John Kerry in action. The proposed economic and trade agreement between the EU and the United States is progressing. We had the initial impression that it was especially Europe that wanted it, so as to avoid the risk of becoming isolated if the Americans focused their attention on the Pacific Ocean - towards China and Asia in general - while neglecting the Atlantic and our old continent of Europe. In fact, everything points to this fear not being justified - the USA is just as interested as Europe in this joint project. The resurgence of American interest could be partly due to the financial and monetary events (such as tax havens and transparency) in which Europe is playing a central role and in which the Americans are looking for Europe's cooperation.
The facts are plain. The new US secretary of state, John Kerry, was in Brussels not only to take part in the NATO meetings - he devoted a large part of his time to the proposed economic and trade agreement, which has been described as a mega-agreement with the EU, and even as an economic NATO. Obviously, account needs to be taken of France, which gives the impression of wanting to put the brakes on the excitement that it considers excessive. Yet this reluctance applies only to a few aspects, which of course are sensitive (like the cultural exception - see EUROPE 10833) but which should not compromise the whole proposal - and all the more so, as the European Commission is pretty broadly in agreement with Paris.
This is why I consider that the overall assessment does not change. It can be summed up in one sentence: we are in the midst of experiencing the recovery of Euro-American relations towards new objectives.
The American proposal. From the US point of view, the agreement with Europe comes against the backdrop of the recovery of national production of goods- the manufacture of which had largely been transferred abroad, particularly to China. This is Barack Obama's idea taking shape - reindustrialising the USA. US independence in energy, based on shale gas (still partly controversial) is accompanied by a return of manufacturing activity - computers, cars, household appliances, furniture and even clothing. The Made in the USA label is really taking off. Apple is abandoning its Designed in California, assembled in China label. The excessive trade deficits that we all know about - which have enabled China to build up stocks of dollars - must gradually disappear.
Mutual advantages. US free trade with Europe thus comes against the backdrop I have described, and it is achievable as European prices and costs are about the same as those in the USA; in the EU, patents are respected; and competition will, in principle, be fair. The advantages should therefore be mutual. Of course, European exporters have to be up to the challenge, but the total opening of the American market should be an effective stimulus for them.
The mandate given to Commissioner Karel De Gucht, the designated European negotiator, should be devised “before the summer”, the president of the European Commission has said. In mid-June, added the president of the European Council, so that negotiations can be started in July. Official negotiation has been preceded by in-depth studies on the European side and by an analysis between the EU and the USA which enabled them to jointly draw up the objectives and the nature of the proposal.
The two parties agree on considering the removal of customs duties to be only the simplest of the objectives sought after - objectives which include the reciprocal opening of public procurement, environmental standards and all other aspects of economic and trade relations. It is, moreover, against this backdrop that the discussion on the cultural exception is found - a discussion called for by France - and let's not forget the situation of military equipment either, which of course needs to be treated with caution.
Going beyond the WTO. The level of ambition and significance of the agreement that is sought after is evident - to go beyond the stage of multilateralism and thus to go beyond the WTO, whose results have been poor or non-existent over the past several years. The Geneva-based WTO can facilitate the trade of developing countries, but it can do nothing - or nearly nothing - on the other aspects that are now crucial, like respect for social or environmental rules, or using the made in label.
Only bilateral agreements can meet the objectives that are currently sought by the EU and the USA. This column will return next week to the aspects that are still open or controversial - including the reservations of France - and their development.
(FR/transl.fl)