P. J. Sheehan
Question:7 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the recent EU-USA summit meeting. [16922/00]
Other Questions. - EU-US Summit.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:70 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has sought or received from the Portuguese Presidency any report on the outcome of the EU-US summit in Portugal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15898/00]
I propose to reply to Questions Nos. 7 and 70 together.
The European Union and the United States hold summit meetings twice yearly. The most recent meeting was held near Lisbon on 31 May last. The practice is that the Presidency of the European Union and the Commission represent the EU at these summits. At the summit on 31 May, the EU was represented by Prime Minister Guterres, Commission President Prodi and Secretary General – High Representative Solana. The US delegation was led by President Clinton. In accordance with established practice, the Presidency subsequently reported to the other member states on the discussions which took place.
A meeting at Foreign Minister level, where the EU was represented by Foreign Minister Gama, Secretary General – High Representative Solana and Commissioner Patten, and the US by Secretary of State Albright took place. In addition, a meeting of Trade and Economic Ministers was held, where the EU was represented by Portugal's Finance and Economy Minister, Pina Moura, and Commissioner Lamy. The US delegation at this meeting was led by US Trade Representative Barshefsky and included Secretary of Commerce Daley and other senior US representatives.
The holding of regular EU-US summits became an established practice as a result of the Trans-Atlantic Declaration of 1990, which gave a new impulse to EU-US relations. The summits were held annually until 1995 when it was agreed that they should be held twice yearly. While con tact between the two sides is an ongoing process, the formal twice yearly summits provide a very useful forum for dialogue on matters of mutual concern and interest.
The Presidency reported that the most recent summit on 31 May was conducted in a cordial and constructive atmosphere. The ongoing points of disagreement between the EU and the US in the trade area were discussed and both sides committed themselves to working together to reach solutions as quickly as possible. The summit issued agreed joint statements on south east Europe, HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in Africa, on prospects for a new round of global trade negotiations under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation and on data privacy. I am arranging to have copies of these statements placed in the Library.
There was a wide-ranging discussion at the summit on global political concerns, including Russia, Ukraine, nuclear disarmament, Africa, the Middle East peace process, prospects for the global economy and combating drugs.
The Minister mentioned the AIDS issue which was discussed at the summit. He will be aware that somewhere in the region of 500 million women in the Third World will not see the age of 55 because of the lack of proper medical facilities there. Has he had an opportunity to consider the proposal I put forward and raised with his predecessor for the creation of a trans-Atlantic foundation located in Dublin to promote North American-EU co-operation, particularly in tackling issues of the kind mentioned, where Dublin would become a centre for study and co-operative action? Will he consider that proposal? It would enhance our prestige and give us an opportunity to put on the agenda issues of concern.
I was not aware of the specific proposal made by the Deputy. I will follow it up. When the Taoiseach returned from his trip to Africa recently he took up the global issue of AIDS. The pandemic that exists in Africa poses huge challenges not only to that continent but to the developed world in terms of sustainable development and so on. He was in discussion with President Prodi to impress on him the need for regional responses rather than trying to deal with the problem on a country by country basis so great is the issue. The US has designated AIDS as a national security issue and not merely a health one where their central interests are at risk. The impact of AIDS in terms of life expectancy in many beleaguered African countries particularly, but not solely, and the impact of that on economic sustainability and political stability is obvious.
In the context of the EU-US summit, the task force on communicable diseases has started to bring together technical experts in speciality areas such as HIV, AIDS, tuberculosis and anti-microbial resistance to develop joint approaches to surveillance, response, research and related issues for co-operation. This effort will supplement and complement co-operation already under way between our development systems programmes in the two continents.
Clearly this is an issue that is of the highest political priority and one would hope that this co-operation at EU and US level will bring about some real benefits for a beleaguered continent facing a pandemic of horrendous proportions.
As regards the Minister's reference to the WTO, will he give more details on what was discussed and specifically the relationship of such discussions to the perceived diminution of the role of UNCTAD in the international community? There is a widespread perception among developing countries that the role of UNCTAD is being dislodged by a rather exclusive and narrow focus in the WTO discussions.
As regards the current US-EU trade disputes, it is important to recall, as indicated to the US side by President Prodi at the recent summit, that they account for about 4% to 5% of overall trade and can be controlled. The major outstanding disputes concern the EU banana import regime, the ban on imports of hormone related beef, the EU legislation on aircraft hush kits, EU concerns about genetically modified foodstuffs and US legislation on foreign sales corporations. The US has also expressed concern about competition between Airbus and Boeing.
In relation to the prospects for a new round of global trade negotiations, at the summit both the EU and US sides reaffirmed their intention to build on the constructive work which has been ongoing in Geneva for the past six months following the failure of the WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle to try to launch a new round during the course of the year and reiterated their common view that the WTO agenda should include the social issues of labour and the environment not as a matter of protectionism but as a matter of social justice and sustainability.
The European Union also remains firmly convinced that a new broad based round to be completed in a reasonably short period, say three years, should remain the objective. The EU will continue to work towards this end. Realistically it seems unlikely at this stage that a new round could be successfully launched this year. However, it remains a possibility.
As regards the Minister reflecting on the fact that the net loss to Africa from the Uruguay Round was $3 billion, there are no prospects for Africa on a round conducted on anything like the same principles. In relation to UNCTAD, which was a United Nations agency where there was developing country participation, the widespread perception is that it has been sidelined in favour of a trade led option. Is that not a great concern for a country like Ireland that one would expect to be supporting UNCTAD?
I have given the Deputy a detailed and considered reply on what he sees as a diminishing role for UNCTAD in this context. There is a recognition that the next WTO round must take into account the traditionally disadvantaged position of Africa in economic terms vis-à-vis the rest of the world. However, those matters which were seen in the past as merely health issues are now impacting in a way that will require the collective genius of us all to resolve.
The world trade talks should be conducted on a more even handed basis this time as the chairman is from New Zealand for the first three years and from Thailand for the second three years. That will give Third World countries an opportunity to redress certain imbalances. Has the Minister interested himself in the trade element of the talks between the EU and the US which have not been harmonious? I, together with the Ceann Comhairle and Deputy Higgins, was a member of a delegation that went to Washington. We were left in no doubt by some members of the House of Representatives that the EU may again be involved in a trade war because of certain disagreements. One of them affects Ireland to a considerable degree, the use of certain hormones which occur naturally in cattle. The Americans insist that beef produced by the inducement of such hormones should be entitled to be exported to the rest of the world, particularly Europe. However, Europe does not agree. I agree with the Americans as do Irish farmers and the meat industry. We should take a tough stance within the European Union to see that is allowed. There is no evidence to suggest these hormones are injurious to health. They are naturally occurring—
I remind Members that supplementary questions and answers are limited to one minute.
I note what the Deputy says as regards his recent visit to the US. This has always been an area of contention between the EU and the US, particularly in relation to agriculture where there is a different economic basis from that in the EU. The EU ban on hormone treated beef has been challenged successfully by the US under the WTO and sanctions have been imposed since June 1999. Discussions are ongoing with a view to substituting EU compensation for US trade sanctions. It appears that the EU position is that it is prepared to suffer the penalty of compensation rather than have hormone treated beef introduced into the European Union.
It is highly illogical.
A more detailed response to the policy basis of that would be best given by the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
I am very much a European as far as hormones in beef are concerned. There is a wide divergence of opinion on GM foods. Would the Minister agree there is considerable public concern in Europe as opposed to America where this does not seem to be a major issue? Is there any hope of bridging that gap?
A consultative forum will be established on GMOs which will report to the next EU-US summit. The launch of the EU-US biotechnology consultative forum was announced at the summit and this will comprise eminent persons from outside government. It is expected the forum will provide a venue for important discussions among independent experts and contribute to a better understanding of the difficult issues which arise.
The intention is that the forum's report will be considered at the next EU-US summit. Where trade in agricultural biotechnology products is concerned, discussions have begun on regulatory issues, including as a priority practical means to facilitate trade in accordance with regulatory requirements of the importing country.
The issue of GMOs is of great importance and concern to governments and consumers. Together with the Ministers for the Environment and Local Government and Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, I will continue to closely monitor developments in exchanges between the European Union and the US in this area.
Where does the Helms-Burton legislation stand? Was this matter discussed?
I will come back to the Deputy on that point. There was something in the briefing on this issue.