Shaky timetable. France is divided. The Socialist party and movements close to it have reservations about the strengthened and “institutionalised” collaboration between the EU and the USA. Their reluctance goes beyond the culture sector (which has already been excluded from the negotiation in principle - see this column yesterday) and instead focuses on the whole project. This approach is rejected by other French political forces. It should be underlined that the president of the French Republic, François Hollande, remains above these controversies. He supports and is relaunching France's cooperation - both with European countries (with Germany in leading position) and with other continents (including the USA). However, the debate between the political forces is extremely heated. Mr Mélenchon, from the Left Front and an MEP, has stated that he will stand for the European elections next year with the primary objective of rejecting the EU-US agreement in its entirety.
The controversies particularly compromise the timetable of the project. It should not be forgotten that the current European Commission - in other words, the institution that will conduct the negotiation - will expire before the end of 2014, and it is, of course, impossible to anticipate the future Commission's approach as the composition of the future Commission will depend on the result of the parallel renewal of the European Parliament. If the agreement with the USA has not been concluded before then, the negotiation will have to be started again from scratch pretty much, with new leading lights. In practice, it would be the end of the current project - or it would at least be total uncertainty.
This is why the commissioner in charge of negotiating, Karel De Gucht, believes it is crucial for the negotiation with the USA to be concluded beforehand - and he is fighting hard to make this happen.
The controversy in France. Is Mr De Gucht's timetable realistic? The French minister for agriculture, Stéphane Le Foll, has said that the compromise defined by the EU between the different national positions has not only introduced the famous cultural exception, but also a sort of agricultural exception with a double form - (i) red lines forbidding, in principle, the import of GMOs into Europe; (ii) the protection of European geographical indications, especially for wine and some cheese (for example, Parmesan has the right to this denomination exclusively if it is produced in the area of Parma).
Those who defend an open attitude enabling everything to be spoken about with the Americans do not contest the exceptions described above, but make of them an issue of tactics. The derogations decided upon together should be raised during the negotiation and not by forbidding them even to be spoken about! If this is not the case, the Americans will do likewise, excluding from the negotiation in particular: - air transport (they want to keep national exclusivity for trips between two cities in the USA); - access to some public procurement; - the file on appellations of origin, which they now believe are free (like, for example, Champagne or the terms Grand cru or Chateau in the wine sector).
The controversy in France goes beyond these specific cases and is taking on a general nature. On the one hand, we want to keep national specificities; on the other hand, we describe the attitude that praises the borders or attributes all woes to globalisation as the Maginot syndrome. The cultural exception is admitted but, in the view of Etienne Gernelle in the weekly news magazine Le Point, it often comes back to “protecting income and advantages in a cultural system undermined by the fight for public funding”. Furthermore, Mr Gernelle underlines that French films are almost always loss-makers with payment for the actors going way beyond that made in the USA. The artists are accused of “not defending culture but their privileges”.
Cutting down on the ambitions? The conclusion, in my opinion, is evident - a comprehensive Euro-American agreement that is too ambitious in the timeframes laid down is virtually impossible. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) can only come about by cutting down on its content and its aspirations - and on condition that the political resolve of both sides exists. If it all ends in total failure, the USA could pursue its policy essentially in the direction of the Pacific Ocean, and Europe would remain virtually isolated in this difficult world, up against the bubbling developing countries, and with a number of misunderstandings and discontentment within it. The current polite exchanges between the president of the European Commission and other Community personalities in fact foreshadow what the atmosphere would be. Solidarity must be re-established.
(FR/transl.fl)