Apologies were received from Senator Quinn. The first item on the agenda is an exchange of views on EU-US relations with Mr. Karel Kovanda, Deputy Director-General at the European Commission Directorate-General for External Relations. I welcome Mr. Kovanda and I appreciate his attendance today. Our format is simple. Mr. Kovanda will make a presentation after which I will open it up to members to ask questions.
EU-US Relations: Presentation.
Mr. Karel Kovanda
I thank the Chairman for inviting me to Dublin. I am ashamed to state it is the first visit in my 62 years. However, I will fix that. With the Chairman's permission, I will discuss four aspects of our relationship with the United States. By "our", I mean that of the European Union.
It is useful to know the political relationship is ever-strengthening, particularly in our co-operation regarding other parts of the world. Later we can discuss how we co-ordinate our policies on a number of countries. EU policy and diplomacy towards Iran has been fully backed by the US and we work closely together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our policies concerning the internal review and reform of the United Nations have also been close. If differences exist, they are differences in tactics rather than in objectives.
Our economic relationship with the US is at foundation level. It is a remarkable foundation as two-thirds of US investment abroad is allocated in Europe and vice versa. Goods totalling €1.25 billion cross the ocean every day as part of our bilateral trade. Certain obstacles prevent us from realising the full potential of the transatlantic market. However, these were addressed by an economic initiative agreed this year at the EU-US summit. The economic focus of that summit was on intellectual rights and barriers to transatlantic investment. I will underline the importance of the economic dimension by pointing out that US companies earn more from their investment in Europe than from their investment in the rest of the world combined.
Issues of openness form another aspect of the relationship, including an open aviation area agreement which is in the interest of all European air carriers. We will be ready to sign as soon as the US is. We have combined the need for an open aviation area agreement with seeking the introduction of the legislation necessary to open influence, ownership and control of US airlines to Europe.
We have sorted out the issue of passenger name records, at least in the interim. This is an extremely delicate, difficult and touchy issue. It is tremendously important that Europe maintains the data protection rights of our citizens and it is equally important that the US has the handle on security issues it feels it needs. We also seek full reciprocity on visa-free travel. A number of European countries enjoy a system of visa waivers from the US. However, not all European Union members do so. We insist the US treats citizens of all EU countries in the same way.
On certain matters, our views diverge with those of the US. One such area is the application of international humanitarian law and international human rights. We have had important and substantive discussions with the legal adviser to the US Secretary of State, Mr. John Bellinger. The EU will continue to voice its concerns about issues connected with this cluster of problems, particularly Guantanamo Bay.
We also differ on the death penalty. Across the board, members of the EU are against the application of the death penalty. Differences also exist on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. However, a new EU-US high-level dialogue on climate change, clean energy and sustainable development has been launched and the first meeting will take place in a month's time. Even though we may differ on the Kyoto Protocol as a document, we have converged to a certain extent on the importance of dealing with the issue itself.
I salute the role of Ireland in developing the EU-US relationship particularly through the role of the Irish diaspora in the United States, the Dromoland Castle summit which triggered the transatlantic economic initiative taken up a year later, and the sterling leadership of the former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, as head of the EU delegation in Washington.
I thank Mr. Kovanda. I also welcome Mr. Martin Territ, the head of the European Commission's office in Dublin.
I will begin the questions and then open it up to members. I have experience in the area of full reciprocity to visa free travel to the US for all EU citizens. I worked on Capitol Hill and was involved in immigration legislation, particularly the visa waiver programme. If memory serves me, it is based on overstay and refusal rates. Luckily enough, Ireland got into it in 1994 and 1995 because our statistics with regard to refusal rates and overstays were sufficiently low that the Immigration and Naturalization Service deemed Ireland as a suitable candidate for the visa waiver programme. However, many other countries were not within an ass's roar of this. I do not know how the United States would respond if a country had massive overstay and high refusal rates. Would Mr. Kovanda expect it to include such countries in a visa waiver programme?
Mr. Kovanda
Our basic principle is that all citizens of the European Union should be treated in the same way, irrespective of from which member state they come. This matter was raised approximately one year ago, if memory serves me. At that time the European Commission undertook a study of which countries treated EU members in a differentiated fashion and approached these countries to ask them to unify their treatment of EU member state nationals. Quite a few countries — perhaps two or three dozen — had this differentiated approach to various member states for historical reasons. In most instances, the regime has been regularised.
With regard to three important countries — the United States, Canada and Australia — progress has been slower and treatment could not be achieved from one day to the next. I am glad that in the case of Canada and, in particular, Australia the national administrations found ways of if not sorting out the unification of treatment issue overnight, at least pointing out to the countries in question what they needed to specifically aim at in order to receive the same treatment as the majority of EU member states. What we are talking about is an individualised road map.
In the case of the United States — I salute the Chairman for his particular expertise and experience in this area — we will soon have another periodic report on where we stand on this issue. The progress with the United States, even in so far as to clarify what a country needs to do to fit into the visa waiver programme, has been glacial.
Everyone at this meeting or anyone listening to it, if anyone is listening, would understand that the immigration regime in the United States has changed irrevocably and that there is absolutely no way US immigration officials will consider the European Union as a whole when it comes to people from the Union entering the United States. I agree with the United States that it should deal with member states individually because there were massive differences. It is unrealistic for the European Commission to ask the Americans to consider the European Union as a whole. I take the point with regard to each country having a road map; that is probably the best solution.
I thank Mr. Kovanda for his presentation and welcome him and Mr. Territt. Mr. Kovanda gave a precise outline of current thinking. I wish to deal with two issues. First, Mr. Kovanda has highlighted the areas where there is a degree of contention between the United States and the European Union. Among them he referred to the death penalty. Notwithstanding the fact that, where American foreign policy is concerned, there will always be a certain degree of ideological difference among certain countries and parties in the European Union, the one issue on which the Union holds a very firm view is our absolute objection to the death penalty in the United States. Is the opposition of the European Union having any impact? I understand that within certain US states there seems to be a rethink on the issue. Can we bring further political or moral pressure to bear on our friends and colleagues in the United States to highlight our strong opposition to the death penalty?
My second point relates to the economic figures presented by Mr. Kovanda. What he told us should be no surprise but we must keep reminding ourselves of our huge interdependence from both an American and European perspective. Some three quarters of the European Union's entire external trade is with the United States and vice versa, notwithstanding the growth of trade with Asia. Is there enough political recognition on both sides of how much we rely on each other? While the political differences between Europe and the United States on a number of fronts in recent years might be causing barriers, is it not important that we continue to recognise how important Europe is for the United States and how important the United States is for Europe? Are we making progress in keeping that equation centre stage, as it must be in the interests of both our economies?
Mr. Kovanda
I thank the Senator for his important questions. To a large extent, the death penalty is a matter for states in the United States, although there is overarching federal legislation. What the European Union does routinely — I have signed a number of letters to this effect — is to protest and ask for reconsideration in every case where we see a danger of the death penalty being meted out to a defendant. We do this — I do not want to say "routinely" because it is a miserable word to use in this context — whenever we are aware of the danger of the death penalty being imposed on anybody, anywhere in the world.
This is one of the standard issues in our dialogue with the United States. I can only gauge that the impact it has on the United States would be that of one tessera in the overall mosaic that forms American public opinion because, in the final analysis, the issue of the death penalty will be decided by public opinion through the state legislatures. I would not want to overestimate the impact of the European Union's protests. However, as the Senator cogently pointed out, it is an important moral issue for us and one on which we stand our ground no matter what.
With regard to the importance of the economic underpinning of the US-EU relationship, the Senator suggested three quarters of each party's trade was with the other, whereas I suggest the fraction is two thirds with regard to investment both ways by the European Union and the United States. This economic underpinning is taken very seriously by our leaders, as manifested at the summit in Dromoland Castle — I do not have to look further than there for an example. Both parties have reiterated at every summit their commitment to developing the relationship further. They seek to file away the obstacles before us. The transatlantic economic initiative, launched last year, is a manifestation of our leaders' realisation of the importance of economic co-operation. Irrespective of differences between Europe and the United States that headlines highlight from time to time, there is an awareness of the major economic basis on which this relationship is built.
I welcome Mr. Kovanda. We acknowledge the major economic relationship between the EU and the United States. Regarding other issues, there is considerable imbalance. In most areas, the United States picks and chooses. In other areas where there is close co-operation between the EU and the United States it is at the choosing of the latter. The United States is the dominant partner in the relationship. It is not co-operation between equals.
Regarding the recently signed agreement on name records of EU citizens visiting the United States, there are serious issues concerning data protection and the privacy of EU citizens. There is no such reciprocal arrangement for citizens of the United States. While Mr. Kovanda states that it is important that the United States gets a handle on security issues, this should be a two-way process. The EU also has security concerns, given the events in Britain and Spain in recent times.
The situation is similar in respect of international law. The United States picks and chooses, with total disregard for international law at times. It does not recognise the International Criminal Court, in addition to the points made by Senator Bradford about the death penalty and international human rights.
A matter of interest to us is the rendition flights from Shannon and the transport of troops to Iraq. If I understood correctly, Mr. Kovanda referred to close co-operation between the United States and Europe in regard to Iraq and Iran. That is certainly not true of most European countries, with the exception of Britain. We have grave concerns about these matters. Has Mr. Kovanda received assurances that rendition flights and holding cells have ended in all EU countries, including the two new accession countries, Bulgaria and Romania?
Mr. Kovanda
That amounts to a collection of important questions. Regarding reciprocity of passenger name records, allow me to refer to what happened earlier this month. The European Court of Justice rejected the agreement we had with the United States on the transfer of passenger name records. It was rejected not on grounds of substance — of providing too much information to the United States — but on a legal basis. I will not describe it as technical because it is very important in European legislation. The substance of the matter, how, when and to whom records were provided, was not affected by the judgment of the European Court of Justice in May.
The court required this matter to be dealt with by the end of September. In the interim, the attacks on London occurred and in the wake of that incident and further reflections by the United States, the latter decided not to repackage the original agreement with a legal underpinning. Instead, it sought to renegotiate the agreement. The end of September passed without agreement. Negotiations were extremely arduous and lasted until 3 a.m. in the morning, following nine and a half hours of discussion. The result was as close as possible to what had been agreed previously, without breaching EU rules. In negotiations the EU is as tough as the United States. The net result, as with all good negotiations, is a document with which neither party is entirely satisfied.
Regarding reciprocity, the United States would be delighted to provide similar information to the EU.
Why have we not requested it?
Mr. Kovanda
This a question for member states rather than the Commission. On the European side there is no partner who requires such information. That is the only reason there is no reciprocity of passenger name information.
In respect of the International Criminal Court, Deputy Costello is correct. The EU and the United States differ on the importance of the International Criminal Court. We have noticed shifts in the United States' position. When the UN Security Council discussed Darfur and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, it was important that the United States decided to abstain. It did not vote against it as it had previously. We differ from the US on the ICC.
On renditions, it is crucial to establish the truth about allegations on CIA activities in Europe. Within the remit of its competencies, the Commission co-operates with and supports the European Parliament and Council of Europe investigations. However, the Commission has no legal powers to investigate its member states or acceding countries concerning allegations of CIA activities. The Commission does not carry out any investigations. We have called on EU member states and candidate countries to use all appropriate legal instruments to check the veracity of these allegations and to co-operate fully with the investigations. Although the Marty report from the Council of Europe represents a significant step in the investigation processes, the European Parliament and Council of Europe investigations have not been completed. The Commission notes that the Marty report calls on all member states concerned to comply with their obligation to investigate under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is also important that the US Government co-operates fully with the Council of Europe and European Parliament investigations.
I thank Mr. Kovanda, who has answered the question I was about to ask on the air passenger name records. I am concerned about the transfer of that information, how it is protected and about the fact that there is an interim agreement. I welcome the statements that the EU and the Commission have played tough with the Americans. I am concerned about all this data that has been collected and whether it is adequately protected. The interim agreement is fluid. When will a final agreement be reached?
Mr. Kovanda
The Senator is correct. The fact that this is an interim agreement was one of the mechanisms that allowed us to conclude this short period of a week or ten days of no rules, which threatened to be legally dangerous to member states, airlines and everybody concerned. Although I do not think the interim agreement has a deadline, we recognise its value as a patch which will carry over the period until we sort out a final agreement. I do not know whether my colleagues in the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security have already started on that. It will be very difficult to reach an agreement. We hope it will be reached next year.
Guantanamo Bay has been a source of concern in the EU. While I will not suggest the US authorities have thrown it back in the EU's face, I understand they have suggested burden sharing and that because of its complaints, the EU take some of the prisoners. How does Mr. Kovanda respond to this?
Mr. Kovanda
The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is an anomaly. Various member states and the European Commission have argued that the US Government should close it down as soon as possible. We have noted President Bush's statement that it would be desirable to close Guantanamo Bay. Our concern about Guantanamo Bay has been a key factor in developing our dialogue with Mr. John Bellinger, whom I mentioned before as the legal adviser to the US Secretary of State, in discussions on the fight against international terrorism. I am not aware of EU member states having responded to the point the Chairman mentioned. I am aware that the US offered to share the burden. Whether and how that would happen is a bilateral issue between the US and individual EU countries. I have no further comment.
The European Commission has registered some interest in this and some concern about the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Why would it then wash its hands of it and say it is a bilateral issue between a member state and the US? Why does the Commission not deal with it and help us to deal with it?
Mr. Kovanda
The Commission's view concerns, in particular, the legal status and the right to appropriate legal treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. I may be going out on a limb but the problem is not the fact of their being in Guantanamo Bay but their status.
Fine.
Can one divorce Guantanamo Bay from their status? None of us would have a problem if they had been properly tried and jailed in the US. Guantanamo Bay is synonymous with the fact that they have not been tried and there is no indication that they will be tried. That is the issue. Are any citizens of EU member states detained in Guantanamo Bay?
Mr. Kovanda
I do not have the answer.
The answer is "Yes". There are British prisoners.
I thought the British made a bilateral deal.
I understand most of them have been transferred.
Mr. Kovanda
Although my understanding is that EU nationals would have been transferred to their country of origin, I cannot say whether all of them have been. I do not know.
Iraq is and will be for some time the most significant world issue. Yesterday's announcement from the White House took some people by surprise. The US army will recede from Iraq over the next 18 months. What can we expect from the EU and the Commission regarding helping to resolve Iraq's problems such as infrastructural and diplomatic problems? That will be the most significant issue for the EU over the next few years. How will the EU assist Iraq to resolve its problems?
Mr. Kovanda
The European Commission has supported the democratically-elected Government of Iraq, as have the member states. The country's difficulties are very significant, and we see reports of them every day in the newspapers. The support we have provided has been political, economic and diplomatic. I do not have with me the figures relating to how many millions of euro that support amounted to. We have also supported Iraq for quite a long time now by providing a legal joint action called EUJUST which is one of the joint actions of the Council of Ministers. I have no doubt that this support to the legitimate Iraqi Government will continue.
Under the Austrian Presidency our Austrian colleagues were interested in providing Iraq with further advice on constitutional changes the country might require. I was in Iraq a little over a year ago with the political directors of the European Union when this issue was discussed. The future of Iraq is probably less clear than the future of many other countries, but the fact that we will continue supporting the country and supporting its democratically elected government goes without saying.
Members may respond if they wish, but I want to comment in regard to the first question I asked. It relates to the visa waiver. Yesterday it was made clear in a Government announcement, which I support although not every member here would, that Ireland would treat Bulgarian and Romanian workers differently from the workers from the ten accession countries. Sweden, the UK and Ireland allowed free access in respect of the ten accession countries. The vast majority of the member states treat people differently when it comes to access to their country by placing restrictions on how people enter their countries. How then, can the European Commission ask the United States of America to apply a different standard? The EU Commission is asking the US to treat the EU as a whole when EU member states do not, have never done and will not do so for the foreseeable future. It is a double standard. I can understand why the United States treats different countries differently in its immigration laws. How can the EU Commission ask the US to apply a standard that the EU does not apply?
Mr. Kovanda
There are two issues. One is travel, the other is a free labour market. When it comes to travel, Schengen is one territory and, sooner or later, all the new countries will join. I have a national identity card. It is the only document I use when I travel around Europe, and I can travel throughout every member state of the European Union for business or for pleasure. The labour market is another issue. Nobody is asking the United States to open up their labour market for European Union members. We are asking it to equalise the visa treatment of people who come to the US for reasons other than to work.
The European Union treats some countries differently from other countries among the ten accession states. The Chairman made the important point that Ireland was among the three countries that from the beginning opened up their labour markets to people from the accession countries. All countries realise that the limitations on the labour market are transitory with a well defined horizon which, for the ten accession countries, will lapse in 2011 — I am not sure what the position is for Romania and Bulgaria. At that point even the labour market will be completely open throughout the European Union and the labour force of any country will be able to move into any other country.
I accept what Mr. Kovanda is saying. However, some countries do not base decisions with regard to free movement of workers into their country on purely economic reasons. There are political reasons as well. It is not fair to say they are merely work, labour or economic issues. Politicians, wherever they are, act for political reasons. We are in danger of operating a double standard when it comes to the United States. I would not ask the United States to treat the EU as one entity. The US is right to treat individual member states differently.
Are any of the European Union countries still involved with the CIA in providing prison accommodation and cooperating in regard to rendition flights with prisoners? Mr. Kovanda indicated that this was really a matter for the European Parliament and for the Council of Europe but, in regard to the two accession countries, surely it is a matter for the Commission to make a recommendation as to whether the two new accession countries will join and when. Surely there is a question to be asked in regard to fulfilling all of the requirements for European Union membership?
Mr. Kovanda
The decision has been made. The two countries will join on 1 January. I would not exclude the possibility that the question has been asked of the countries and I can imagine what the answer would be.
It would be preferable not to speculate. Does Mr. Kovanda have any knowledge that the question was asked and answered?
Mr. Kovanda
I will not speculate. I do not have the information to hand. I repeat that we have no legal powers to investigate even acceding countries concerning these allegations.
I thank Mr. Kovanda and Mr. Territt for attending.
Sitting suspended at 3.08 p.m. The joint committee resumed in private session at 3.09 p.m. and adjourned at 3.30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 November 2006.