What are the results of the first phase of the Transatlantic Agenda?

The NTA has been in place since 1995, and covers 4 chapters of work. What I think you might be referring to is the Transatlantic Economic Partnership, which was agreed at the EU-US Summit in 1998, and which envisages work in a number of different sectors to bring about closer trade ties between the EU and the US.

Do the commercial differences reflect a deeper feeling of general discomfort between the two continents?

This is one of the rather more fallacious views of transatlantic relations, although I admit it is very much in vogue.
Transatlantic trade disputes are inevitable given the extremely high volume of trade and investment across the Atlantic. It is of course our job to ensure that we manage trade disputes properly, but we should not exaggerate their importance.

Do you think the NTA really functions?

Again, the NTA functions across a very wide sector of EU-US relations. The NTA as a whole is properly the area of Chris Patten’s responsibilities.
If you are asking about the TEP, I think it would be fair to say that the record of the TEP has been mixed so far. It has provided a forum for extremely useful discussions on a number of important trade topics, but it has not produced a major change in the way trade business is handled between the EU and US, thus far.

Might Americans and Europeans not have different points of view (cf. what we saw in Seattle, among other things their different positions on agriculture during the negotiations) ?

Of course Americans and Europeans have different points of view and interests as regards a certain number of subjects.
However, as far as a very large number of points is concerned, our analyses are very similar, for since we are the world's leading exporters and importers, it is in the interests of both to push the liberalisation of trade within the context of multilateral rulings. As for subjects about which there is more debate, and agriculture is one of these, our viewpoints are not completely opposed.
As far as agriculture is concerned, the USA and Europe both have sophisticated systems of internal support for agriculture that we wish to maintain, for they, like us, consider it necessary to ensure the stability of our farmers' income to a certain extent.
What we, along with the USA, are saying, is that we must ensure that this domestic aid provokes a minimum of distortion in international trading.
And here the EU stated clearly that it is prepared to negotiate, for it reformed its agricultural policy last year which gives it a margin for negotiation.
The same thing goes for export grants; this is a specific system resulting from the difference between global market prices and domestic prices, and which compensates for that price difference. As a result of the EU noticeably reducing its domestic prices, it will have a lot less need of these grants in the future.
Of course, this may take a certain amount of time, it is a question of negotiating, but there again and contrary to what might be thought, the EU is ready to negotiate reductions in this type of support.
Given these underlying trends, we therefore believe that it is perfectly possible to reach an agreement between Europeans and Americans, since the path mapped out by the Uruguay Round accords and successive reforms of the CAP is the same one we have been following and respecting. We are therefore counting on our partners recognising this fulfilment of our commitments.

Do we need to give to the Americans a privileged status?

We have a very good working relationship with the US, but I do not see the need to give the US a privileged status, anymore than they feel the need to give us such a status. There is, as I have already said, an enormous amount of Transatlantic trade and investment, and that will continue. There is no need to set up any special arrangements at this stage.

Do you think that the negociations with the United States could possibly improve? If yes, how would that be?

Please see previous answers. More specifically, I think we have the current balance broadly about right. It would be good to see the TEP becoming rather more productive. I think we might do a better job of focusing on the real priorities to achieve in each six month cycle. This might improve our output.

How can all the different interests of the EU Member States be represented in the forthcoming WTO negotiations?

Very simply, there has been an active and successful exercise to ensure that all the different interests of the Member States are represented in the forthcoming WTO negotiations.
The approach of the EU in general is to ensure that views are properly incorporated into the negotiating position before the start of negotiations. In my view, we also need to reflect on how to ensure the views of the European Parliament are also properly reflected in the negotiating positions taken by the EU.
This may require amendment to the way the EU institutions function on trade policy.

----------------------------------
Interview conducted by Ersie Sideris

----------------------------------
The CV and more speeches of Mr Pascal Lamy are available on DG Trade website