• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Paper
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

E.U. and U.S. Free Trade Agreements in the Middle East and North Africa

Free trade agreements between the West (U.S. and EU) and Middle East and North African (MENA) countries, while containing beneficial elements, have strengthened negative perceptions of “western-led globalization” because they benefit unpopular elites and impose serious short term economic adjustment.

Link Copied
By Riad al Khouri
Published on Jun 23, 2008

Additional Links

Full Text in English (PDF)

Source: Carnegie Endowment

Free trade agreements between the West (U.S. and EU) and Middle East and North African (MENA) countries, while containing beneficial elements, have strengthened negative perceptions of “western-led globalization” because they benefit unpopular elites and impose serious short term economic adjustment, concludes Riad al Khouri, a Carnegie Middle East Center economist specializing in MENA countries.

Examining the socio-economic and political effects of American and European trade agreements on Jordan, Morocco, and Egypt in EU and U.S. Free Trade Agreements in the Middle East and North Africa, al Khouri notes the more active pursuit of FTAs as an economic policy tool with political goals by the United States and the European Union in recent years.

Key Findings:
• Trade between the United States and MENA countries grew in a relatively balanced manner, while FTAs between the EU and the Mediterranean region favored the EU.
• Bilateral security cooperation between the United States and MENA countries strengthened after signing free trade agreements.
• The United States is keen on full trade agreements with MENA countries, in contrast to the EU, whose agreements with MENA countries do not include agriculture and immigration.
• If the EU and MENA countries could come to broader agreement on liberalizing agricultural products and promoting controlled immigration, the Southern Mediterranean region would benefit greatly.

He concludes:
“The current U.S. and EU initiatives are a step in the right direction, but they alone cannot lead to robust, sustainable growth in the MENA region or create regional stability. The overall growth and precarious stability that the region has been able to achieve still has little to do with bilateral economic links with the U.S. or the EU. Nevertheless, FTAs and similar agreements show signs of increasing importance for both the West and the MENA region, with implications for EU and U.S. trade relations with other regions as well.”

Click on icon above for the full text of this Carnegie Paper.

A limited number of print copies of this Carnegie Paper are available.
Request a copy

About the Author
Riad al Khouri is a visiting scholar with the Carnegie Middle East Center based in Beirut, Lebanon. He has undertaken extensive research on regional trade and political economy, among other topics, and writes widely about development issues.

About the Author

Riad al Khouri

Former Visiting Scholar, Middle East Center

Riad al Khouri is an economist specializing in the Middle East and North Africa region. He has undertaken extensive research on regional trade and political economy, among other topics, and writes widely about development issues. He taught economics at the American University in Beirut (AUB) and Beirut University College (now the Lebanese American University) and worked as a consultant for the European Commission, ESCWA, GTZ, ILO, IOM, OPEC Fund, UNDP, UNIDO, USAID, and the World Bank, among many other public sector organizations, as well as for numerous private firms.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Kuwait: Rentierism Revisited

      Riad al Khouri

Riad al Khouri
Former Visiting Scholar, Middle East Center
EgyptGulfLevantMaghrebJordanMoroccoNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastNorth AfricaEconomyTradeForeign Policy

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Hezbollah’s Wartime Strategy

    The party’s objectives involve tying together the Lebanese and Iranian fronts, while surviving militarily and politically at home. 

      Mohamad Fawaz

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Mission for Lebanon’s Army

    While armed forces commander Rudolph Haykal’s caution is understandable, he is in a position to act, and must.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran Rewrites Its War Strategy

    In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.

    The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.

      Nathan J. Brown

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Israel Strikes Hezbollah’s Muslim Brotherhood-Affiliated Allies

    The Jamaa al-Islamiyya is the local Lebanese dimension of a broader struggle involving rival regional powers.

      Issam Kayssi

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.