{"id":7532,"date":"2015-10-22T10:44:05","date_gmt":"2015-10-22T15:44:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/?p=7532"},"modified":"2017-06-12T09:37:06","modified_gmt":"2017-06-12T13:37:06","slug":"event-highlights-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-moving-towards-transatlantic-economic-integration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/2015\/10\/22\/event-highlights-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-moving-towards-transatlantic-economic-integration\/","title":{"rendered":"Event Highlights: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Moving Towards Transatlantic Economic Integration"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is a controversial proposed trade agreement that has garnered much of the world\u2019s attention. If passed, the TPP would unite the United States, China, Japan and other Pacific Rim nations in a common free-trade environment.<\/p>\n<p>Less discussed, however, is a parallel high-profile transnational trade agreement being examined as an alternative\u2014the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. If passed, the TTIP would represent the largest economic relationship in the world by connecting the United States and the European Union in a standardized trade and investment environment.<\/p>\n<p>On October 8th, Ambassador David O\u2019Sullivan, Head of the EU Delegation to the United States, gave a keynote speech at Boston University&#8217;s Center for the Study of Europe on TTIP negotiations and the context in which they take place, based on his direct involvement in these talks. Speaking from his extensive background in economics and his substantial knowledge of EU social and employment policy as a diplomat, O\u2019Sullivan spoke in favor of the TTIP.<\/p>\n<p><a data-flickr-embed=\"true\"  href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/11054951@N04\/albums\/72157657785769503\" title=\"10.08.15\"><img loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/c1.staticflickr.com\/1\/601\/22149471949_23dc81ee05_z.jpg\" width=\"710\" height=\"471\" alt=\"10.08.15\"><\/a><script async src=\"\/\/embedr.flickr.com\/assets\/client-code.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n<p>\u201cTrade is a better creator of wealth than anything else,\u201d O\u2019Sullivan explained. \u201cNo country in history has gone from poverty to wealth without trade.\u201d Speaking specifically to the benefits of strengthening the trade environment between the United States and the European Union, O\u2019Sullivan pointed out that the two bodies are undoubtedly intertwined\u2014between them, they account for nearly half of the global GDP. \u201cWe are each more heavily invested in each other than either of us is in anyone else. American companies make more money in profit from Belgium than they do from China,\u201d remarked O\u2019Sullivan.<\/p>\n<p>Not only did O\u2019Sullivan highlight potential benefits from the agreement, he also addressed some of the concerns posed about lowering regulatory standards and compromises to health and safety. \u201cWhen looking at trade agreements like the TTIP, of course there will be human and social consequences, and established economic actors will be disrupted. But trying to stop trade will make people poorer,\u201d argued O\u2019Sullivan.<\/p>\n<p>Following O\u2019Sullivan\u2019s keynote speech were Dr. Tereza Novotna, a BU alum and a FNRS post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for European Studies at the Universit\u00e9 libre de Bruxelles, and Prof. Roberto Dominguez of Suffolk University, who both discussed the geopolitical and broader context of the TTIP. Novotna\u2019s presentation, \u201cEU Institutions, Member States and TTIP Negotiations: The Balance of Power,\u201d focused on the fact that although TTIP is in fact an economic agreement and will be judged on its economic merit, it is also a political and geopolitical agreement that has many more significant effects beyond the economics. \u201cIt, in a way, puts transatlantic relations back on the agenda of both sides of the Atlantic,\u201d explains Novotna. Novotna claims that TTIP is especially important for the europeans, who were quite worried about the United States pivoting and trading with Asia (under the TPP). These worries stemmed from \u201csecurity reasons and economic reasons,\u201d as Novotna explains, but the most important impact of TTIP in transatlantic geopolitics would be uniting the European Union and the United States.<\/p>\n<p>Professor Dominguez\u2019s talk titled, \u201cImplications of TTIP for the Wider World: Views from Latin America,\u201d presented three general assumptions made about international trade negotiations in general based on the surveillance of those negotiations over time. The first assumption that Dominguez presents is that global trade negotiations have reached a stalemate, and that stalemate was made worse by the 2008 financial crisis. Assuming this stalemate to be true, it is also true that there is an alternative. \u201cThat alternative is mega-negotiations,\u201d explains Dominguez\u2014including the TTIP. The second assumption was that free trade reproduces economic growth. Since this is a generally observed trend, Dominguez argues that the debate comes about surrounding how to send messages of that growth to the public. \u201cThe growth will come,\u201d says Dominguez, \u201cbut it is also true that there will be problems with jobs and job losses, and <i>that\u2019s<\/i> where the debate starts.\u201d The third assumption is that economic actors are not waiting for the conclusion of negotiations. \u201cThey are already acting in many different ways,\u201d claims Dominguez, \u201cfrom civil society to multinational companies.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The second panel of conversationalists included Professor Michelle Egan of American University, Professor Fernanda Nicola of American University, and Professor Kaija Schilde of Boston University\u2019s own Pardee School of Global Studies, discussing trade implications, sectors, and issues. Professor Egan\u2019s talk was titled \u201cReframing Regulatory Cooperation under TTIP,\u201d and focused on placing TTIP in context. Egan explains how times have changed in terms of trade agreements. \u201cEarlier trade agreements were asymmetric, between a larger and a smaller trade partner.\u201d Now, however, we are witnessing the emergence of mega trade agreements like TPP and TTIP. Egan also mentions that expectations are high for trade\u2014when designing trade policies, we have grown to expect these policies to balance three main goals, efficiency, legitimacy, and political expediency.<\/p>\n<p>Professor Schilde\u2019s talk, \u201cPossibilities for and Challenges to Defense Markets,\u201d claims that TTIP would have positive externalities for the transatlantic relationship. Schilde goes on to express that she believes TTIP will never include defense markets, even if there is logic and a rationale about why it should. \u201cIn contrast to many other globalizing sectors,\u201d explains Schilde, \u201cthere has been increasing interdependence between defense industries and their governments especially on the United States side, but increasingly on the European side.\u201d This interdependency only intensifies over time, and also intensifies during economic downturns, leading Schilde to conclude that defense capability planning, specifically research and development, costs have been outsourced to industries.<\/p>\n<p>Bringing legal expertise to the table, Professor Fernanda Nicola\u2019s talk, \u201cTransformative ISDS: The Constitutional Dimension of Investor-State Arbitration,\u201d touched upon the controversial relationship between TTIP and the ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement). The ISDS is a neutral international arbitration procedure that aims to provide an impartial, law-based approach to resolve conflict. Recently, the European Parliament adopted a resolution supporting TTIP, but only under the condition that the current investor-state dispute settlement\u00a0(ISDS) mechanism be replaced by another system.<\/p>\n<p>Daniela Caruso brilliantly closed the conversation with remarks about justice. Directly expounding upon and challenging ambassador O\u2019Sullivan\u2019s talk, Caruso highlighted and stressed the importance for justice in TTIP negotiations. While O\u2019Sullivan\u2019s argument was that TTIP negotiations are a truly, nicely democratic process as open as possible, Caruso explained that, through the talks of all the panelists, it is much more complicated than that. Caruso points to the apparent simplicity of O\u2019Sullivan\u2019s language. \u201cIf you hear the ambassador speak, rationality is on one side of the commission, and on the other side, we have fear and anxiety. This is just too simple to be true.\u201d Caruso urged the audience to take apart his vision of rationality and democracy and drew our attention to the production of knowledge. \u201cThree quarters of the Czech don\u2019t know what TTIP is, but yet, they\u2019re the country who least opposes it.\u201d Caruso also provides input from her law background in talking about democratic justice. \u201cOften what looks like democracy, what looks like thick input, is actually very <i>thin<\/i> input. And that\u2019s not what I would call democracy.\u201d Caruso also explains that O\u2019Sullivan\u2019s idea that waiting before taking action isn\u2019t a reliable option. \u201cWaiting for the problem to surface before worrying about it simply doesn\u2019t work in a democracy,\u201d details Caruso. \u201cYou have to raise the possibility of problems even before the problems are fully documented or you will not document them. In fact, by the time you document them, the harm will be done.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Caruso likens this to TTIP by explaining how, while the European Union and the United States will profit, others will suffer and be forced to devise their own strategies. \u201cThere is no mechanism of compensation that is built within the TTIP which considers the externalities that TTIP is going to generate on other countries.\u201d Caruso points to Africa, naming Libya, Morocco, and Algeria (who was tremendously hit by the trade deviation effects of setting up the European Union). \u201cWorrying about them through trade will not just be a gesture of altruism,\u201d says Caruso. \u201cIt should be part and parcel of setting up a deal that will for sure generate predictable examples of trade deviation.\u201d Lastly, Caruso tackles the common language that the EU and the U.S. have embraced about balancing and proportionality. \u201cThe way we mention justice is that yes, of course we will consider the interest of trade, but there will be many other counter interests that will be on the table at any point of these conversations, and they will balance [justice]. We think we have given enough homage to the other interests. Balancing is the beginning of the discussion, not the conclusion.\u201d Caruso\u2019s powerful call for justice may have capped off the Center for the Study of Europe\u2019s panel discussion in the Castle, but she also provided listeners with enough thought-provoking challenges to ensure the conversation will continue.<\/p>\n<p><em>Toria Rainey \u201818<\/em><\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"100%\" height=\"450\" scrolling=\"no\" frameborder=\"no\" src=\"https:\/\/w.soundcloud.com\/player\/?url=https%3A\/\/api.soundcloud.com\/playlists\/168698856&amp;color=ff5500&amp;auto_play=false&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is a controversial proposed trade agreement that has garnered much of the world\u2019s attention. If passed, the TPP would unite the United States, China, Japan and other Pacific Rim nations in a common free-trade environment. Less discussed, however, is a parallel high-profile transnational trade agreement being examined as an alternative\u2014the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10939,"featured_media":7534,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3,16],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7532"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10939"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7532"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7532\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8596,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7532\/revisions\/8596"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7534"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/european\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}