Gérard Depayre
Deputy Head
Delegation of the European Commission to the United States

American Committees on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC

May 16, 2003

I can understand the desire of the organizers of this conference to come up with a more thought-provoking title than the usual EU/US Relations. But one could hardly address these issues without referring to what has been, since the last war, the central, most strategic element in our foreign policies.

While, still a few years ago, I could have given you a description of the state of the Alliance limited to a few positive considerations, the situation today is not the same. Anyone who reads the press or listens to TV or radio is aware that transatlantic relations are going through a very difficult, stormy period.

When reflecting on what I could tell you on this subject—something which has not been repeated over and over in the press or in seminars—I asked myself what would have been the views of one of the fathers of Europe, if not the father of Europe, Jean Monnet, who was also a convinced “Atlanticist,” on the present situation.

It is, of course, somewhat presumptuous to try to figure out what would have been the reactions of a man of that intellectual creativity. But we know enough about his ideas on international relations and on the EU/US relationship—to which he devoted a whole chapter at the end of his memoirs—to be able, without too much risk, to speculate about what would have been his thoughts in the present circumstances.

But let me first give you a bit of background on the man: Born in 1888 in Cognac, France, he started at a very early age to work for the brandy firm of his father and traveled the world. In doing so, he became interested in international relations and started developing ideas to resolve the problems he perceived. In 1914 he convinced the French and British governments to unite their war supply efforts. He then joined the League of Nations and in 1940 again worked to ensure adequate supplies of weapons to British forces. To that effect, he stayed for two to three years in Washington. While the need for unification of Europe was probably already in his mind before that time, it is very likely that the more precise concept of the United States of Europe—as he called it—came to him in Washington, where he had an office in the Willard Hotel and his home on Foxhall Road. A plaque at the entrance of the Willard Hotel commemorates his work there, and he was awarded the US Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1963.

What thus could have been Jean Monnet’s reactions to the present situation?

First, he would not have been really surprised. He believed indeed that policies of countries are the product of historical situations. The present state of transatlantic relations is a good illustration of that view.

The rift that has developed between the two blocks—though it has recently been made more acute by differences on Iraq—has indeed its origins in the deep geopolitical changes that have taken place since the beginning of the nineties.

It all started with the fall of the Soviet empire: the US then became the unopposed, dominant world military power and has gradually come to the realization of the implications of this situation.

The fall of the Soviet empire also had the effect of removing the glue that, over all these years, had kept the Alliance together, i.e., the existence of a common enemy, a situation which led the two sides, and in particular the Europeans who benefited from the US defense umbrella, to show restraint vis-à-vis one another. A partnership, perhaps not between equals but between partners who felt they had a mutual need for each other vis-à-vis the Soviet threat.

During the same period, the process of the integration of Europe not only continued but gained momentum, and the EU has gradually become an economic entity capable of competing successfully with the US in most areas.

These developments have led to a gradual readjustment in the perception of the two partners as to what should be their respective roles in the world.

In Europe, a growing desire has developed for the EU to assert itself and strengthen its role on the international scene in a way commensurate with its size and economic power, while admittedly we have not yet given ourselves the adequate tools to exercise such a role. Our ongoing Constitutional Convention, due to complete its work on 21 June, seeks to address this challenge as we become a Union of twenty-five members.

On the US side, President Bush’s Administration has put a greater emphasis on the notion of national interests and sovereignty, which has led sometimes to significant reorientation of US policies that have shocked European conceptions. Then came “September 11,” following which the fight against terrorism has become the central element in the US foreign policy. While the Europeans shared the objectives, a number of them disagreed on the means. You know what followed. This led some to believe in the popularized version of the more sophisticated argument developed by Robert Kagan. In this simplified view, Americans and Europeans live on different planets. I am supposedly from Venus, a faint-hearted world, soft-hearted and militarily and politically weak. You are from Mars, powerful, virile, dynamic: a land of moral certainty and resolute action. While one may question the value of such theories, they illustrate the fact that the present differences between the EU and the US are more serious, deeper than a temporary difference of views, albeit on an important issue and that they will not disappear overnight.

Jean Monnet further believed that people, countries are more easily divided than prepared to work together and that it takes compelling circumstances to convince them of the need to do so. Otherwise, people and their governments tend easily to fall under the illusion that they can resolve their problems unilaterally. And, there again, what we see now between the two partners fits the views of Jean Monnet: It is clear that, on both sides of the Atlantic, the benefits of the relationship are being taken for granted and the reasons to work together are perceived as less compelling. There clearly are currents of opinion and politicians, on both sides, who feel that the two blocks can follow separate courses. Some may even be tempted by the possibility of a reshuffling of alliances, an idea which has already shown its limits.

In the US, the value of international cooperation is currently an open question. I know that, for some of our friends in the current Administration, the word “multilateralism” carries a kind of stigma and should not be mentioned in polite company. For them, it is much better to create coalitions of the willing led by the United States for every issue du jour.

As Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, noted recently, such an approach may be appealing in the short run but is unlikely to stand the test of time even for the sole superpower. One can certainly sympathize with those who point to the maddening compromises and delays that often accompany multilateral solutions. On the whole, however, I would argue that the good far outweighs the bad, that multilateralism produces concrete results and that compromise and inclusivity lead to consensus and legitimacy.

What would then Jean Monnet have prescribed to remedy the present rift between the EU and the US which, if left unattended, could be most damaging not only for the two sides but also for the rest of the world?

He would certainly have prescribed that, rather than whining about our differences and complaining to each other, we should look more closely at interests and responsibilities we have in common. It is indeed indisputable that the present situation stems in large part from a lack of awareness on the part of governments, business and the general public of the massive, strategic importance of this relationship for each of us, and for the world in general, and of the consequences of leaving such a rift unattended.

First of all, our common economic interests are considerable. A recent study by Joseph Quinlan demonstrates, in a very eloquent and elaborated way, how deeply integrated the EU and US economies are. Going far beyond the (already impressive) argument of the “daily trade exchanges across the Atlantic exceeding $1 billion a day,” this study highlights the investment stocks that have accumulated on both sides of the Atlantic, the sales and profits they are generating and the enormous number of direct and indirect jobs they are supporting. Its conclusion is that the EU and the US economies already operate to a very large extent as one single transatlantic economy: “globalization is happening faster and reaching deeper between Europeand North American than between any other two continents.” Whatever the differences of opinion we may at times have, in whatever area, we should never forget that fact.

A few additional economic facts for your consideration:

· Together the EU and US account for sixty-two percent of the Global Domestic Product.

· We are by far each other’s single largest trading partner, and our total economic relationship is worth more than $2 to $3 billion a day.

· At the state level, the EU is the number one export market for twenty-one of the fifty states; and the number two export market for twenty-five others.

· Roughly ninety-eight percent of our trade is trouble-free and, therefore, is rarely mentioned in the newspapers, let alone on television.

· During the 1990s, American firms invested more than $350 billion in Europe.

· In 2001, Europe accounted for half of total global earnings of US companies, as measured by US foreign affiliate income.

· Europe’s investment stake in the US, on a historical cost basis, grew to a stunning $835 billion in 2000.

Figures like these put in perspective the magnitude and vitality of our economic relationship.

Secondly, we are both faced with a daunting agenda of issues, in the solution of which we not only have a common interest but which are also of crucial importance to the rest of the world. In solving these issues, we have no choice but to work together. It is indeed well demonstrated that while agreement between the EU and US is, these days, not necessarily sufficient to resolve global or regional problems, no issue of this kind can be resolved without the EU and US acting in agreement.

And I think that a mere listing of these issues will clearly show that we simply cannot afford to lose our energy and time in disagreements and bickering:

• Curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—with the concrete case of North Korea to resolve. We must have a shared analysis of threats and shared strategies to counter these threats. This means a serious examination of what has worked and what has not worked in the international regimes on non-proliferation. It also means working together on vital issues such as export controls. As you know, the EU is a party to KEDO, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, and continues to offer its support to efforts to bring peace to that region.
   
• Fighting terrorism, which everyone recognizes, can only be solved through international cooperation. Together the EU and US have already implemented a very important agenda of practical cooperation on counter-terrorism, including police and intelligence cooperation, clamping down on terrorists funds and a whole raft of practical security measures to protect our civilian populations on both sides of the Atlantic. As the bombings in Riyadh make clear, this is an issue that will require our continued close cooperation.
   
• Taking care of problems of the Middle East. Another major test over the coming weeks and months will be the Middle East peace process and the wider challenge of helping countries throughout the region to cope with the fallout from the war in Iraq. The United States and the EU have worked with Russia and with the United Nations on a “Road Map” to an outcome that would guarantee both Israel and Palestine statehood and security within internationally recognized borders. As that Road Map is discussed, the United States cannot play the honest broker alone and there will be no lasting settlement without transatlantic and wider regional cooperation.
   
• Strengthening the multilateral trading system, with a view to a better integration of the developing countries and to a reduction of the ever growing gap between them and the developed world.

While differences between us will probably persist in a number of areas, it would thus be a serious mistake to let these differences make us forget about our considerable common interests, and our collective responsibilities, as global powers in the conduct of world affairs.

Finally, let us remember what in the EU is known as “the Monnet method”: finding agreement where we can and building on those agreements to establish new areas of cooperation. Great things can be accomplished through such an incremental process. That is why, if Jean Monnet were still with us today, I am confident that he would end his remarks by congratulating the ACFR for its good work and say “lets get started.”