Jack Wall
Question:6 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs Ireland's response to the European Commission's proposals for a free trade zone between the EU and the United States of America. [12439/98]
Other Questions. - New Transatlantic Marketplace Agreement.
The Deputy will be aware of Commission proposals for a New Transatlantic Marketplace Agreement, NTMA. The Commission paper followed discussions at the EU-US Summit in December 1997, and comprised four principal elements including the removal of technical barriers to trade in goods, the elimination of all industrial tariffs, the establishment of a free trade area in services, and the greater liberalisation of Government procurement, intellectual property and investment.
The Commission proposal was discussed in detail at Council fora. Ireland's approach was open and constructive. We stressed that the proposal should not affect the multilateral rules-based trading environment in an adverse manner. In discussion, we supported the view that the concepts and common interests underlying the Commission proposals should be examined with a view to seeing how best they might be developed in harmony with EU commitments to the multilateral system and the WTO.
These discussions resulted in an alternative proposal which aims to accelerate economic growth and trade liberalisation without adversely affecting EU commitments or the multilateral trading environment. The paper entitled the Transatlantic Economic Partnership, TEP, was discussed at the EU-US Summit on 18 May where it was the subject of a joint statement. We share the view of partners that the outcome of the summit in this and other respects, marks an important step forward towards resolving differences and in developing the EU-US economic and commercial relationship. We agree with our partners that the US, as well as the EU, must commit itself to the package agreed at the summit and we adhere to the ideas expressed in the EU unilateral statement which link the various elements contained therein.
I am aware from statements made by Commissioner Brittan that he is an advocate of this new relationship. I appreciate the Minister has said Ireland favours this concept. If within the Council of Ministers a working group is developing proposals, how can this be advanced and is it capable of receiving affirmative support from all member states? As I understand it, France has expressed views which are totally opposed to the concept. Is there any prospect at this stage of a European Union position outside the Commission?
The Deputy's information is correct. I was very much aware of the reaction of France. The Deputy is right in saying that Commissioner Leon Brittan launched the NTMA initiative. The key components of the NTMA are the removal of technical barriers to trade and goods through mutual recognition and harmonisation; the elimination of all industrial tariffs by 2010; a free trade area in services; a greater liberalisation of Government procurement and intellectual property and investment. The rationale behind Commissioner Brittan's proposal is explained in the Commission's communication on the New Transatlantic Marketplace Agreement — which the Deputy will have studied. The Commission stressed the importance attached to ensuring that the NTMA was fully compatible — this is probably where the tensions arose — with EU international obligations and aims and claimed that the proposal will help to spur a millennium round of trade negotiations. The reaction of partners was sceptical.
France strongly objected to the proposal and was highly critical of the lack of transparency by the Commission. While other partners were more positive, concerns were raised about the difficulty the proposal would cause for the WT0 and the multilateral system in general. Several partners and the US felt that certain aspects of agriculture should be included in any such agreement. Concerns were also raised at the proposed bilateral dispute settlement system because of the potential conflict. A problem arose because of the potential conflict with the WTO and the dispute settlement system. Many partners expressed doubts about a free trade area mainly because of potential damage to the multilateral trading system, and in particular, to negotiations associated with the general agreement on trade in services. There was also some doubt about the likely success of negotiations with the US, given the difficulties over recent negotiations on financial services in Telecom. Some partners had concerns about the timing of the negotiations which could divert from preparations for GATT 2000 negotiations. A problem arose because of a potential conflict between the multilateral philosophy and the WTO.
When Deputy Spring was Minister for Foreign Affairs, I had the opportunity to sit in on many meetings in relation to the whole process of transatlantic co-operation. There is a difference in co-operation between the European Union and the United States and between the European Union and Canada. It is clear that whatever restrictions or difficulties apply on both sides of the Atlantic there is a need for such a development. Will the Minister agree that given the whole process of EU enlargement the peripheral nature of Ireland will become more acute as the market moves more to the east? Therefore, we have a particular interest in trying to re-establish ourselves nearer the centre. In the past Helsinki has become identified with the OSCE and security, the Hague with certain UN conventions and Strasbourg with human rights. Does the Minister see any benefit in establishing here a centre for transatlantic co-operation with somebody such as Senator George Mitchell as chairman so that we would become the centre of what would be inevitable co-operation? If there is any sanity in the European Union and in the United States and Canada in the coming years we should not await the full consolidation of the process in the European Union but position ourselves nationally in a situation where we are identified, being in the centre of European Union transatlantic co-operation geographically. This is something we could claim with some credibility and without awaiting anybody's authority.
I agree with the Deputy about the peripheral nature of our island in the context of the European mainland. As far as being pushed out further as a direct result of EU enlargement, this Government and future Governments must ensure we remain at the heart of Europe despite our location. On transatlantic co-operation, it is important that we attract organisations to this country. Deputies Mitchell and Spring are correct that Ireland was open and constructive in discussions. We consider it essential that the multilateral rules-based trading environment be not adversely affected by the Commission proposal. We appreciated the concerns of partners and we were also aware of the sensitivities of third countries. We supported the view that the concepts and common interests underlining the NTMA proposals should be examined to see how best they might be developed in harmony with EU commitments to the multilateral system and to the WTO.
I welcome the Government's reservations about this development. I am not against free trade in principle but in practice we have to move slowly in terms of opening up even more free trade areas between ourselves and the United States. Given that we have recently committed ourselves to the euro, the stability pact within the European Union and the widening of the EU to include east European states, many of which are highly underdeveloped, will the Minister agree it is essential that we concentrate on developing this area in advance of opening up more areas of free trade which inevitably will lead to——
A question please, Deputy.
——a concentration of even greater power in the hands of companies which already straddle the world?
I do not disagree and cannot argue with the Deputy's philosophy; it is part of what we all hope to achieve. It is important that we place on record, in the light of the complicated nature of the subject, the proposals outlined in the Transatlantic Economic Partnership. The paper was discussed at the EU-US summit on 18 May where it was the subject of a joint statement. The Transatlantic Economic Partnership aims to accelerate economic growth mainly by reducing regulatory and other non-tariff barriers to trade in goods and services. The partnership stipulates that the US and EU should work together to achieve substantial further trade liberalisation on a multilateral basis. It is based on three principles — accentuating market access for suppliers of goods, services and farm products; engendering long-term results on Euro-American issues, both bilaterally and multilaterally; and extending the initiative to include broad participation of business, social, environmental and consumer interests. The partnership covers the important areas of manufactured products, agriculture services, industrial customs duties, global electronics, trade and intellectual property rights, investment, public procurement and competition.