At successive U.S.-EU summits, a new spirit of cooperation takes shape - By Theo Sommer

Forty years ago, deep in the heart of Texas: President Lyndon B. Johnson drove a young foreign editor from Germany across his ranch near Austin. He was mad at the Europeans.

The French had just left NATO's military organization, the Germans balked at paying higher troop stationing costs and from Catania to Copenhagen, from Brest to Berlin, throngs of people demonstrated against America's Vietnam War. The Europeans, Johnson felt, were trying to force his hand and curb his freedom of action.

As the president drove his jeep through the rolling hills, one hand on the steering wheel, the other vigorously gesticulating, he erupted: "The king of Denmark wants me to ask for his permission when I want to go to the outhouse!" (To be frank: he used a somewhat cruder expression). And he started recounting the anecdote of the young Texan who was applying for a job as a railway switchman.

The fellow was hauled before an examination board. The chairman told him: "Imagine, young man, you are working on this single-track railroad. You look to your right and you see an express train approaching at 100 miles an hour. You look to your left and you see another express train approaching at the same speed. What would you do?" - "I would run and fetch my brother!" - "Why would you do that?" - "Well, he ain't never seen a train wreck..."

Johnson's implication was obvious: He feared that Europe and America were on a collision course. For all we know, they may have been. But as a matter of fact, the collision never occurred. The alliance rode out that storm as it has weathered many others - quarrels over nuclear strategy, over out-of-area crises, over dealing with the Soviet Union.

The ties between the United States and Europe even survived the yawning disagreements over George W. Bush's Iraq war. No longer does anyone in Washington make snide remarks on "Old Europe" and "New Europe," or "disaggregating" the EU. And on the Eastern shores of the Atlantic, everybody - including the erstwhile critics of the campaign against Saddam Hussein - hopes and prays that America can speedily find an honorable way to extricate itself from the Mesopotamian quagmire.

The relationship between the U.S. and the EU, badly bruised four years ago, has been on the mend ever since President Bush, at the beginning of his second term, went to Brussels and hailed a "strong Europe" - "because we need a strong partner." At successive U.S.-EU summits, a new spirit of cooperation has taken shape. At their recent meeting in Washington, President Bush, Angela Merkel, German chancellor as well as currently president of the European Council, and EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso reconfirmed the importance of the transatlantic partnership and reached an understanding on a number of issues to give further substance and significance to their cooperation.

The most consequential of these is the "Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration." It is, admittedly, a far cry from the chancellor's original proposal for a Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA). Being more realistic and a bit less visionary, however, it is certain to stand a better chance of eventual implementation. And it is by no means trifling.

The concept is based on three facts: First, the U.S. and the EU account for 60 percent of the world's GDP and 40 percent of the world's trade flows. The transatlantic economy indeed remains "at the forefront of globalization," as the Framework agreement puts it.

Second, the economies are interwoven to an unprecedented degree. Mutual investment exceeds ?1500 billion - total U.S. investment in China is barely a quarter of U.S. investment in Belgium, while European investment in Texas alone surpasses the combined U.S. investment in China and Japan. Moreover, American companies in Europe and European companies in the United States provide jobs for millions of employees.

The third fact is the realization that the abolition of non-tariff barriers is potentially far more effective than the abolition of remaining tariffs. Such non-tariff barriers are, for instance, different accounting standards (GAAP and ISFR), different financial market regulations, different standards and norms in the areas of agriculture and food safety, and different test requirements for cars, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.

Harmonizing these disparate rules and regulations, or at least mutually recognizing the differing practices, would save companies - and consumers - billions of dollars and euros. It would trigger an increase in GDP of 2.5 percent, according to official calculations. Automobiles could become 5 to 7 percent cheaper if safety regulations could be unified and  double crash-testing be done away with.

The Framework agreement is a wordy document. Much of it does not sound exceedingly new. Previous American-European summits have proclaimed similar goals; experts recently counted 33 agreements of this kind and 49 discussion circles to move them forward. Most of these projects first enjoyed a promising start, then suffered a steady decline. Thus one can only hope that the creation of a Transatlantic Economic Council will really make a difference.

At best, this is only a beginning. The same goes for the discussions over climate change - the summiteers agreed that there was a problem, but they did not forge agreement on the solution. The Open Skies Accord brought some progress yet left important issues dangling.

Doha, the leaders declared, remains a priority for all of them, although nothing was said about how differing American and European approaches could be reconciled. And while President Bush admitted that he had heeded Chancellor Merkel's advice to explain his intentions over the U.S. missile defense systems to be stationed in the Czech Republic and Poland more clearly to Vladimir Putin, there was little indication that the allies saw eye to eye on how to handle a Russia which seems to be getting simultaneously more assertive and less democratic.

Lots of other topics were only skirted in Washington - important ones such as Iran, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Darfur, the Arab-Israeli conflict; and less important, though irksome ones such as the visa waiver program for all 27 EU members and the data transfer for transatlantic air passengers. But then, what can one expect from a half-day summit that begins at 10 in the morning, runs through a working lunch over noon and ends at 1.25 p.m.?

After the toil of the summit, western leaders now face the travail of the plains, to borrow a phrase from Bertolt Brecht. Focusing on economic issues is presumably the wisest course to follow at this juncture. With a lame-duck - or even dead-duck - administration on the Potomac; with the European Union still battling to solve its constitutional crisis; with a fin du regne mood in Paris and London, where new leaders will have to find their bearings; and with fragile coalitions in Italy, Germany and several East European countries, this is hardly the moment for Grand Designs.

It is a time for gardening rather than for architectonics. Pulling out the weeds is the order of the day, not erecting new structures. Or to go back to Lyndon Johnson: preventing head-on collisions and train wrecks is more important, and certainly easier, than laying new tracks or designing stunning high-speed trains likely to derail.

- Theo Sommer is the executive editor of The German Times.