Media mirror differences between the US and the EU (and other European states) on several issues - security and nation building in the world, foreign policy, human rights, e.g. concerning those on the UN lists of aiding terrorist, the establishment of an international criminal court, the death penalty, trade, accounting practices and even the need for social responsibility of enterprises in respect of core labor standards and in making investments etc.?
Against this background a few questions were put to Rockwell Schnabel, US Ambassador to the European Union in January 2002.

Question 3: Do you think that the civil society on both sides of the Atlantic can play any role in promoting a dialogue that also may facilitate establishing and maintaining a more thorough and realistic dialogue at the political level?

The United States attaches great importance to Chapter Four of the New Transatlantic Agenda, entitled “Building Bridges.” We think the various “Dialogues” we have initiated - the Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue, the Transatlantic Environmental Dialogue, the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue, and the Transatlantic Business Dialogue -- are all important for the future of our relationship. They form invaluable networks of people, on both sides of the ocean, who know each other and understand - or at least are aware of - each other’s concerns and interests.

But we also put a good deal of energy into promoting dialogues through less structured formats. We have thousands of Americans coming through Brussels every year. Many are government officials, but many of them are academics, think-tankers, school and university groups, and other elements of civil society who visit to learn more about the EU and to make contacts with their counterparts in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe.

Finally, we also try to facilitate mutual understanding and dialogue through conferences on issues of common concern. One example was a conference in Bruges in January on differing U.S. and EU approaches to the precautionary principle and risk management. Our goal - and I think we made significant progress - was to move the dialogue from theoretical “principles,” where a significant level of misunderstanding exists, to a case-by-case study comparing how precaution is actually applied. In the end, we found that we had many of the same concerns about how precaution is used - or misused - and we plan to continue this fruitful discussion.

More recently, we co-sponsored a transatlantic journalists forum to examine how various issues - among them the euro, security and defense policy, and unilateralism - are treated in the U.S. and Europe. One of the forum’s goals was to come to an understanding of why and how European and American media coverage on the same subject can be so different.

Obviously, the contacts we are promoting only serve to reinforce other networks organized by civil society, which we welcome. The Internet is a great facilitator for these contacts, making it progressively easier for people on distant continents to keep in touch more quickly and less expensively than ever before.

Question 4: How do you see the Transatlantic Dialogue developing in the nearest time and the future? What means are there at the disposal for such a dialogue and what improvements would you like to see?

The NTA calls for a broad set of dialogues including among parliamentarians, labor groups, consumers, educators, environmentalists and others. We regularly host U.S. congressional delegations that come to Brussels specifically to meet EU officials and parliamentarians and explain U.S. policies. One example was a visit by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. He was here to discuss European concerns about military tribunals and the treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which he had visited.

It is true that some of the other dialogues have not had the prominence of the business exchanges, so we continue to encourage and try to deepen dialogue in these areas. Also, since many of the new issues on our economic and trade agendas -- whether biotechnology, privacy concerns for e-commerce, or regulation of hazardous chemicals - involve health, safety, environmental and civil liberty concerns, we need to stimulate a much broader and better-informed debate.

Biotechnology, for example, is one area where misinformation over the safety of biotech products has led to an important trade conflict between the U.S. and the EU. We’d like to head off such disagreements in the future, and promoting informed and continual dialogue is one way to reach this goal.

Question 5: Do you agree that there is a need for an improved labor/ management dialogue? How would you envisage that to be encouraged? Is it entirely a matter for the social partners or do governments have an interest in a social dialogue?

The TALD was created as the labor counterpart to the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD). For this reason, the TALD includes only two formal partners, the AFL-CIO and ETUC, with no management component. So we'd advise you to speak to those two groups to find out whether they'd welcome any management involvement in the TALD and, if so, on what subjects.

That said, we do recognize the importance of a labor/management dialogue, and the U.S. Labor Department and the EU Commission’s Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs periodically sponsor seminars in which management and labor representatives participate. In fact, one took place on February 21-22 in Brussels, and focused on labor mobility and skills within (but not between) the U.S. and the EU. We consider that the dialogue encouraged by such events is of value to all the participants and are pleased that they are increasing.

Question 6: Interest in the forthcoming TIES conference.

I certainly will be interested in the proceedings of the TIES conference later this year, and hope you will keep the Mission informed of its outcome.