Paper
Sinan Ülgen
{
"authors": [
"Sinan Ülgen"
],
"type": "commentary",
"blog": "Strategic Europe",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Europe",
"North America"
],
"topics": [
"EU"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
Back to the Future: The Renewed Case for a Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement
At a time when much ink is being spilled over the alleged decline of the West, a U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement would provide a strong foundation for protecting the soft economic powers of the West.
By Sinan Ülgen
Published on Dec 7, 2012
Economic prospects for the eurozone continue to be weak. The IMF recently revised its growth estimate for the Eurozone downward from the 0.3 percent contraction expected in July to 0.4 percent. The IMF also stated that next year the euro zone economy is expected to grow by only 0.2 percent, rather than the 0.7 percent projected in July. Against this backdrop of depressed domestic demand, can trade provide a new impetus for the eurozone economies?
It is this hope that has revitalized the debate within Europe on the transatlantic free trade agreement. Indeed there seems to be a new focus on this EU-U.S. free trade agreement. However, it must still overcome many barriers before it becomes a reality.
Firstly there must be a clear political mandate on both sides of the Atlantic. That may be easier to get in Brussels than in Washington, where every administration initiative faces heavy Congressional scrutiny. However the goal of free trade with Europe may perhaps be sufficiently appealing to many constituencies in the United States for the partisan divide to be overcome.
If a political mandate can be obtained, then Brussels and Washington will have to deal with the criticism of undermining the multilateral trade regime. They would be initiating their bilateral trade talks at a time when the Doha “Development” Round has stalled. A U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement would be seen as a severe blow to the multilateral process. It is doubtful whether the Doha Round can actually recover from this major challenge.
A third difficulty relates to differences in governance between the two major economic powers. Both the United States and the EU can be characterized as service economies, meaning that the share of services in the national income far outweigh industry and agriculture. Therefore the main challenge for the negotiators will be to reach an agreement on how services will be covered in the future agreement. But because of its federal system, services are regulated at different levels of government in the United States. Some services are regulated at the federal level while others remain regulated at the state level. Therefore getting an agreement on how services are to be regulated in the transatlantic free trade zone will certainly be demanding. A similar challenge can also be foreseen for the area of technical barriers to trade, or product standards as they are more commonly known.
But in addition to its positive impact on growth prospects, the entry into force of a transatlantic free trade agreement would have another, less emphasized but nonetheless equally important advantage. If a common approach can be fostered to regulation making and standards setting, the transatlantic partners can then hope to retain their privileged position as the global economic norm setters. At a time when much ink is being spilled over the alleged decline of the West, such an agreement would provide a strong foundation for protecting the soft economic powers of the West.
About the Author
Sinan Ülgen
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Sinan Ülgen is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, where his research focuses on Turkish foreign policy, transatlantic relations, international trade, economic security, and digital policy.
- From Trade Dependence to Geopolitical Leverage: The EU in an Era of Weaponized Interdependence
- The EU Equivocating on Turkey Is Bad GeopoliticsCommentary
Sinan Ülgen
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Strategic Europe
- The Trump-Shaped Hole in the European Security StrategyCommentary
There is an elephant in the room when it comes to the EU’s upcoming security strategy: Donald Trump. Unless European leaders acknowledge the depth of the transatlantic crisis, true autonomy will remain out of reach.
Stefan Lehne
- Europe Needs a Strategy for Its Turn to New Defense TechCommentary
Defense tech innovations will be at the heart of Europe’s new security strategy. But so far, Brussels has been making moves without a broader plan, undermining readiness and credibility.
Raluca Csernatoni
- Taking the Pulse: Is European Diplomacy on Iran Outdated?Commentary
When the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding was announced, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy declared their readiness to help demine the Strait of Hormuz and lift nuclear sanctions on Tehran. But does Europe need new tools to recover a diplomatic role?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- France and Germany Need Their Own Situation RoomCommentary
The Franco-German relationship is on the rocks again. But unlike previous moments of tension, the epochal changes on the world stage require that both step up investment in their bilateral ties.
Rym Momtaz
- European Security Strategy: In Search of a New AmbitionCommentary
The EU is putting together a new security strategy to meet today’s myriad challenges. But for any proposal to be effective, the union needs to grapple with its identity and ambitions.
Pierre Vimont
