TEXT: BINDENAGEL ON NATO AND THE NEW TRANSATLANTIC CONNECTION

*97042801.WWE 

TEXT: BINDENAGEL ON NATO AND THE NEW TRANSATLANTIC CONNECTION

(4/25 remarks to American CofC in Dusseldorf) (3920)

Dusseldorf, Germany -- America's top priority for the next century,
says J.D. Bindenagel, charge d'affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Bonn,
"is to build security and stability across the European continent.

"To achieve this goal, we are working to prepare the NATO Alliance for
the 21st century and the new challenges it will bring," Bindenagel
told the annual meeting of the American Chamber of Commerce in
Dusseldorf April 25. "The American people know that NATO exists to
protect our values. We all know that the price of freedom is eternal
vigilance. We need NATO."

NATO is being reshaped, he said, "to bring France and Spain into the
integrated military structures, to admit new members, to establish a
special relationship with Russia, and to strengthen our ties with
partner states. With the approach of the Madrid NATO summit in July
and the continuing work to found a new NATO relationship with Russia,
we are facing a period of enormous challenge and opportunity.

"We are taking great care to ensure that just as new prospective
members are identified, a new relationship between Russia and NATO is
established to help overcome old-thinking and old habits of animosity
and conflict. We are working to give Russia a voice, but not a veto,
and to demonstrate that cooperation will benefit all parties. We have
also made clear our so-called red lines: no second class members and
no diminution of NATO's military capability."

Also, he said, the end of the Cold War "has given us the chance to
strengthen our transatlantic partnership so that we can better address
a larger range of global issues."

Bindenagel said, however, that peace in Europe and transatlantic
security also need prosperity and sound economic relations.

"Economic and commercial issues are now equal competitors for our
attention," he told the Chamber, adding that deregulation,
privatization and competition have created "new business opportunities
for American firms and their affiliates in Germany. It has also tied
our countries closer together through increasing and more intensive
business links."

Regarding political issues, Bindenagel said, "We find that the United
States and Europe usually agree on the objectives, but often differ on
the means of pursuing them. Unfortunately, this divide weakens both
our hands in pursuit of our shared objectives. The question is: Who
should compromise in the shaping of a shared policy? On Cuba, we are
already moving toward a shared policy....

"On rogue states like Iran, we need to work even harder to keep our
occasional differences from obscuring the far greater fundamental
agreement that we share. We continue to believe that we ought to
exercise self-denial in our economic relations with such states, to
deprive them of the resources they surely would use to support
terrorism, develop weapons of mass destruction, and destabilize both
their neighbors and the Middle East peace process, in particular."

Bindenagel concluded by saying, "The Cold War ... has given us the
chance to strengthen our transatlantic partnership so that we can
better address a larger range of global issues. We are experiencing a
period of transformation in Europe, in the transatlantic relationship,
and even in German-American relations."

Following is the text of Bindenagel's remarks:

(Begin text)

Thank you for the invitation to speak to you on a topic near and dear
to all of us, namely, new realities in German-American relations. It
is a special honor for me to address you as honorary president and to
express my thanks for all that you have done during the past year to
make our Chamber-Embassy partnership work.

It is noteworthy that Bundeskanzler Kohl, who has defined and decided
historic policies from the Pershing II deployments to the 2 plus 4
talks that led to unification, and who has said that "German-American
friendship is a secure foundation on which we can continue to build in
the future," will address this august group.

The question that I am most often asked is: Germany is united, but
just what are the new realities and what do they mean for our
relations?

In understanding the new realities, you really should begin with the
fall of the Berlin Wall. The Berlin Wall was brought down not by the
armies massed on either side waiting for the inevitable war to begin,
nor by a mysterious, historical end of the communist idea. The Berlin
Wall was breached and then toppled by the irrepressible human desire
for freedom.

It is on the basis of the principles of human rights, democracy and
the human spirit that German-American relations will flourish, not
alone on the basis of our laudable, common commitments during the Cold
War, of our parallel policies on trade and investment, or of the
cultural heritage of German immigrants to the United States.

We find in the course of German-American events, from immigration
since 1683, to the fight for freedom in the Cold War and German
unification, a historical and continuing commitment to principles.
Evidence of it is everywhere:

-- in the new Allied Museum in Berlin with the story of the Berlin
Airlift and the Allies' defense of Berlin;

-- in Bonn's Haus der Geschichte with exhibits showing the building of
democracy in Germany;

-- or in the Museum at Checkpoint Charlie with its chronicle of
individual exploits for freedom from the communist tyranny.

All of these remind us of President Kennedy when he said that the
proudest statement of a free man is: "Ich bin ein Berliner."

But not until the democratic revolution of 1989, a revolution that
made German unification possible, could the East Berliners take up
their right to be free. I was there as U.S. deputy ambassador in the
GDR.

The story is fascinating. On November 9, 1989, the long-brewing
discontent in East Germany spilled into the streets of Berlin to reach
the culmination of a revolution, peaceful, but still a revolution.
Remarkably, the restraint of the demonstrators, led by Lutheran
ministers and coupled with the very effective NATO policy of
deterrence, and also with President Gorbachev's own desire for more
freedom for the Soviet peoples, all worked together in Germany to hold
back the classical element of European revolutions: violence.

November 9, 1989, marked the end of the Berlin Wall and the division
of Germany, and brought the beginning of the new realities in Germany
and Europe. Only with the foresight and the wisdom of the negotiators
of the 2 plus 4 Agreement could all Germans participate in freedom.
And when the choice came for a government for the new Germany, it was
the Federal Republic, unaltered in its constitutional form, that took
on the responsibility for Germany's new reality.

Our task, now, is to adapt our thinking and our institutions to these
new realities. Germany and the United States share a keen interest in
adapting our vital European and transatlantic institutions so that
they will serve us as well in the 21st Century as they have in this
one.

While the Berlin Wall was no competition for the Atlantic bridge, the
security pillar requires adaptation, and we need wider lanes for
economics and culture.

Let me address our goals for the next century. Our top priority is to
build security and stability across the European continent. To achieve
this goal, we are working to prepare the NATO Alliance for the 21st
Century and the new challenges it will bring. The American people know
that NATO exists to protect our values. We all know that the price of
freedom is eternal vigilance. We need NATO.

We are reshaping NATO to bring France and Spain into the integrated
military structures, to admit new members, to establish a special
relationship with Russia, and to strengthen our ties with partner
states. With the approach of the Madrid NATO summit in July and the
continuing work to found a new NATO relationship with Russia, we are
facing a period of enormous challenge and opportunity.

We are taking great care to ensure that just as new prospective
members are identified, a new relationship between Russia and NATO is
established to help overcome old-thinking and old habits of animosity
and conflict. We are working to give Russia a voice, but not a veto,
and to demonstrate that cooperation will benefit all parties. We have
also made clear our so-called red lines: no second class members and
no diminution of NATO's military capability.

We are working to give this partnership with Russia form and focus
through a NATO-Russia Charter, and we hope to conclude it soon.
President Clinton made a major step in this direction during his
Helsinki meeting with President Yeltsin, and Chancellor Kohl took yet
another important step forward in Baden-Baden. However, the journey is
not yet complete, and we will only conclude a charter when the
substance is right.

But these efforts will not be enough. Peace in Europe and our new
transatlantic security relationship will not be secure without
prosperity and sound economic relations. Economic and commercial
issues are now equal competitors for our attention. Nowhere is this
more visible than in our Embassy's work with the Chamber.

As I look back to my tour of duty this time in Germany as deputy and
acting ambassador in the Berlin republic, I am deeply impressed by the
close cooperation that we at the Embassy have forged with the Chamber.
We jointly organized investment conferences in Leipzig, Weimar/Erfurt
and Potsdam that were great examples of how public-private partnership
can foster American investment and create a strong, new economic
presence in the new German states.

These conferences have become a kind of stock-taking on where we stand
in terms of German-American efforts at rebuilding the economy of a
former communist country. The fourth of these conferences is planned
for October in Dessau, and I am confident that it will provide another
boost for investment and our relations.

During my most recent three years in Germany, we have witnessed
remarkable change in Germany's economy. Under the heading
"Standortdebatte," Germany has begun to focus on its most serious
economic challenges and to tackle structural rigidities, inflexible
labor markets and uncompetitive practices.

The Chamber has actively participated in this debate. You bring a
unique perspective of bridging two different business cultures to bear
on these problems. We at the Embassy are also participants in this
discussion and take an active interest in German economic policy and
its effects on American business.

Because our economies are so closely intertwined, we have a great
interest in Germany's economic restructuring and change. We have
reinforced the Chamber's constructive comments, and I think we can be
proud of our joint contribution to the "Standortdebatte."

After all, Germany has become a better "Standort." Many developments
in privatization and deregulation would have been unthinkable only ten
years ago, particularly if you consider that some of the arrangements
were enshrined in the "Grundgesetz" and were not easy to change. The
reincarnation of "Behorden" as companies is also transforming the
telecommunications, energy and transportation markets.

This process of deregulation, privatization and introduction of
competition has created new business opportunities for American firms
and their affiliates in Germany. It has also tied our countries closer
together through increasing and more intensive business links.

Consider the liberalization of air travel between Germany and the
United States. The 1996 Open Skies agreement has not only strengthened
a profitable partnership between two major airlines, but is setting an
inspiring example for global aviation policy.

Similarly, telecommunications liberalization will eventually translate
into lower rates, which is good for businesses and consumers in
Germany. This will increase the use of the Internet, open the doors to
global electronic commerce, and hasten Germany's entry into the next
century's information age. However, true competition will be fully
realized when we have an independent regulatory body that encourages
and safeguards competition and ensures equitable access, for all
interested parties, to the network of the dominant supplier. Here
Germany still has an urgent task to complete.

We have also made great progress in working for more transparent
procurement practices in Germany. Draft reform legislation is
currently being prepared by the Economics Ministry that will greatly
improve the effective legal protection to bidders through a
court-based review process. This more transparent procurement system
will benefit foreign and domestic bidders alike. Nevertheless, this
unfolding process will continue to require high-level political
engagement and the full attention of the Chamber and the Embassy.

Energy deregulation is another exciting field of innovation. It is
natural that it would encounter resistance from unions and companies
comfortable with the status quo as well as from state and local
governments. However, we in the United States are convinced that
deregulation will eventually promote benefits for the consumer and
foster foreign investment. In our efforts, we recently organized a
trip to the United States for state and local government officials and
representatives of German local utilities that demonstrated to our
German visitors that deregulation doesn't have to be a
life-threatening event. There are adjustment mechanisms that create
new opportunities for those who assumed they could prosper only as
monopolies. This message of "opportunities in change" is one that the
Embassy and the Chamber should be -- and are -- spreading.

At the same time, I appreciate that we and the Chamber have not shied
away from honestly discussing points of disagreement such as the
Helms-Burton Act and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. We clearly have had
differing assessments on the question of sanctions, and I, of course,
understand the desire of business to trade and invest with as few
restrictions as possible.

In that vein, I am sure that we all welcome the recent announcement by
Ambassador Eizenstat that a preliminary understanding has been reached
between the United States and EU regarding Helms-Burton. The EU has
agreed to suspend its WTO (World Trade Organization) case, which is
appropriate.

I think we can all draw a lesson or two from this exercise which came
so close to damaging our broader interests in the WTO and in our
bilateral relationship. We in the United States continue to believe
that the selected use of sanctions is an appropriate means to advance
fundamental foreign policy objectives, and we will argue that our
approach has not been without success. We view this as the self-denial
of certain economic benefits in the pursuit of higher objectives, such
as stopping terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. The world expects no less from its best-off citizens.

We find that the United States and Europe usually agree on the
objectives, but often differ on the means of pursuing them.
Unfortunately, this divide weakens both our hands in pursuit of our
shared objectives. The question is: Who should compromise in the
shaping of a shared policy? On Cuba, we are already moving toward a
shared policy. One effort we should undertake to bring us together is
to deepen parliamentary exchanges to create a better understanding of
each other's interests -- and to do this before the laws are written.

On rogue states like Iran, we need to work even harder to keep our
occasional differences from obscuring the far greater fundamental
agreement that we share. We continue to believe that we ought to
exercise self-denial in our economic relations with such states, to
deprive them of the resources they surely would use to support
terrorism, develop weapons of mass destruction, and destabilize both
their neighbors and the Middle East peace process, in particular. The
recent Mykonos verdict only strengthens our resolve in this regard. We
welcome the reaction of European governments in suspending the
so-called "Critical Dialogue" and recalling ambassadors. We hope the
sobering effect of the Mykonos verdict will not be a passing
phenomenon. We sent a high-level delegation to European capitals this
week, including to Bonn, to broaden our dialogue on how to moderate
Iranian behavior. The United States is committed to bringing improved
transatlantic policy coordination on this key question.

Whatever governments decide, business needs to be aware of how
sensitive Iran and Libya remain in our political process and to keep
in mind the delicate compromise behind the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.
We have deliberately tried to enact a law with a minimal -- even
negligible -- impact on trade, even with Iran, while effectively
dissuading significant investment that could strengthen Iran's ability
to pursue terrorism.

On a related point: Some suggest that these policies show that America
is becoming more unilateralist. It would be wrong to see our sanctions
as a departure from multilateralism in our broader trade policy.
Multilateralism will remain our preferred course in the exercise of
global leadership.

The United States led the world in the creation of the WTO, the GATT
(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), the UN, the World Bank, the
IMF (International Monetary Fund), and just about every leading global
institution. We were at the forefront of the recent successful efforts
to eliminate all tariffs on information technology products. The same
is true for the vital telecommunications sector, where U.S. insistence
on effective market access helped make the recent WTO Telecom Services
Agreement possible.

We now rely on the improved disciplines of the multilateral dispute
settlement mechanism in the WTO, which we have formally invoked in 21
cases. We have won and lost cases, but we have always respected the
decisions on trade matters. Naturally, we expect our partners to do
the same, including in such difficult disputes as the treatment of EU
banana imports and beef hormones.

Our occasional differences should not blind us to the close EU-U.S.
and German-American cooperation on trade issues within the
multilateral framework. The recent WTO agreements on
telecommunication-and information technology were precisely the result
of shared U.S.-EU approaches in opening markets

The groundwork for the information technology agreement was actually
laid by the Transatlantic Business Dialogue. This initiative has
brought the business sectors of Europe and America together to have a
direct impact on policy. To build on that success, we are now working
with the EU to conclude an impressive package of Mutual Recognition
Agreements that will do away with burdensome and redundant testing
requirements in key trading sectors

In the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development),
we are seeking agreement on criminalizing overseas commercial bribery
by OECD nationals and on abolishing the tax deductibility of such
bribes. This is a multilateral effort in which we hope Germany will
join in time for agreement at the OECD Ministerial next month.

It is an obvious conclusion that trade and investment relations
between Germany and the United States are deep and vibrant. But as we
all know, another pillar -- the pillar of human contacts -- is just as
essential.

Too many have the erroneous idea that there is some sort of cultural
"break" between Germany and the United States. Nothing could be
further from the truth. For the United States, there is no more
important cultural partner in Europe than Germany. For Germany, there
is no more important destination outside of Europe for tourism or
exchanges than the United States.

Reading selectively in some newspapers, one might be excused for
coming away with the impression that "The image of Germany in America
has changed," or that, "For America, Germany is no longer unique."
But, headlines like these miss the point. We may indeed no longer be
living in an era of "Selbstverstandlichkeit" and of automatic
consensus, but we are living in an era of partnership.

Culture is one element in a relationship of many bridges. The walls
dividing the European continent are down and the bridges over the
Atlantic are busier than ever. The Fulbright Program, for example,
with its corporate support association, stands tall and gleaming,
linking our two societies together. U.S. enterprises in Europe are
helping to strengthen the American tradition of private-sector support
of culture.

One example is Citibank's contribution to an exhibit commemorating the
50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan, the undertaking which helped
Europe to achieve such post-war prosperity. Smart businessmen and
women have always known they must involve themselves in public life.
As Woodrow Wilson said, "Every great man of business has got somewhere
a touch of the idealist in him."

This idealism was captured 50 years ago this June 5th when Secretary
of State George Marshall gave his historic speech at Harvard
University calling for an assistance plan for the devastated countries
of Europe.

The Marshall Plan is now part of the cultural history shared by the
United States and Europe. It influenced profoundly the political and
economic development of Germany and Western Europe. And it prompted
the German government to invest in the German Marshall Fund of the
United States, a foundation which has supported the growth of free
markets, bilateral exchanges, and democratic development in Eastern
Europe. Smart business, like those supporting the many commemorations
of the Marshall Plan, can work together with smart government to
reinforce the political, business and cultural ties and reinvest these
efforts back into our relationship.

As Americans, we are compelled by our culture -- not so much via our
taxes -- to give back to society some of the wealth we have won in our
lives. A wonderful example of selflessness and regard for society can
also be found in Germany. Erich Marx, who recently bestowed his
private collection of art to the "Museum of the Present" at the
Hamburger Bahnhof in Berlin, expressed his hope that this spirit of
good corporate citizenship would become a new tradition in Germany. He
also challenged his countrymen and other Europeans to reconsider
existing attitudes which discourage private-sector and individual
contribution to the cultural sphere.

This is a realm in which the new world, with its tradition of
protecting society's cultural heritage through the contributions of
the individual, might have something to offer Germany, especially at a
time when we all face smaller government budgets.

In closing, I would say that the end of the Cold War has presented us
with the historic opportunity to build a new, undivided Europe. It has
given us the chance to strengthen our transatlantic partnership so
that we can better address a larger range of global issues. We are
experiencing a period of transformation in Europe, in the
transatlantic relationship, and even in German-American relations.

Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel said recently that "the tending of
Germany's friendship with the United States is an unwritten article in
Germany's constitution." Such words receive a very warm reception in
the United States, and we echo them.

German-American ties need tending to ensure continued success. We have
many commercial and cultural ties, family connections, and common
interests. Germany is, without doubt, the United States' indispensable
partner for tackling the most significant global issues. We must work
together in our new partnership of equals to preserve and protect the
freedom won in those long years of the Cold War and in the democratic
revolution of 1989.

Sometimes the pressure of the historic moment in which we are living
seems like a burden. But we should remind ourselves of the words of
Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President of the United States. "Men make
history," Truman said, "not the other way around.... Progress occurs
when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change
things for the better."

I wish us all the best for German-American relations in this era of
new realities. Thank you.

(End text)
NNNN