• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • 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)

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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • 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

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Iran War Fallout Gifts Putin Diplomatic Victory at ASEAN Summit

    Russia looks set to reap economic benefits from closer ties with Southeast Asian countries that are keen to find reliable energy suppliers and diversify trade ties.

      • Alexander Gabuev

      Alexander Gabuev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Simmering U.S.-Iran Conflict Is Moscow’s Ideal Outcome

    Ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East allows Moscow to both increase its influence in Tehran and continue to enjoy the financial windfall of higher oil prices.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russian Oil Sector Battered but Not Broken by Ukrainian Air Attacks

    If it proves impossible for the Russian authorities to avoid a gasoline deficit, the question then becomes how they will organize the distribution of a scarce resource.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Multiple Wars Are Ruining Central Asia’s Efforts to Diversify Its Trade Routes

    This year’s wars have made alternative routes to transit through Russia no less risky for Central Asian countries.

      Galiya Ibragimova

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.