the significance of that relationship, which will come as no surprise to anybody.

Politically and economically the European Union and the United States have never been more interdependent. While it is not possible to be in full agreement on all issues – friends very seldom are, and a sign of mature friendship is that they can differ even on significant issues – it is important that any differences that exist are managed in a way which avoids damaging the overall relationship.

We all know that the European Union and US relationship has been through a difficult period, not least over the policy on Iraq. There have been tensions and disagreements both across the Atlantic and indeed within Europe. It is good to remind ourselves from time to time that nobody has an absolute monopoly on wisdom.

Similarly, on the way forward in the Middle East there have been differences in approach between the United States and the European Union. We are nonetheless prepared to keep working on the basis of the roadmap, including through the mechanism of the Quartet. For too long now, a negative image of the transatlantic relationship has been portrayed in certain circles and media. It often seems to be an iron law of the media that disagreement is more noteworthy than agreement. I suppose, in a sense, it is easy to see how disagreement makes good news – or certainly good copy.

It is important, therefore, that we, as elected representatives, should inform our citizens that, overall, the transatlantic relationship is extremely productive and remains positive. In January the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, said in this Parliament – and we should remind ourselves of his words – that 'the world is a better and a safer place when the European Union and the United States work together, when they pool their considerable energy and resources to achieve our shared goals based on our shared values.'

The Irish presidency is focusing on pragmatic cooperation with our US partners and pragmatism, rather than ideology, should inform our approach. We are trying to work closely together on many foreign policy areas, including counter-terrorism, non-proliferation, Afghanistan, the Middle East and the western Balkans – to single out just a few of the dossiers in which we have a common interest and to single out just a few of the areas where we are working closely together. We will not agree on all those areas, but at least we are working along similar lines.

On economic and trade issues in particular, it is important to put any transatlantic differences into perspective. Ireland, during its presidency, is seeking to focus on the positive economic agenda between the United States and the European Union, while effectively managing the small number of outstanding disputes which account for slightly less than 3% or of our overall trade policies.

I want to take this opportunity to address one particular point of immediate concern in terms of our relationship with the United States. I followed very closely the debate in this Parliament on the international agreement with the United States on the transfer of passenger information. I am conscious of the concerns that have been raised, including the concerns about the need to protect citizens' rights to privacy and to redress in the event of error. I fully understand the point made by Members that it is important to have a way of addressing errors in the PNR area.

I am also conscious of the need to address the very real concerns that exist in the US about the terrorist threat. This time last week I was in New York and, for the very first time, went to the scene of the horror at the World Trade Center. I have been in New York four times since 9/11 and I have always avoided going down there, because I, as we all did, watched what happened on the television, and I did not wish to see the pain. So I understand in that context why the United States and why certain factions of people within the United States see the need to adopt a very stringent role and attitude in their response to terrorism and, in particular, why they are concerned about this issue.

Let me make myself clear: I believe that the Commission has worked long and hard to ensure that the draft agreement strikes a balance between the rightful concerns to protect personal privacy and the need to increase security in the air for all passengers across the Atlantic. I accept and respect that not all Members of this House think that the balance has been properly struck. However, I would make the point to them that the Commission has to be commended for its work. Mr Watson mentioned another agreement and said that this is an agreement which may be the best-worst solution, but it is the solution that is available. He was talking about Cyprus. These words may well apply also to the agreement on which this House will vote shortly.

I believe the Commission has done as well as it could be expected to do and that the agreement on offer is the best we are going to get; certainly much better than we will get if we enter into some form of stasis and stand-off situation with the US authorities on this in the next few hours, because in reality they will take the decisions that they believe are necessary for their security.

I do not believe that if a European citizen on holiday in Florida has to queue for 18 or 19 hours in the heat of the day waiting for clearance they will thank any of us if we take an ill-informed decision. That is not to say that I do not respect the views of Members – of course I do. I have listened and I have read a great deal of the correspondence that has been exchanged over the last 48 hours here. I have discussed the issue and my concerns with Members. I understand fully and I appreciate the concerns. Of course people want to protect civil liberties but we also want to protect the reality and the reality is that if we make the wrong decision very few people in Europe will be thanking us in a month's time. Having said that, I respect any decision that this Parliament makes.

The deal which has been worked out by the Commission is a necessary one. In the circumstances it is a good deal. The status quo is unsustainable. Failure to support the draft agreement opens the way to uncertainty, particularly uncertainty for the airline industry. It will be detrimental to the interests and the needs of passengers.

That is the important point. I accept the concerns and the anxiety that we should have safeguards, certainly that there should be a finality on information that is transferred, but we need to take practical political decisions. We are politicians in a political assembly and we should take decisions. A balanced deal and the opportunity to work and put in place a good and balanced deal as soon as possible are things that we should all work for.

The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Brian Cowen, led the European Union Troika for the successful EU-US ministerial meeting in Washington on 1 March. It met with US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and with the National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice. Their discussions were extensive and frank and they covered a range of international issues of shared concern. In fact anybody who knows Minister Cowen will know that any discussion he enters into is usually frank, vigorous and to the point.

It is in the same spirit of partnership that the Taoiseach looks forward to welcoming President Bush to Ireland for the US-EU summit in June, a summit meeting which I know will bring added value to the relationship. It is a summit which has been criticised in some places, but the reality of it is that the United States exists and Europe exists and it would be foolhardy in the extreme if we did not continue to debate and discuss our relationship.

The other vital pillar of the transatlantic relationship is of course the European Union's close and productive relationship with Canada. In fact when we talk about the transatlantic relationship we all too often forget that reality. From our shared history and from our shared values, from political pluralism and democracy and the rule of law, as well as on human rights, there was so much evidence of our firm attachment to the United Nations and to multilateralism. Europe and Canada have a great deal in common and the relationship between Europe and Canada is a close one. It is a productive relationship and it is one that requires recognition by both sides from time to time.

It is in this context that the very successful EU-Canada summit in Ottawa on 18 March saw the launch of two major new initiatives – the EU-Canada Partnership Agenda and the framework of a new bilateral trade and investment enhancement agreement.

The summit in Ottawa also gave a chance for the President of the Council and Prime Minister Martin to lead their EU and Canadian teams in wide-ranging discussions on major international issues, including looking at ways to promote effective global governance through revitalised international institutions. I should say – from personal experience of having worked for a very brief time with CEDA in Canada – that the Canadians bring a huge amount to the table in this particular regard, something which they do quietly and unobtrusively and which is all too frequently ignored.

In closing I want to say that I am very conscious that our transatlantic dialogue is formed more than by just what happens at official and government levels. For this reason we were very happy two weeks ago to host in Ireland the 58th interparliamentary meeting between the European Parliament and the US Congress under the joint chairmanship of Mr Nicholson and Henry Hyde. It was my very great pleasure to actually host one of those meetings and it was a quite remarkable exchange. I want to commend the Members of this House for this particular initiative.

It is very important that this House continues to have a very lively dialogue with Congress, because my own personal experience is that all too often in Congress Europe is seen through a very hazy glass. The type of one-to-one relationship which this House has established with its counterparts in Congress is very welcome. As I said, I witnessed the exchanges at first hand. They are healthy, positive and productive. I had the opportunity to meet the MEPs involved. The debates were quite extraordinarily wide-ranging and, as the meeting was held in Ireland, much of it went on in my own constituency. A good time was had by all as well and there is no harm in that! The presidency is fully aware of how closely Parliament is involved in taking the transatlantic relationship forward. We celebrate and commend that good work.

I realise that some of the words I have said will not fall easily on some of the ears in this House, but they are made against the background that friends can sometimes disagree, even on important issues.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: MR FRIEDRICH
Vice-President

  Patten, Commission. Mr President, I would like to begin by supporting the presidency's commendation of Irish hospitality. Having spent the weekend at two conferences in Ireland myself, I can warmly endorse what the Minister said and I also warmly endorse his other remarks, not least what he said about our relations with Canada.

When one has problem-free relationships, it very often means that one does not discuss them sufficiently or with sufficient enthusiasm. However we did set out last year, in a Commission document, some sensible proposals about beefing-up our trade and investment relationship with Canada. Those were sensible proposals that were well received by our Canadian friends. From the Middle East to the other trouble spots around the world we invariably see eye-to-eye with our Canadian friends who, I think, very much accept our notion of effective multilateralism. So I was pleased that the Minister referred to that important relationship.

I am obviously grateful for the opportunity to commend once again the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy for its commitment – demonstrated by this resolution – to the evolution and strengthening of transatlantic ties. It is a testament to this House's maturity and common sense that, amidst the emotions of a turbulent 18 months, it has maintained a positive and objective approach. That this relationship remains the keystone in the European Union's external relations is not to be doubted. We have often talked in this Chamber not only about the stakes involved – the enormous flow of goods, services and investment and the millions of jobs that depend on them – but also about how this partnership is indispensable for promoting democracy, overcoming regional instability and coping with global challenges.

It is worth recalling some of the remarkable achievements there have been in the area of economic cooperation. Mutual recognition agreements have removed technical barriers in fields ranging from telecommunications to marine equipment. We have entered into bilateral agreements on customs procedures and veterinary equivalents. We are progressing in discussions on the regulatory dialogue in financial markets, removing obstacles for our operators in this ever more integrated industry. We are well advanced in negotiations on a cooperation agreement for Galileo and GPS and we are moving towards an open aviation area agreement.

Despite all these successes much still remains to be done in pressing forward regulatory convergence. Neither the transatlantic economic partnership nor the positive economic agenda have developed as fully as we would have liked in removing barriers. We are therefore considering a joint EU-US review of the transatlantic economy, to report to the 2005 EU-US summit with a view to identifying impediments to further economic integration and to addressing the means for removing them.

We have talked too about the importance of the relationship beyond the confines of the transatlantic community. After the strains in our relationship last year it has now become clear to all that we face common challenges which we will overcome far more effectively in combination than in competition. This of course implies that we have the political will in the European Union to unite our positions, and that we have in addition the capacity to act.

The language of transatlantic cooperation can often seem tired and clichéd. That is no reason to allow these important truths to go unsaid or to be drowned out by the discordant notes of those whom, for whatever reason, look to divide Europe and the United States. In this spirit, I welcome the priorities set out in the resolution, many of which are familiar and match those on which we are working in the run-up to the EU-US Summit to which the Minister referred.

I would like to single out very briefly three issues which are referred to in the resolution. First of all, HIV/AIDS. The European Union and the United States have both welcomed last years World Trade Organisation decision on the TRIPS agreement and public health. We must now implement this decision in legislative form without delay, with the active support of our business communities. We must ensure that the Global Health Fund can build on sustained and reliable sources of funding. In order to address the root causes of the pandemic in Africa, we are looking to European Union and US investors to establish a partnership to promote the improvement of health care where they operate in Africa, and we clearly need to do more together to tackle poverty there.

Second, a brief word on China and Russia. Russia's proximity to Europe and the speed and scale of economic development in China suggests that we must continue to engage closely with both. Continuing political engagement and a range of financial instruments demonstrate our determination to encourage Russia's development as a stable, prosperous democracy. We will continue to encourage China to take a greater role in international affairs concomitant with its expanding economic capacity and interests. I hope we can encourage our US friends to regard China's stability and economic development as a good thing for all of us, rather than as a threat.

We discussed the Middle East earlier, and I will not dwell on the arguments that we analysed an hour or so ago with some sadness. I will simply say that we have to encourage modernisation throughout the region along the sort of lines now suggested in two UNDP reports. We have to support Arab initiatives and Arab ownership of modernisation and democratisation, and must develop the plans that we already have in place – for example through the Euromed partnership – rather than believing it necessary to introduce new institutional arrangements.

I would in particular like to underline the importance that Commissioner Lamy and I attach to the successful conclusion, as soon as possible, of a free trade agreement between the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

I repeat that, by and large, we are more likely to achieve most of the things we want to achieve in the world if we can work with the United States. It is also true – though perhaps not as often conceded – that the United States is more likely to be able to achieve what it wants if it is able to work with us.

We agree that there is much for the European Union and the US to do both in terms of our bilateral dealings and in cooperation in the wider world. The extent to which this requires the establishment of new structures or working methods is more difficult to judge. However, I note that since the launch of the New Transatlantic Agenda in 1995 the mechanisms of the relationship have served us well. The ups and downs we have experienced have been the result not of the institutions of the NTA but of genuine policy disagreements. They have not been the result of procedural failure or systemic failure.

Where we have seen the need for changes we have been quite pragmatic. For example, we are about to launch an enhanced security dialogue with the United States, which should reduce the scope for confusion and confrontation on a range of transport and other protective security matters. Though I follow what the President-in-Office said in his extremely sensitive remarks about the issue of passenger name records, I am not quite sure what sort of dialogue the United States would expect us to carry forward if on this issue – which we have put a lot of effort into resolving – we were now to either scupper the prospects of an agreement or to put it on the backburner for the indefinite future. Do we wish to be taken seriously in this realm or not?

With elections looming here and in the United States, with a new Commission to be appointed in the autumn and with the Constitutional Treaty coming over the horizon, I would argue that this is not necessarily the right time for a really radical change. However, I totally accept that just as we need to look at the workings of the transatlantic economy, we should also review the workings of the New Transatlantic Agenda. To that effect, I am about to launch an independent study of the New Transatlantic Agenda which, in turn, should form the basis of an EU-US policy review in 2005. I believe that is the right timing. I respect those who take a different point of view, but hope we all recognise that we are working towards the same objectives.

  Suominen (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Patten, my group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, thinks it essential to view the excellent and close relations that exist above all between the EU and the United States, though, in a broader context, between Europe and North America, as has been reiterated here, as a key factor in maintaining global peace and economic growth. If these, the two largest economic and military players in the world, were to come into permanent conflict, as unlikely as that may be, it would be a global disaster. That is why our group, in any political or economic disagreements that happen to arise, tries to look ahead and find solutions rather than point the finger.

We are indeed concerned by many things. The unilateralism shown by the American leadership, one example of which is the Iraq war and its aftermath, and the policy President Bush’s administration has pursued which we think has recently only taken the interests of Israel into account, cannot have our approval. We cannot put this right, however, by terminating the framework agreement that exists between Israel and the EU or by just blaming the United States. We must try to find a way back to democracy, one in which global multilateralism and using the United Nations, and increasing its prestige, form a basis for solving crises. Good signs of this are already visible in America’s attitude to the forthcoming Iraqi administration under the supervision of the UN. Bad signs, on the other hand, are still almost exclusively visible in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and that is why the EU needs to be ever more active there.

We also disagree about many trade policy and immaterial rights issues. For example, America’s unilateral approach to applying the concept of dumping is not in harmony with good trade practices, but protectionism.

Under the expert leadership of Commissioner Pascal Lamy, the EU has endeavoured to remove barriers to speeding up the World Trade Organisation Doha round of trade talks. The United States on the one hand is a good partner in these negotiations, but on the other hand it also constitutes a certain barrier itself with its own system of rotational aid for agriculture and industry. By this I do not mean that the blame always lies elsewhere and not with us. We also have to open up our markets in this sense to a greater extent than previously. Once again, problems will be solved through dialogue, not through an escalating trade war.

I wish furthermore to stress that the values we share, as has been often been said here, on which both continents – I am including Canada here – will build their future, democracy, freedoms and rights of the individual, human rights, a society based on statutory law, the market economy with its system of free enterprise, are such a wide basis for the development of natural, lasting and good relations between us, that conflicting interests can surely be settled. I am sure that speakers from our group will follow in my tracks and address many of the individual issues that make up transatlantic relations.

  Wiersma (PSE). – (NL) Mr President, many fine words have been said once again about relations between Europe and the United States. I nevertheless remain somewhat sceptical when I look at the reality. Relations between Europe and the United States have been better. The US Government often takes little notice of its transatlantic partners. US policy is characterised by unilaterality and ever changing coalitions. Iraq has proved a divisive issue, and a major role for the UN in that country still seems a long way off. Earlier this morning, we discussed the Middle East. President Bush’s support for Prime Minister Sharon and the latter’s unilateral policy has – rightly – been poorly received here. The EU is clearly not a serious partner for the US on this issue.

Nobody is intent on a genuine split between the United States and the European Union. We have a good deal in common, and together we could obtain more for each other in the world. Things would perhaps be better under a subsequent US Government, but in my opinion the trends run deeper. Today, we are discussing an agenda for transatlantic dialogue. This dialogue is necessary now more than ever, but it must be an open dialogue and not one in which one side only talks and rarely listens. Indeed, it is particularly important that we do not gloss over the differences between ourselves and the US.

In the field of international security, a number of priorities can be seen, including Iraq and what we can learn from this. The first lesson, of course, is that something like this should never happen again, and another is that we must return to a full role for the United Nations, which must assume political leadership of the reconstruction of the country as soon as possible. Furthermore, we must cooperate on the resolution of the Middle-East conflict, keeping to the roadmap. Unless President Bush adopts a much more critical attitude towards the fait-accompli policy of Prime Minister Sharon – for example the security fence, the Gaza Strip and the assassination of Hamas leaders – it is unlikely that much will come of US cooperation with the EU. We also want an effective approach to international terrorism, but not just on US terms. What we want is that priority be given to a multilateral approach to international problems. We want pre-emptive engagement, as Javier Solana calls it, instead of pre-emptive wars. We want a strengthening of the United Nations and, in particular, a strengthening of the international legal order. We must therefore remain committed to the work of the International Criminal Court and the support that the European Union has given this all along.

We also want a serious approach to disarmament initiatives. We must enter into dialogue with the US on all of these issues, but we must also remain committed to our own strength. We must be pragmatic, yet pursue our own aims. Where the US stresses military supremacy, we envisage a role for the European Union as, say, a civil superpower.

  Andreasen (ELDR). – (DA) Mr President, I hope that I am not disturbing too many of the private conversations that are going on. I wish to state, however, that transatlantic cooperation must be strengthened and expanded for the benefit of the US, of the EU and of the whole world. Through cooperation, the greatest military and economic power in the world must show the whole world the way to security, peace, democracy, justice and prosperity.

This cooperation is currently being put to the test in the fight against terrorism. It is here and now that confirmation must be provided that there is more that unites the US and the EU than separates them. Consequently, this topic must be high up on the agenda of the EU/US Summit, where a far-sighted common framework and action plan for the fight against terrorism should be established. The UN must have a prominent role in this struggle, and we must emphasise that the struggle is to be conducted with respect for human rights and international law. In this connection, I would once again draw attention to the prisoners being held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base, who have a right to a fair trial. I would again appeal to the Council, even if it is not listening, to place this issue on the summit agenda.

We must strengthen and expand our cooperation but, as friends of the US, we must also be able to speak out when we disagree with the US Government. That is what we must do right now on the issue of passenger list information, which the Presidency has discussed and which is also part of the war on terror. We must also stand firm in our assertion that fundamental rights must be respected in this matter. The Commission is evidently in the process of transferring a piece of US legislation to the EU – bypassing the European Parliament, the national parliaments and presumably also the US Congress.

As regards the attitude to the situation in the Middle East, we must also speak out against the latest pronouncements by President Bush. Any change to the boundaries dating back to before 1967 can only be recognised if it is the result of negotiation between the two parties. It is not something that Mr Sharon and President Bush can decide between them. Rather, we must call for the existing Road Map, to which the Quartet has given its support, to be abided by. Once again, yesterday, we heard in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy about the Geneva initiative for peace in the Middle East, a highly commendable initiative that should be brought into the discussion.

The forthcoming summit between the EU and the US will be the first following EU enlargement. Europe will appear stronger and more united. The EU’s position on the international political stage has been strengthened, and we must exploit this situation in order to improve our necessary and desirable cooperation with the US. I hope I have not interrupted too many of your conversations.

  President. I apologise to our colleague for the level of noise before the vote.

(The sitting was suspended and was resumed at 3 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR COX
President

  Blak (GUE/NGL). – (DA) Mr President, I would ask you in future to intervene should such a situation arise as that which occurred while Mr Andreasen was speaking. This circus in which Members stand around holding private conversations, quite unconcerned, whilst someone is speaking is disgraceful. In my view, these Members are behaving outrageously and downright stupidly and unintelligently when they show no respect for others when they are speaking. Consequently, I would ask you to intervene in future and remove from the Chamber those Members who cannot work this out.