U.S.-EU Summit 2006: Summary

Order Code RS22471

July 7, 2006

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

U.S.-EU Summit 2006: Summary

Vince L. Morelli

Analyst in European Affairs

Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division

Summary

The annual U.S.-EU Summit, attended by President Bush and Secretary of State

Rice, was held on June 21, 2006, in Vienna, Austria. The Summit highlighted the

continued improvement in transatlantic relations by reporting on examples of how the

partnership has continued to work since the debate over Iraq policy. Foreign policy and

economic issues dominated the discussions. Two new agreements were signed regarding

the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights against piracy and counterfeiting and a

Higher Education and Vocational Training program. An expansion of existing

cooperation on energy security was announced along with the establishment of a High

Level Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development. The

Summit also addressed differences of opinion on issues such as the Guantanamo

detention center, and the visa waiver program. This report will not be updated. Also

see CRS Report RS22163, The United States and Europe: Current Issues, by (name r

edacted).

U.S.-EU SUMMIT

Background. On June 21, 2006, the United States and the European Union held

their annual Summit in Vienna, Austria. Attending the Summit for the EU was Austrian

Federal Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel, representing the Presidency of the European

Council, José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, Javier Solana, the

High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, EU Trade Commissioner

Peter Mandelson and Austrian Foreign Minister Plassnik. President Bush led the U.S.

delegation, accompanied by Secretary of State Rice and others.

Summit Agenda. The theme for the 2006 Summit was “a renewed partnership

producing results worldwide.” The four general topics discussed included foreign policy

cooperation, energy security, economy and trade, and global challenges.

In the area of foreign policy, the Middle East dominated the discussions. The United

States and the EU took strong positions in the aftermath of the early 2006 Palestinian

elections, refusing to recognize the Hamas authority. Both sides are working closely to

provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. The close cooperation between

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2

the EU and United States on Iran’s nuclear ambitions was also highlighted. Both sides

expressed a strong desire to see Iran accept the newest package of incentives offered by

the international community to defuse the dispute. Iraq reconstruction is also an issue on

which the EU and the United States have begun to work more closely. In 2005, the EU

and United States jointly hosted a conference to support Iraq’s democratic transition and

to help raise funds for reconstruction. The EU has also announced plans to open an office

in Baghdad. Other cited examples of cooperation included efforts to strengthen

democracy in Ukraine and to withhold acceptance of the results of the recent flawed

elections in Belarus. Joint opposition to a possible long-range missile test flight by North

Korea was also expressed. The crisis in Darfur, the peace process in the Congo, and the

potential end of violence in Somalia were also offered as examples of issues on which

there is closer U.S.-EU cooperation.

Energy security was discussed in detail and a new action plan to address security of

supply, competitiveness, the use of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency was

outlined. The United States and the EU agreed to elevate their cooperative effort on

energy to a “strategic energy dialogue” in order to more closely coordinate policy towards

supplies and suppliers of energy. A renewal of the Energy Star Agreement for the

promotion of energy efficient office equipment was approved for signature later in 2006.

Under economy and trade, both sides expressed their intentions to pursue

negotiations which would conclude the DOHA Development Agenda by the end of 2006.

The DOHA negotiations have bogged down over the issue of industrial tariffs in the

emerging economies, which makes market access for EU and U.S. companies more

difficult, and EU and U.S. agricultural tariffs and subsidies, which make those markets

difficult for developing states to penetrate. The United States and the EU are still in

disagreement over how much each side is willing to compromise on agricultural

subsidies. The United States and EU also announced a new “action strategy” for the

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) against global piracy and

counterfeiting,1 This initiative will build on the momentum of the 2005 Summit at which

the United States and EU agreed to adopt effective intellectual property rights protection

and enforcement rules in regional and bilateral agreements and as a key focus of trade

capacity- building technical assistance to third countries. The Agreement also establishes

informal mechanisms for IPR, customs, and law enforcement experts to exchange views

on best practices in addressing piracy and counterfeit problems in third countries.

Under global challenges the United States and the EU agreed to establish a U.S.-EU

High Level Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development.

The Europeans saw this as a major achievement in transatlantic cooperation because of

Europe’s belief that the current U.S. Administration is not concerned enough about the

environment.

1

See US/EU Joint Declaration: Working Together to Fight Global Piracy and Counterfeiting,

U.S./EU Summit, June 2005, EU Commission website.

CRS-3

The United States and the EU also renewed a Higher Education and Vocational

Training Agreement2 that was established in 1995. The program is funded and managed

jointly by the European Commission and the U.S. Department of Education. The projects

include joint study programs, faculty and staff exchanges, dissemination of projects,

software and Web development.

Other Issues. During the Summit, the matter of the Guantanamo detention camp

was discussed. The EU has expressed its strong desire to see the facility closed as soon

as possible because the Europeans believe it degrades shared values regarding human

rights, and disregards international accords on the treatment of prisoners. On June 13, the

European Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling for the closing of the

camp. President Bush acknowledged the concerns of the Europeans and suggested that

he would like to see an end to the facility as well but that he could not release some of the

remaining prisoners because they were considered extremely dangerous.3 The United

States is also trying to work out agreements with governments that would receive some

of the prisoners eventually released.

The EU also raised the issue of the U.S. visa waiver program and the desire to have

it applied to all EU member states. Currently, 10 EU member states (mostly the newer

members from central and eastern Europe) are excluded from the visa waiver program due

to problems meeting U.S. immigration laws. The United States prefers to address this

issue on a country-by-country basis. Both sides agreed, however, that ‘tangible progress

was needed to establish a reciprocal visa-free travel regime for all EU citizens to the

United States.’4

Both sides also agreed to try to conclude the open skies initiative which has stalled

in the United States. The United States and EU reached an accord last year giving more

access to cities in the United States and Europe for each other’s airlines. However, new

regulations prepared by the Department of Transportation have generated opposition in

the United State over investment, ownership and management of U.S. airlines by

European airline companies. On June 14, the House included language in the Fiscal Year

2007 Transportation Appropriations bill (H.R. 5576) which would delay the rule until

2007.

The United States and the EU also agreed to cooperate closely on resolution of the

issue of passenger name records (PNR) data transfer. In reaction to September 11, 2001,

the U.S. Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (P.L.10771). A critical element of this legislation was the requirement that air carriers operating

flights to the United States provide certain data regarding passengers. The Passenger

Name Record (PNR) information was to be collected prior to any aircraft landing in the

United States and forwarded to the Bureau of Customs and Border Control. In December

2003, the Department of Homeland Security and the European Commission reached an

agreement that would allow European air carriers to provide PNR data. In May 2006, the

2

Additional information on this Agreement can be found on the website of the European

Council’s Summit agenda.

3

See Vienna Summit concluding press release, White House, June 21, 2006.

4

Summit press release, op. cit.

CRS-4

European Court of Justice, in response to a suit filed by the European Parliament, ruled

that the European Commission had no legal basis for declaring the PNR data issue in

compliance with EU privacy laws. The Court ruled that data transfers could continue until

September but directed the Commission to find another basis to continue the program

beyond then.5

5

For more information on the Court of Justice decision see, European Court of Justice press

release #46/06, May 30, 2006.

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.