VZCZCXRO1498
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHBS #0437/01 0860514
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 270514Z MAR 09
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 000437 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/ERA, EEB 
PLEASE PASS TO USTR 
NSC FOR K KVIEN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON ECIN PREL
SUBJECT: DG RELEX HOPES TO FINISH EU VERSION OF TEC 
WORKPLAN SOON 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY.  European Commission (DG RELEX) officials told 
USEU they are nearly ready to share a draft medium-term 
workplan for Transatlantic Economic Council/Transatlantic 
Economic Framework (TEC/TEF) activities with EU Member 
States.  RELEX said they hope the draft workplan could be 
adopted at a May/June TEC meeting.  They said the Commission 
seeks to focus TEC discussions more on broad strategic 
issues, were open to holding the next meeting in Washington, 
and responded favorably to the idea of establishing TEC 
websites and expanding the agenda to include energy 
technologies and deeper innovation cooperation.  END SUMMARY. 
 
COMMISSION NEARLY FINISHED WITH DRAFT WORKPLAN 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶2. (U) EconOffs from USEU met with Unit Head for U.S. and 
Canada Marc Vanheukelen and U.S. Desk Officers Alenka 
Zajc-Freudenstein and Wiktor Staniecki from the European 
Commission Directorate for Foreign Relations (RELEX) to 
discuss the Commission's progress on its preparation of a 
workplan for Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) activities. 
 RELEX has been tasked with coordinating the Commission's 
version of a TEC workplan. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Vanheukelen said he had hoped the workplan would be 
ready several weeks ago, but RELEX ran into two sets of 
obstacles that caused significant delays.  First, different 
directorates within the Commission held divergent views of an 
appropriate time-frame for a mid-term work plan.  Some argued 
that the Commission should be looking ahead as far as 2015. 
RELEX successfully countered that this would severely limit 
the Commission's ability to maneuver in the face of currently 
unpredictable changes, and that looking ahead to 2010-2011 
was sufficient and appropriate. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The other delaying factor for the workplan, 
Vanheukelen continued, has been the lack of information on 
U.S. views toward a variety of TEC issues after the 
Presidential transition.  As no one in the Commission wants 
to produce a workplan that the Obama administration declares 
"dead on arrival," they waited until enough U.S. leadership 
positions were filled and enough policy statements issued 
that they could make more educated guesses at future U.S. 
positions.  As a result, RELEX has not yet sent their draft 
to the Member States for review, and did not have anything in 
writing they could they could provide now. Zajc-Freudenstein 
said she hoped to have something to discuss with the U.S. 
soon.  (Note:  Subsequent to EconOffs meeting with RELEX, EU 
TEC Co-Chair Verheugen met with his U.S. counterpart Michael 
Froman.  Verheugen's Chief of Staff told USEU Econ Minister 
that the Commissioner and she were extremely pleased that 
Froman reaffirmed the importance of the TEC process.  Froman 
and Verheugen agreed the TEC co-chairs will meet in 
Washington the second half of April (including with industry) 
and that the whole TEC should meet in Washington in early 
June.  Verheugen reviewed the achievements and lessons 
learned from the first year and a half, including the need 
for greater legislator involvement.  Froman was open to the 
TEC being more strategic, and looking to a "Barrier Free 
Transatlantic Marketplace" by 2015, building in particular on 
areas where U.S. and EU industry believe our respective 
regulations achieve the same purpose but with unnecessary 
divergences in approach.  End note.) 
 
¶5. (SBU) RELEX staff welcomed the fact that the U.S. and EU 
share the view that the Transatlantic Economic Framework has 
been a useful process, with great potential, but also has 
room for improvement.  Vanheukelen said RELEX had two goals 
in mind in designing its workplan: 
 
      a.  How to make the TEC more "strategic" in its 
outlook: Vanheukelen discussed the need to use the time of 
Commissioners and Cabinet Secretaries wisely.  It is 
important for them to be involved in sectoral and 
cross-sectoral issues in which they have expertise, but not 
to force them to wade through details of subjects well 
outside their portfolios.  The Commission suggested that the 
TEC be split into three sessions, each as long as necessary: 
an opening plenary, followed by sectoral bilaterals, and then 
a final plenary to discuss conclusions and next steps.  This 
would allow participants to address both strategic issues and 
to get into the "nitty-gritty" of specific problems. 
(COMMENT: This gets us further away from a multidimensional 
approach. END COMMENT) 
 
      b.  Managing expectations and producing deliverables on 
both sides:  Vanheukelen noted that each side agreed that TEC 
 
BRUSSELS 00000437  002 OF 002 
 
 
had not lived up to its promise, while perhaps not agreeing 
on the areas where it had not worked well.  The Commission 
has tried to focus on issues with a good chance of producing 
concrete benefits to the transatlantic economy, he said. 
They have been trying to adhere as closely as possible in the 
workplan to topics that meet the criteria agreed upon in the 
December TEC meeting - discrete, readily identifiable issues 
which are priorities for the business community and for 
consumers. 
 
OTHER TEC ISSUES 
---------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Vanheukelen noted that "some groups" wanted more 
participation by Member States in the TEC process. (Note: 
This refers to an unofficial U.S. request for more Member 
State involvement.  End note.)  The RELEX officials said they 
felt that greater Member State involvement at the TEC 
meetings would bog down the process of integration and 
provide little or no benefit.  They argued that the 
Commission works to brief Member States on TEC discussions 
and get Member States support for major TEC agreements. 
Having many of the Member States present around the table to 
argue differing points of view would make reaching agreements 
next to impossible. 
 
¶7. (SBU) EconOffs discussed the importance to improve U.S. 
and EU responsiveness to TEC stakeholders.  A good example 
would be by making all TEF and TEC materials available on the 
web, perhaps on two sites, one maintained by the USG and the 
other by the EU.  Vanheukelen agreed, and said that DG 
Enterprise was working on such a site.  He said while having 
the sites cross-linked was important, it was equally 
important not to add a layer of bureaucracy to the TEC 
process and require negotiations over site content or 
approval from one side or the other to post documents or 
comments. 
 
¶8. (SBU) EconOffs suggested the possibility of holding the 
next TEC in Washington would greatly increase prospects for 
success, and facilitate attendance by new, overworked U.S. 
principals.  RELEX staff responded that the Commission is 
already discussing this idea favorably.  They agreed it would 
be of interest to Commissioners to use a Washington TEC to 
set up bilateral contacts with key members of the U.S. 
Administration. 
 
¶9. (SBU) The RELEX officials also expressed openness to 
expanding the TEC agenda, and thought there would be general 
EU interest in agreeing at the next TEC to approve a new 
energy technology lighthouse project and to deepen 
cooperation with the U.S. on innovation. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) The RELEX team implied that the Commission draft 
workplan will cover a limited range of issues, not the entire 
34  projects covered by the Framework Agreement.  Given their 
delays in producing the workplan, and the need for thorough 
discussion and negotiation with the U.S. on such a plan, the 
U.S. should consider ways to facilitate progress, such 
incorporating as much as possible of existing workplans 
already from individual TEC working groups and/or dialogues. 
 
MURRAY 
.