• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
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)
Program mobile hero image

Program

Middle East

The Middle East Program in Washington combines in-depth regional knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to provide deeply informed recommendations. With expertise in the Gulf, North Africa, Iran, and Israel/Palestine, we examine crosscutting themes of political, economic, and social change in both English and Arabic.

Learn More

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 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Sada
    A New Patrimonialism is Undermining Syria’s Transition

    Syria's transition promised a fresh start. But are old habits of power making a comeback? This analysis looks at the warning signs and what it will take to build a more accountable state.

      Sima Beitinjaneh

  • 1990s USS Pennsylvania United States Navy Nuclear Powered Ohio-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Cruising On Ocean Surface
    Paper
    Nuclear Weapons and the Future of American Power

    It seems likely that, no matter what, the power of the U.S. nuclear arsenal will face erosion, not least in the credibility of its commitments to defend allies and the political durability of those alliances.

      James M. Acton, Ankit Panda

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Has Meloni Broken MAGA’s Civilizational Axis?

    When Giorgia Meloni very publicly rebuked Donald Trump’s disparaging remarks about her, it surprised many who saw her as a European extension of Trumpism. Is the spat a sign of trouble in the radical right’s transatlantic axis?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Concessions to Kyiv Reflect Russia’s Weakness

    The recent damage inflicted by Ukrainian drones and missiles on Russia has made Belarus aware of its own vulnerabilities—and surprisingly amenable to Kyiv’s demands.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.