Return to: Index of 1995 Secretary of State's Speeches/Testimonies || Electronic Research Collections Index || ERC Homepage
U.S. Department of State
95/12/02 Sec. Christopher on Transatlantic Agenda
Office of the Spokesman
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
December 2, 1995
ON THE RECORD BRIEFING
BY SECRETARY OF STATE WARREN CHRISTOPHER
AND
U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE MICKEY KANTOR
ON THE TRANSATLANTIC AGENDA
Palace Hotel
Madrid, Spain
AMBASSADOR GARDNER: Good afternoon, it is a pleasure for me to
introduce to you, and welcome to Madrid, Secretary of State,
Christopher, and Ambassador Mickey Kantor.
You may remember that six months ago to the day, on June 2nd, Secretary
of State Christopher made a speech at the Casa de America in which he
said, and I quote "In the next six months, the United States looks
forward to working closely with the Spanish Presidency of the European
Union to develop a broad ranging Trans-Atlantic agenda for the new
century, an agenda for common economic and political action to expand
democracy, prosperity and stability". At approximately the same time,
in Brussels U.S. trade representative, Mickey Kantor, made a similar
speech. It was no accident that the Secretary of State chose to make
his speech in Madrid, because he knew that as Spain was preparing for
its historic six months Presidency of the European Union, the Spanish
government and in particular, the Spanish Foreign Ministry under the
leadership of Foreign Minister Solana was also planning that there
should be a major Trans-Atlantic initiative during its Presidency. So
everything came together, and here we are six months later, and despite
the doubts of many that it could be done, two American super star
lawyers and a Foreign Minister trained in physics and their able teams
have given us a document which is at once visionary and practical.
So I would ask Secretary of State to begin and tell us about it.
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Ambassador Gardner, thank you very much. You're
quite right that when I came here six months ago, many were questioning
whether in the period after the cold war, the United States and Europe
would inevitably drift apart, that we did not have the impetus to
maintain the Trans-Atlantic partnership that had brought us together
before. I emphatically rejected that view at the time, saying that
every generation must renew our partnership to meet the challenges of
the time, but that we had extremely strong bonds and a strong incentive
to stay together. I called on the United States and Europe to forge a
common Trans-Atlantic agenda for the next century, the twenty-first
century, an agenda that would reflect our strong common interests in
democracy, in security and prosperity around the world. I must say,
even in my most hopeful moments six months ago, I couldn't imagine quite
how dramatically the six months would prove the skeptics wrong, and show
that our democracies had the continuing vitality to carry out a Trans-
Atlantic agenda and to develop a new one. We've had, of course, in this
period an even more dramatic indication of our capacity to work
together. More dramatic only because issues of peace and war somehow
have the maximum drama about them and as you know without the United
States and Europe working together, there would be not the great
opportunity now that we have within reach for peace in Bosnia. Only
last summer, last July, when we saw on the darkest days, after the fall
of Sbrenica and Zepa the continuation of the unspeakable atrocities, we
confronted at that time the very real possibility that the peacekeepers
would have to be pulled out of Bosnia and we would be involved in the
very unattractive situation of having thousands of American and allied
troops involved in a withdrawal path that would have only been a way to
confirm defeat. But since then, our combined military and diplomatic
effort starting with the London Conference and continuing with President
Clinton's initiative has moved us to a place of great hope and great
promise with respect to Bosnia.
In the coming days, working together with our European allies, NATO will
undertake a mission that will have the prospect of bringing peace to
Bosnia after four bloody years, and demonstrating, very forcefully, that
the United States and Europe can work together to confront the new and
different, but no less real challenges of the post cold war period. We
are also going to be working for an enlarged NATO on a steady path as we
actively engage with our new partners in the Partnership for Peace to
the east, and I think that this particular program will be essential as
we seek the President's vision of a fully integrated, peaceful Europe
without dividing lines. At the same time a strengthened relationship
between the United States and the fifteen nations of the European Union
is essential to our efforts to achieve stability and security and
prosperity within the goal of the integrated Europe. The Madrid Summit
tomorrow with President Clinton, Prime Minister Gonzalez, President
Santer which sets the stage for a historic expansion of the cooperation
between out two continents, the Trans-Atlantic agenda which we will
launch tomorrow, more than meets the hopes that I had six months ago.
It will reflect our common values and common interests, and greatly
reinforce our common action. Under the agenda we will move from
consultation to sustained cooperation in four key areas. First
promoting peace, development and democracy around the world. Second,
combating international crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, meeting
environmental challenges, this latter being the new agenda that
President Clinton emphasized in his United Nations' speech. I think it
is certain to be a major agenda in the next century. Third, expanding
global trade and eliminating economic barriers in the Trans-Atlantic
relationship. Fourth, building new bridges between Americans and
Europeans. On this last point, I want to emphasize the great importance
we place on educational exchanges, exchanges between business men,
business conferences, the bed rock relationship still a people to people
relationship. On this fourth aspect I think we want to emphasize that.
We'll be taking some priority initiatives, among them important efforts
to anchor central Europe and Turkey firmly to the West with the very
important votes coming up in the European Parliament on Turkey's entry
into the Customs Union. Support of the Middle-East peace process which
I think was one of the reflections of the dialogue in Barcelona and our
joint fight against nuclear proliferation. And we certainly will be
emphasizing in this next period, the economic reconstruction in Bosnia,
in which the European Union has volunteered to take the lead. We've got
a lot of hard work ahead of us in Bosnia as well as in deepening the
relationship between the United States and Europe. But I'm confident,
based upon the splendid relationship we've had in the last six months on
various fronts, that we can succeed. As I conclude, I want to pay great
tribute to the quality of the work done by Spain, in its six month
Presidency. We're had an ideal relationship with them, and without the
work of the Spanish government, I'm sure we wouldn't be here today. I
also want to pay tribute to Under-secretary Joan Spero and Ambassador
Jeff Lang who have spear-headed the United States' effort in developing
the new Trans-Atlantic agenda.
Mickey?
AMBASSADOR MICKEY KANTOR: Thank you Mr. Secretary.
I, too, would like to pay tribute to the Spanish leadership, Prime
Minister Gonzalez, and Foreign Minister Solana, and all of their
colleagues, Mr. Westendorp, to President Samper and Leon Britton and
their colleagues of the European Union. Of course, Joan and Jeff and
also I think Ambassador Gardner, Ambassador Eisenstadt contributed
mightily to the success of what has happened here just six months since
the Secretary's speech. I just would simply say that in a world where
truly economic security and national security interests cannot be
separated, the idea that we can come together by taking dialogue and
discussion and turning it into agreement, and then turning that into
action is enormously important. National security interests and
economic interests cannot be divided, in a post cold war world it's a
way in which we're going to link to each other, and it makes an enormous
difference that the two largest economic entities on earth can come
together and move this agenda forward in such an impressive fashion.
Not only in the economic area, of course, but in the other areas cited
by Secretary Christopher, and I think everyone who worked on this, the
ones we cited and other officials both in Europe and in the United
States deserve tremendous credit.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, Al Goodman for CNN. In this morning's Herald
Tribune, some unidentified European officials are cited saying that the
plan is essentially a glorified laundry list that seeks to make up in
quantity for what it lacks in quality and substance in vision. What
would you say, Sir, to critics of the plan, that it's too scattered with
the hundred points, it's got too much in it?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I would say essentially what I said in my
opening remarks. I think there are some priority issues that we'll be
addressing. There are four fundamental points that we're carrying
forward, and I think that there are a number of points of emphasis, but
that's because we have so many important things that we need to do in
the future. It's clear, for example, that our working together on the
new issues, or at least the newly recognized issues of terrorism and
money laundering, and drugs and law enforcement, and environment. Those
are fundamental issues and we wouldn't want to neglect any of them so, I
just reject the idea that this is a laundry list. It's a commitment, a
Trans-Atlantic commitment that'll have real emphasis, real and tangible
steps to be taken over the next year, and in the years ahead.
Ambassador Kantor?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Just one comment. If we're going to be criticized,
I'd much rather be criticized for doing too much than too little.
QUESTION: Andrew Davis from Bloomburg Business News. I was wondering
if you could go into, particularly with regards to trade, some of the
specific city agreement, and clarify is this agreement is it a treaty,
how binding will it be once its signed, and I assume it's going to be
signed here in Madrid at the Summit.
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: When any two great entities spend time in serious
negotiations and agree to move forward, it's not only binding but both
will always adhere to the dictates of what they have undertaken, and it
is very specific and very hopeful in terms of our trade and economic
relations. For instance, we agreed to take on confidence-building
measures as part of the five part agenda. In that regard, we've just
finished discussion and agreement which we have initialed on
compensation for enlargement of the European Union and also to settle
the reference price system, which resulted in cases, as you know, at the
World Trade Organization. That's a positive, specific, important step
forward. Second, of course, we agreed to engage in, in 1996, measures
which would move the agenda forward, on an immediate basis, including
lowering tariffs, including standards, agreements on standards, called
mutual recognition agreements. We agreed also to an information
technology agreement which will have an enormous impact by reducing the
tariffs to zero in these important items by the year 2000. We agreed on
making strides and opening up government procurement. In addition to
that, we'll undertake a study to determine how we can progressively
eliminate and reduce barriers to trade between the two largest trading
entities in the world, whose total trade represent over fifty percent of
all the trade in the world. And last, of course, but certainly not
least, we agreed to institutionalize the business dialogue in a way that
will be a parallel function and will be supportive of, and contributing
to our activities as we move forward. This is specific, it's concrete,
it's achievable and it's very impressive.
QUESTION: Mr. Kantor, Terren Miller with AP Dow Jones. Back to the
question of how binding any of this is. How obligated is either party
with this agenda to move forward? Granted, everybody's planning to move
forward, that sounds great, but what actually has been done, once this
document is signed?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Well, once the document is signed, of course, we'll
begin the study and we agreed this morning with Foreign Minster Solana
to begin immediately. Second, of course, we'll begin to look at what
tariffs can be reduced, what tariffs under the Uruguay Round can be
accelerated, what kind of standards, and certification we can deal with
in order to open or to reduce barriers to trade. In that area of
concern, we'll look at government procurement on both sides of the
Atlantic and see how much more we can open up. As you know, we reached
an agreement on April 14, 1994, in Marrakech to open up about a hundred
billion dollars on each side of the Atlantic in opportunities for U.S.
and European companies. We can go further and we will. And, the
information technology agreement is very real. We've agreed to reduce
to zero all tariffs in these very important areas, by the year 2000.
All of that, of course, will be extremely helpful. We have reached
agreement between these two. It will be signed by the three leaders,
and it is binding on us to move forward.
Ambassador Gardner quite correctly called my attention to the fact that
we're also committed to review progress under this new agenda every six
months at our twice -yearly meetings between the EU and United States,
and I think that'll be a very important tracking mechanism.
QUESTION: I am John F. Tremmler from UPI. I wanted to ask you about
the humanitarian assistance section, which calls for "you send blankets,
and we'll send food". Is the message here not that both sides will
simply send less, and save money?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Well, I think that if we can save money and get
the job done, we would all want to do that. We don't have any reason to
want to be prophetic about it. I suppose there's a natural skepticism,
maybe even cynicism on the language of documents, but the language of
documents does have its impact. I can't help but remember the London
conference right after Sbrenica and Zepa in which we took a decision
that there would be a decisive and substantial response if there was a
further attack. People wondered whether those words meant anything, but
they were followed by a massive bombing campaign when there was another
attack on Sarajevo. I think that's a good illustration of the fact that
when nations of this stature commit themselves in language, there is a
translation, between that language and between end results. And I think
humanitarian commitment can be read in light of being a real substantial
commitment of these countries to achieve the results. Obviously in the
most efficient and practice way possible.
QUESTION: Yes, Brian Coleman from the Wall Street Journal. As late ad
yesterday, and certainly Thursday, there was some disagreement on the
inclusion of monetary relations in this agreement. Has that been
resolved, and if so, how?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: Yes, it has. The language in the agreement
indicates we're going to continue to exchange views on questions. In
this area the language is completely consistent with what we agreed to
at Halifax, at the last G-7 meeting. And so therefore all sides are
satisfied with the language reached during the discussions over the last
few days.
QUESTION (Patrick Worsnip, Reuters): Mr. Secretary, I wonder if I could
bring you again to the question of NATO and Mr. Solana. You've paid
tribute several times to Spain's contributions to NATO and to Mr.
Solana's personal qualities, but still the fact remains that Spain isn't
fully integrated into the NATO command structure. Do you think that Mr.
Solana's holding the post of General Secretary is compatible with that?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Well, I think Spain has been drawing closer to
NATO as reflected by their operations in Bosnia. I would hope that over
time, Spain would continue to draw closer to NATO and the small
differences that remain now can be resolved. I would think that
Secretary General Solana, if I can be a little bit premature about his
new title, can have a positive effect on the relationship between NATO
and Spain, but I don't want in any way to reflect adversely on the
relationship. As it stands now, it is very close, very effective at the
present time.
QUESTION: I would like to know your opinion about the difference
relationship from U.S. point of view between the Trans-Atlantic
relationship and the Trans-Pacific relationships?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Would you repeat your question, maybe my jet-lag
is catching...
QUESTION: I would like to know which are the points in common and also
the differences between the relationship, between the United States and
the Asiatic countries, and this Trans-Atlantic relationship.
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Well that's a ... to give a comprehensive answer
would probably take longer than any of you would like. There are some
important similarities. We intend to remain a Pacific power. We have
five very important alliances in the Pacific. We have about a hundred
thousand forward based troops in the Pacific, so we have a very strong
relationship in the Pacific. But here in Europe, we have, I think, the
greatest military alliance of all time, in which we have a comprehensive
alliance with 16 countries. We have about a hundred thousand American
troops forward-based here in Europe, and I think the security
relationship between the United States and Europe is one that's
absolutely fundamental. The debate that's going on in Congress now, has
been a reason for us to reflect on that relationship. The situation in
the Balkans is important to the United States, because Europe is
important to the United States. The possibility of that conflict
spreading to Europe, is what is fundamentally, I think, a way to define
the United States' interest in bringing peace to that country, as well
as, of course, for the humanitarian reasons and the reasons of our
leadership. So we have extremely strong security relations both in the
Pacific and in the Atlantic. It wouldn't be helpful at all, I think, to
try to contrast them in some way, to say that one is stronger or one is
more important. They're slightly different but both are important and
it is interesting that our economic relationships are very parallel. I
think the economic ties with Europe are perhaps slightly larger than
they are with Asia at the present time, but they are both huge economic
and security relationships for the United States and will continue to be
in the future.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, Jeff Sellars from The Globe and Mail. Again
on Solana. I understand there are some objections to his appointment by
Canada and Great Britain and the Pentagon. Can you explain a bit how
those objections were overcome?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: The selection of a Secretary General was a
confidential process within the North Atlantic Council. I think what is
significant is at the end of the time there was unanimous selection of
Foreign Minister Solana. From my standpoint it was a consensus that was
very readily and easily arrived at. When the process resumed its
confidential nature, and I certainly prefer that, I think there was a
very relatively quick and very satisfactory salutary consensus developed
around Foreign Minister Solana. I talked to a number of Foreign
Ministers about that, obviously every candidate has some strengths and
sometimes there are questions raised, not perhaps because of the
candidate, because of things extraneous to the candidate, but the
decision on Foreign Minister Solana was one that was very firmly reached
and with a great deal of enthusiasm and on a unanimous basis in a very
short period of time. My understanding is that, they began the process
of most aggressive consultations in the North Atlantic Council only on
Thursday morning, that's when I talked to Ambassador Hunter about it,
and by Friday afternoon, they'd reached a common consensus, which shows
I think the degree of unanimity and the degree of enthusiasm for Foreign
Minister Solana.
QUESTION: Secretary Christopher, Mike Strauss from Knight-Ridder. Has
the State Department assessed the domestic political impact for Spain,
of naming Minister Solana to the NATO post, or does this sort of
exercise not occur in such situations? If there was an assessment, can
we hear what the outcome was, if it's not classified, please.
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: The domestic significance, the domestic in the
United States or in Spain?
QUESTION: On Spanish domestic politics, please.
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: We wanted to find the very best person, I
emphasize person, that we could to be Secretary General of NATO. We
obviously at some point in the process have to inquire of the person
whether he would be willing or not to be a candidate, but would be
willing to accept, if selected, and that was done, and I think that
beyond that we really didn't try to assess matters of local politics.
We had to leave that up to the potential selection and to let the
selection and his country weigh that. I don't think that we would, I
think it would be a mistake for the United States or other countries in
NATO to try to reach an internal judgment about the effect in the
countries involved. The country and the individual and his colleagues
and government had to make that assessment.
QUESTION: Jay Brannigan from Time Magazine. Ambassador Kantor, the
study on Free Trade or lowering trade barriers, eliminating trade
barriers has been called the "center piece" of this agenda. Could you
give us a good solid idea exactly when the study will be completed?
AMBASSADOR KANTOR: It will begin immediately. It will cover all areas
of concern where there are barriers to trade which need to be either
reduced or eliminated. I would assume it will be a living document in
the sense as we can reach agreement on those areas which can be either
reduced or eliminated will go ahead and take the step and continue the
study on other barriers that exist.