Overheard today. Obama is criticized for being far too European in his domestic policies, while not focusing enough on Europe in his foreign policy agenda. Seems he can’t win.
Category: US EU relations
Last week over dinner I listened to former E.U. commissioner Guenter Verheugen make an impassioned and at times enlightening plea for a strengthening of the Trans-Atlantic relationship. Listening to the BBC World Service this evening at home there was certain irony in the fact that there would be one less American alive this evening if he had already got his way.
As the former chair of the Trans-Atlantic Economic Council at least part of Guenter’s plea was for more movement in reducing the NTBs that prevent the trans-Atlantic relationship from reaching its full potential. One of the proposed solutions on offer around the table that would kickstart the regulatory convergence agenda? Mutual recognition of standards across the Atlantic.
The argument was made that regulatory convergence in areas already regulated was at best a long shot due to the different legal approaches of the two areas and the politics in play. Better for both sides to accept that neither U.S. nor E.U. governments want to kill their citizens and accept that product standards offer equivalent levels of protection, leaving a regulatory convergence approach for yet to be regulated areas such as nano technology.
Alas we were all perhaps forgetting that in some cases the U.S. does actually want to kill its citizens. This evening there is a news from Arizona that the fact that a drug to be used in a lethal injection has come from Europe is enough for a judge in that state to accept a stay of execution because the drug may not meet U.S. standards of safety. It seems there are some upsides to the lack of a true trans-Atlantic marketplace after all.
James
NYT editorial this morning:
“…recession and resurgent German nationalism have weakened the authority of E.U. institutions.”
EU Ambassador in the Washington Post on Saturday:
According to the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, it seems those of us who believe in the benefits of free trade are losing the argument here in the U.S. It strikes me however that an upcoming event at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the economic opportunities afforded by increased U.S./E.U. trade may at least provide some of the antidote. If only we could get U.S. business and political elites to stop fixating on Asia and instead see the political and economic upside of a political reengagement with Europe on trade.
The Chamber event should hopefully build upon the case made by a study funded by the European Commission from 2009 that suggested that addressing actionable non-tariff measures would result in benefits of €41 billion (USD 56.7 billion) per year for GDP and 6.1% for export for the United States.
Alas, despite the best efforts of the folks at the Chamber one has to feel a little bit despondent as a European in D.C. I have been to a number of E.U. focused think-tank events in recent months and have to report that you are lucky to find half a dozen students in attendance. Forget policy or business elites. One commentator I heard speak noted that the White House is the first in living memory not to have a natural reflex towards Europe as a continent, while another noted that he could count those business people interested in U.S./E.U. engagement on one hand. When speaking to committed free traders out and about, I have to remind them that their biggest trading partner is the E.U. not the Canadians. It’s all rather sad given the progress our project has made in the last fifty or so years.
A renewed focus post elections on removing trade barriers with Europe should be interesting for a number of reasons. The Commission study points to concrete measures that would result in concrete gains for the both economies. At a time when the American economy still needs a boost, such gains would surely be welcome on both sides of the Atlantic.
Politically, it would seem hard for even the most ardent opponent to argue that lowering trade barriers with Europe would lead to jobs being shipped overseas due to lower labor costs or poor environmental standards. Indeed, it would be interesting to see whether the White House would have an interest in working with Congressional Republicans post-election on this issue in order to slay some of its own party’s demons on free trade, as well as of course prove that it’s not anti-business and it is for economic growth. The increased exports forecast by the Commission study would of course help Obama’s own goal of doubling exports within five years.
There are clearly some challenges to be overcome. Firstly, Europeans need to realize that they have to make a public case here in the U.S. As the recent Transatlantic Trends study highlighted, the average American and the average European do believe they share values. However, the average American also believes the U.S. shares as much common interests with China as it does with the E.U. It will be interested to see what political elites think when the GMFUS releases its opinion leaders survey later this year. In any case, Europe has no automatic claim on American’s mind space, we’ve got to make the case that collaborating with Europe is in their interests more than collaborating with the Chinese or other parts of Asia.
Secondly, we still have a job to do in educating such elites on the European Union. Americans are still I think scratching their heads over the impact of Lisbon. If we don’t seek to explain the powers of and importance of our Union, the perception will be only of increased complexity of having three Presidents and increased powers to those pesky MEPs who veto sensible trans-atlantic data protection agreements.
Finally, the new European Union delegation needs to work hand in glove with trans-atlantic business in a concerted effort to put this issue on the agenda with opinion leaders, in the media and in Congress and with the Administration. I am not convinced any of the current fora, including the Chamber have the laser like focused required to do this job. A single issue coalition is required to give business on both sides of the Atlantic a true rallying point.
James
I am slowly but surely coming round to the world view (perhaps unsurprisingly) that the first baby step in tackling many of the world’s most difficult challenges is a strong partnership between the US and EU.
On both sides of the Atlantic, we need to quit obsessing with China and start working to making the world a better place through concerted bilateral efforts. With the size of our consumer markets, the share of global trade flows we hold and the political clout we carry, where we lead others may well feel they have to follow.
Here’s my starting point for a list of the organisations here in D.C. that are seeking to help make that US-EU connection happen. If I’ve missed any let me know in the comments section and I’ll happily add them.
EU institutions in D.C.
European Union delegation to the United States
European Parliament’s Liaison Office to the US Congress
US/EU institutional fora
Transatlantic Economic Council
Think-tanks focused with an EU focus
Center for Transatlantic Relations
The German Marshall Fund of the United States
Think-tanks with EU programmes
Center for Strategic and International Studies
The Brookings Institution Center on the United States and Europe
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
US/EU business organisations
Transatlantic Business Dialogue
European American Business Council
US business organisations with EU programmes/committees
United States Council for International Business
Other US/EU networks
Transatlantic Policy Network (network of legislators from Congress and European Parliament)
James
