Transatlantic Agenda for Growth and Security: Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly, Vol. XIII (2013) Nr. 2

The 49th Munich Security Conference (MSC) held 1-3 February 2013 featured many familiar elements. NATO partners stressed their commitment to the transatlantic defense community; diplomats agreed that America and Europe are indispensable to one-another's security; concerns were expressed over the political state of the Middle East; and more recent areas of interest such as cybersecurity were discussed. One element stands out as truly remarkable: US Vice-President Joe Biden advocated comprehensive and swift passage of a transatlantic free trade agreement. While his brief remarks on this subject were sandwiched between more expansive discussion of fiscal problems and terrorism, the trade zone snippet represented the most dynamic element of his speech. And with good reason. Only ten days later US President Barack Obama announced during his 12 February 2013 State of the Union address that he would be pursuing such an agreement. The next day, 13 February, the US-European High-Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (which was launched in November 2011) made public its formal recommendation to conclude such a free trade pact. There can be no doubt that the Vice-President knew what the working group would recommend and what the President would announce, and chose the international forum in Munich to herald the initiative. The announcement was certainly welcome in Europe. The European Council had already agreed in November 2012 to actively pursue initiation of talks this year. And German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with whom Vice-President Biden met privately in Berlin before both leaders traveled to Munich for the MSC, has advocated a transatlantic free trade zone for years. We would like nothing more than a free trade agreement between the United States and Europe, she repeated just before the MSC meeting. Both the US and the European Union will now initiate the internal procedures necessary to launch negotiations on what is formally being referred to as a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In the words of these leaders, a high-standard Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would advance trade and investment liberalization and address regulatory and other non-tariff barriers. Politicians, economists and business leaders on both sides of the Atlantic praise the concept as a means to stimulate investment, exports, and job growth, while boosting GDP on both sides of the Atlantic. Despite this broad-based support, the devil remains in the details. The decision to initiate talks on TTIP represents a fairly early step. Hammering out an agreement everyone can live with is expected to take up to two years. And the first problems have already begun. The government of France has already threatened to block any free trade pact unless all business sectors producing so-called cultural products such as films, music, or literature are excluded. Paris is trying to protect its heavily subsidized film industry from American competition, and block US television networks from establishing themselves in France. Minister of Trade Nicolle Bricq made the announcement on 25 March, adding that France would also veto any agreement containing concessions to the United States with regard to unlabeled genetically-manipulated agricultural products. Overall, the agricultural and food sector is considered to be the most challenging arena for compromise, given the highly emotional nature of the subject and the widely varying differences in food safety regulations between the two continents. This volume of Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly takes a dual-path approach, offering broad insight into the proceedings of the 49th Munich Security Conference, then providing documentation regarding the decision to pursue the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.