2014
- Le Jeudi, a weekly publication (May 1st)
- TAGEBLATT Panorama,a daily publication (April 28th)
Editorial in weekly Le Jeudi (May 1) by Society and Foreign Policy columnist Thierry Nelissen
US Federalism Speaker Akram Elias – Press round table held 24 April 2014
MODEL (original French version)
As the ‘Europe of people’ is seeking itself and the ‘people of Europe’ do not always find themselves, it is interesting to take a step back. There’s nothing like an external vision to enrich its own. And even a comparison. Which is not necessarily right.
Akram R. Elias, a consultant in “public diplomacy” was passing by Luxembourg last week. The native Lebanese, a true and happy US patriot, is as much into promoting the U.S. federalism model abroad as into convincing Americans that there is an interest in getting involved in foreign policy. An ambitious program.
For Americans the real awareness of international influence/globalization came, according to Akram Elias, from the economic crisis. While external events had taken onto the availability of consumer credit, U.S. citizens wondered where ‘this’ Greece was which they kept on hearing about. Touch the wallet and global consciousness is awakening…
Does this existential spasm make Europeans and Americans Siamese siblings of the global economy? Apparently George Washington was the first to call for a constitution of the United States of Europe, which would give his country a preferred partner on the world stage. “The completion of the construction of Europe will be an added value to the U.S.,” says Akram Elias . But what kind of Europe?
For two centuries, the two entities have evolved in not such a parallel path. Basically because in the case of the Old Continent , one can almost only speak of a geographical entity, and while monetary and certainly economical , not very political , and definitely not military.
The comparison does not lack flavor however. No doubt that nowadays Europeans are “pessimistic, skeptics” or “cynical “. For sure they have little knowledge of their institutions. But who says they aspire to a confederation as it exists across the Atlantic? One only needs to consider some details. Illustration: ” Here [in Europe], when there is a problem, people are wondering how the government will intervene. In the United States, they first ask what they can do themselves. Volunteering is a normal thing. ” To help the poor , churches and various associations take over from the state [Government] , which deliberately was kept modest.
Volunteering and charitable contribution versus assumed contribution and solidarity: a true societal choice actually. Europeans are warned.
TAGEBLATT Panorama (Luxembourg) – April 28
DIPLOMATS AND EXPERTS EXPRESS THEMSELVES ON THE CONTROVERSIAL TTIP – What do
they think about the free trade agreement? (Original German article)
Introduction: A lot is being discussed about the potential of a free trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU.
Proponents believe in economic growth, new jobs , increasing investment and a strengthening of
the transatlantic relationship. Critics, however, worry about a job growth “in homeopathic dosage,” loosened financial controls, a controversial investor protection and ecological disasters. On both sides of the Atlantic, there are attempts to argue for or against the “Trans- Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ” ( TTIP ).
However, so far very little is known about this free trade agreement which is being discussed
between the EU Commission and the U.S. government. For a long time, negotiations were held
secret. The truth is that the agreement must be ratified by the national and the European
Parliament. This generates animated public debate and leads to a mixture of euphoria and fear that
is often not well-founded, but is at least an expression of a tense mood.
Akram Elias (IIP US Federalism Speaker)
Akram Elias believes that the signing of a free trade agreement will strengthen especially the
transatlantic relations between the U.S. and Europe ” . The general strengthening of this relationship
is partly generated by free trade “. The Federalism expert emphasizes that the United States have
strengthened their own ‘union’ through free trade among the [50] states. The EU should do the
same although currently the communication [within Europe] is insufficient. “The European Union is
not in a position to make clear to its citizens what the benefits of free movement and free trade
within the EU means”. Thus in order to compensate for this shortcoming , the already existing free
trade benefits between the U.S. and the EU could make it more obvious to EU citizens. This is what
the transatlantic relationship stands for. And regardless whether the U.S. occasionally change their
strategy to focus today on Asia and tomorrow on Africa , there is a fundamental axis between the
EU and the U.S., which is shaped by values such as free trade. “trade, security, politics and exchange
of ideas are essential for this unique relationship.”
Ambassador Mandell
The U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg , Robert A. Mandell is interested in the success of a free trade
agreement between the U.S. and the EU not only because of his position as a diplomat: ” When
Barack Obama was elected U.S. President, he appointed me on his ‘ Export Council ‘. The latter
included 20 CEOs , 19 of whom were CEOs of Fortune 100 ‘ companies. (…) My job was to learn
more about the free trade agreement. ” During this time, Mandell met with major U.S. corporate
leaders. He was to find out whether, in early 2010, free trade agreement would play a role at all for
corporate leaders. Result: The agreements were very important to them , said the diplomat who has
an entrepreneurial background . Mandell emphasizes the positive aspects of TTIP : ” economic
growth, more jobs, more investment , more opportunities for SMEs and large companies and at the
same time maintaining the existing health, environmental and safety conditions for the EU and U.S.
citizens. This is what TTIP is about.”
Paul -Michael Schonberg
Paul -Michael Schonberg sees the same benefits as U.S. Ambassador Robert A. Mandell for a Free
Trade Agreement between the U.S. and the EU. Contrary to critics, and after talks with
representatives from the TTIP Brussels negotiations he judges the agreement even as ” the most
transparent trade negotiations, which has ever existed .” We are not talking about a devious plan by
a small group of people who would want to take over the world. Particularly interesting are his
thoughts on Luxembourg and the TTIP : ” Luxembourg has to stop being afraid . ” The Luxembourg
and the American economy are asymmetric. No part of the national economy would suffer or be
harmed by an increased competitiveness on the part of the U.S.. On the contrary, Luxembourg
could bring back on track its “flat” economy for the future. The country lies in the heart of Europe
and because of its neutrality , it is a good place to invest.
Alfred Steinherr
Alfred Steinherr sees mostly all the political advantages of TTIP : The transatlantic alliance between
the U.S. and the EU will be strengthened. As an economist he would be fundamentally in favor of
free trade, but most TTIP economic forecasts are excessive . If China were to drop its trade barriers ,
there would be greater benefits for the United States as it would be the case for the EU. Free trade
has already opened or loosened many barriers . A free trade agreement between the U.S. and the
EU would cause that some economic sectors import or export more. This , in return, will have a
flexible approach to labor results : “If we import more from the U.S., then imports from other
countries will be shifted to other countries, European or non-European . Or the national production
is being displaced and people are being laid off. ” But in Europe you could also increase the
consumption of U.S. goods . However, this would lead to less funds for our own investments. One
should take into account that it is not solely about more trade, but also about how this trade
increase will occur and what consequences it might have. The so-called promise of economic
success therefore needs to be differentiated and looked at from a long term perspective: ” The
liberalization of customs barriers would result in only an increase of 0.02 per cent of the EU’s GDP.
The erroneous manner in which we calculate the GDP would mean that this increase would remain
unnoticed. ”
Ernst-Christophe Stolper
Like Alfred Steinherr, Ernst-Christophe Stolper is not essentially against free trade. However he
foresees a lot of problems with the TTIP. He doubts about the predicted additional economic growth
as well as the fears that the agreement would burry all consumer and environment protection. Even
the clause of investment protection seems difficult to him. The latter should enable foreign investors
to be protected against government intervention. Should a government take a decision that would
harm a business’s income and benefits, this business could then pursue the government before an
arbitral court – behind closed doors. Such clauses are not new. But critics argue that they are
enemies to democracy. “Negotiations hardly deal with customs tariffs – which are already very low –
but more with political decisions. And it is the U.S. which benefits the most from this negotiation
focus point. On the reverse, the US is concerned by the ‘financial services’ dossier. Regulations are
stricter in the U.S. than in the EU. One fear that less restrictive regulations valid in the EU could take
precedence.
Attac
Attac criticizes the basic lack of transparency in the TTIP negotiations. There would also be
enormous threats for the environment : “In Europe one can currently be sued for the cultivation of
GMOs. In case this precautionary principle disappears with the TTIP , many more regulations and
consumer protection standards might tip like dominoes . “Even the cultural promotion through
public subsidies in the EU will be critically evaluated by the U.S., as it would be perceived as a
disadvantage of the American entertainment and media companies . Attac also fears unleashed
labor markets : “Free trade leads to more competition. This might make one or the other goods
cheaper, but certainly there’s one price that will go down : the price of labor power . (…) Lower
wages and lower social standards are the result , and that’s what the genuine goal is. ” Another
criticism of Attac is that both negotiating partners wanted to open the public services at all levels to
the private sector . So what we are to expect is the privatization of education , health care, social
services , water and public transport.