September is a time of change, and so it has been for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) program. The increasingly drawn out negotiations (started in July 2013) are now in their 7th week-long round, 29th September to the 3rd October 2014. This time hosted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA , they steadily accrue interested party criticism, while losing the more broad political support on both sides of the economically challenged Atlantic. The week long agenda includes: Stakeholder Policy Presentations as well as the obligatory Chief Negotiators Briefing, but the agenda is not public. Hence a lot of the acrimony.
This time there is attention getting precedent, background and context as on Friday the 26th September 2014, the European Commission trade leadership and their Canadian counterparts unveiled the Comprehensive Economic and Free Trade Agreement (CETA), best described as “a comprehensive EU-Canada economic agreement, removing 99% of customs duties and many other obstacles for business, to boost trade, strengthen economic relations and create jobs.” CETA took five years of negotiations. The agreement, rather than the duration of negotiation, is seen as a model for the TTIP.
At the European Commission a change of guard augers a new trade dynamic. Out (overdue argue some) went Karl de Gucht (Belgium, Flemish Liberals and Democrats) EU Trade Commissioner since 2010 and in came Cecilia Malmstrom (Swedish, Liberal) currently the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs (her new appointment will be ratified in November). It is to be hoped that well-seasoned U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Michael Froman, incumbent since 06.2013, will find in the fresh faced Malmstrom a partner able to master and manage the brief, to a mutually beneficial conclusion. Malmstrom has not disappointed the critics as she has acknowledged and states she will directly address: the undemocratic process of negotiations and harmonization to dispute settlement and negative externalities for third countries, the potential detrimental effects on democracy, the environment, and society, the evident lack of transparency and supposed need for secrecy as well as the seemingly irresolvable Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and Financial Markets. Deciding to exclude certain topics is a choice.
A less ambitious TTIP is certainly one pragmatic route to partnership completion, take the toxics out. The proposed ISDS arbitration is just one toxic in the TTIP pile, but it would enable the German Government and the European Parliament to claim a (populist) victory. Meanwhile, the French Government is demanding total transparency from the Commission. This apparently means full publication of the TTIP mandate as well as a published document at the end of each cycle of negotiations. Do know that this information is all publicly available, on the internet, but not sourced from the Commission. October 2014 will see many concerned organizations, on both sides of the Atlantic, discerning what will and will not be politically acceptable, toxic or not, through debates on the economic effects on national economies, about economic growth, jobs and effects on major industries, evaluating impacts on individual consumers and households… A slimmer brief, a step backwards, which enables the many conflicting stakeholders to claim their differing interests have been addressed, and even protected, will enable the TTIP to edge towards the light of day.
Want to learn more about TTIP? Read our whitepaper!
