COMMERCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EEC AND THE USA

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The European Parliament considers relations between the EEC and the USA on the basis of a report by Mr Cousté on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

The discussion takes place on the eve of the investiture of Jimmy Carter as new President of the United States and a few days after the new Commission takes office under the presidency of Roy Jenkins. In "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 11 january 1977)

Mr President, Mr Cousté's report and motion for a resolution come at a highly important time from the political point of view. In the United States, a new administration is about to take over and has, on more than one occasion, made known its desire to adopt a different attitude towards Europe. On the other hand, we have the new Commission which has taken over responsability for Community affairs and - as we heard from Mr Jenkins earlier in the day - has undertakes to give fresh impetus to the construction of Europe and hence to its international relations. We are therefore speaking today to both the new American administration and the new Commission, which lends our debate a certain political weight.

It would perhaps have been a good thing if the resolution were broader in scope and did not confine itself to trade relations, for let us say quite frankly that trade relations are part of a much larger whole embracing political and military relations, monetary and financial relations, the North-South issue, the world energy problems, each of which has a direct bearing on trade relations. If the balance of trade with the United States shows certain features, it is not simply because there is a certain American and a certain European trade policy, but because there is a certain dollar policy and a certain policy on military costs and so on. Overall relations with the last American administration, under the guidance and impetus of a powerful Secretary of State, certainly cannot be aptly described as fairly satisfactory, which is what is said in the motion for a resolution by the Committee on External Economic Relations.

The protectionist trends which we saw emerge during the years of the Nixon and Ford administrations undoubtedly have their origin in the crisis and the subsequent pressures from the sectors that felt themselves most threatened, but this protectionist trend was able to flourish as it did because trade policy was part of the general policy of the United States, whose aim was - to put it clearly - to exercise a deliberate and strict hegemony which, according to Kissinger, ought to have been directed first and foremost towards the United States' allies. This is a topic which this House should perhaps discuss some day in all its aspects. I mentioned it only because I hope that the new American administration and the new Commission fully realize that it is the overall relationship that needs improving and that on this the improvement of trade relations largely depends.

But let us return to the resolution and the subject of trade relations. The Cousté report and resolution very rightly stress the dangers of protectionist pressures in the United States and the difficulties which the American administration has had in trying to resist them. It has not always succeeded. The resolution hopes that the Tokyo Round will be speeded up and invites the new administration to offer stronger resistance to protectionist moves. The fact is that we in Europe are all quite concerned about the quotas for special steels, the sudden measures with regard to soya beans, the threats that still hang over car and shoe exports, the measures taken with brandy, the various protective regulations still in force and the risks facing European investments in America. All this is indicative not just of a hard bargaining position but of too great a readiness to give way to specific pressures from American industry without caring too much for the damage caused to one's partners. With such procedures, it will

not be possible in the long term - and this must be said clearly - to prevent the general decline of international trade. However, we would do well to insist that we expect the new American Administration to adopt a different attitude, showing greater awareness that it is in American, European and world interests to keep to established market rules and not to change them in this way under any pressure whatsoever.

I should like to add, however, that Mr Cousté's report and resolution too readily gloss over the Community's and Europe Is responsibilities in the limited field of trade relations. The report says what is expected of the United States but nothing of what should be expected from the Community and its institutions. These responsibilities have mainly to do with the problem - also put clearly by Mr Cousté and other speakers - of a more balanced development in trade. The Cousté report claims that the disequilibrium is mainly due to the lack of balance in the agricultural sector. In other words, what we have here is a scarcely veiled invitation to the Community to maintain, if not to consolidate, European agricultural protectionism, especially with regard to cereals and vegetables used as animal feed. I do not believe, however, that the Community can accept this prospect. Although it is right and proper that the Community should assure itself of a minimum autonomy in the production of cereals and animal feedingstu

ffs, this should not go beyond what is a reasonable margin of security. The agricultural price policy that has been pursued so far is an ill-designed policy which cannot be defended, even at a pinch, as a policy designed to reduce the trade imbalance with the United States. We hope that the Commission and Commissioner Gundelach in particular - who has already referred to this problem in his speeches - will set about reviewing the agricultural policy, taking account first and foremost of the consumers and hence the need for basic prices, even if it means importing more grain from the large producer countries like the United States and Canada.

The real and serious imbalance in trade between the United States and the European Community lies elsewhere, and this is not mentioned in the resolution. It is common knowledge that the mainstays of US foreign trade are, first, its mass-produced agricultural products and, secondly, the products of advanced technology in the aeronautical, electronic, data-processing and nuclear sectors. The United States owes its capacity to export agricultural products primarily to the richness of its lands and mineral wealth and secondarily to its scientific, technical and managerial capacities. We cannot really compete with the lands of the Mississippi valley. We can only offer the lands of what the Chanson de Roland calls 'la douce France', the lands of the Po valley and the Dutch polders, which is very little indeed compared with the immense valley of the Mississippi. And it is said that it is in this area that we should compete in order to redress the balance of payments!

What we have instead is know-how, organizational ability and sufficient financial capacity to redress the balance in the area of advanced technology. Our failure to do so is due solely to our absurd inability to pursue a satisfactory European research policy in those areas and a satisfactory European market policy. Every Member State with an aircraft industry or data-processing industry has so far steadfastly refused a European policy until what little it had in the way of advanced industry, so stoutly prevented from becoming a Community industry, either has been sold or is about to be sold to the American industrial giants or reduced to one of their appendices. The time has come to redress this balance, and it cannot be claimed that this is the duty of the Carter Administration and the Americans, nor of the state in general and American private enterprise. It is the duty of the Community.

It is the commission's duty to propose and the Council's - for as long as the Community retains its present structures - to decide in a Community manner what should be done in this field, looking beyond the end of the national noses of each individual country. We are sorry that the resolution says nothing of those Community responsibilities in the trade imbalance between the United States and Europe. We shall vote for it, because we do not wish to weaken the polite but pressing invitation addressed to the new American Administration, but we are confident that no one will forget the Community's responsibilities for the proper development of trade relations with the United States or the need I spoke of earlier to insert trade policy in an overall conception of relations between the Community and the United States, in which it is for us to take up again the task of building a supra-national Europe and for the United States to show understanding for and acceptance of this process of unification, abandoning the h

aughty hegemonic attitude which has marked Dr Kissinger's foreign policy during these last eight years.