When negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership began the case for a free trade deal between the EU and the USA appeared to be clear cut. The proposed free trade agreement would have consolidated over 40% of Global GDP into a single trade block. Thereby, not only ensuring an additional economic growth of up to 200 billion Euros, but also helping to secure the predominance of western rules and regulations in international trade. Yet, in spite of these benefits the TTIP negotiations have generated an enormous public backlash all over Europe, with hundreds of thousands protesting against the proposed treaty. Previous international trade negotiations had failed to stir much passion among the wider population. However, with TTIP there were several factors that led to the creation of a perfect storm that completely blindsided EU and European governments alike.
Foremost among these reasons was the formation of a remarkably broad coalition of various interest groups ranging from labor unions to NGOs and environmentalists which were opposed to the treaty. This broad coalition in combination with the absence of a clear communication strategy of the treaty’s benefits enabled those opposed to the treaty to dominate the public discourse on transatlantic free trade. By playing on people’s fears of the by now infamous chlorinated chicken or the specter of genetically modified food in European supermarkets the critics of the treaty have succeeded in directing the debate away from an objective assessment of TTIP.
Consequently, when the European governments belatedly became aware of the enormous controversy that was sparked by TTIP, they were confronted with an uphill battle against an already well entrenched narrative. Thus, even though the EU initiated a transparency initiative to combat accusations of the negotiations being secretive and undemocratic, the damage to public confidence in the advantages of the treaty has proven itself to be exceedingly difficult to reverse. Therefore, before there can be a comprehensive trade deal between EU and USA, there must first be a comprehensive strategy to regain public support for transatlantic free trade. The emotional nature of the TTIP debate has made it clear, that the governments on both sides of the Atlantic need to convey a new message that is able to win hearts and not just minds. Yet, for all of the impact “emotional arguments” have had on the public debate it is crucial to examine why these arguments fell on such fertile ground in the first place. Particularly, because wide-spread protests against TTIP may have been limited to Europe, a growing uneasiness with free trade has become increasingly common throughout the western world.
Far too long, have leaders in both the EU as well as the USA taken public support for free trade as granted. After all, do not in the long run all participating countries benefit from free trade? Be it from an expansion of export markets or cheaper consumer prices and a wider variety of products. Yet, these benefits are spread out over the entire population, while the drawbacks of free trade such as the loss of uncompetitive jobs are often highly regionally concentrated. The promise that in the end free trade benefits all is only a cold comfort to those that have lost their livelihoods to it. Therefore, if EU and USA wish to conclude a comprehensive trade agreement and remain at the forefront of global free trade, any strategy to regain lost public trust must go far beyond better communication. Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic must address the legitimate concerns of those who have been negatively affected by free trade and maybe even more importantly the concerns of those who only fear to be left behind by ever increasing free trade and globalization.
Both the EU with the European Globalization Adjustment Fund and the USA with the Trade Adjustment Assistance have already devised programs to help workers adjust to major structural changes in world trade. These programs naturally face different structural problems, yet they are both constrained by a focus on trade related disruptions. However, in today’s globalized economy rather than being faced with an one-time adjustment, companies and workers are confronted with the need for continuous adjustment in order to cope with new competitors and technologies. Thus, as laudable as the efforts of these programs have been, they would have to be significantly expanded in both scope and scale to effectively assist workers with the manifold adjustment challenges of today’s economy.
Nevertheless, addressing the legitimate concerns of those negatively affected by globalization, will only be the first step towards regaining public support for free trade. Governments in both the EU as well as the USA must find a way to confront the widespread narrative of free trade solely benefiting large multi-national companies. However, confronting this narrative with a positive message of free trade as force for good does not only require a better communication strategy, but also a different approach towards trade negotiations. For example, the public must not merely be shown that their high environmental and labor standards will be preserved, but also that a transatlantic free trade agreement would go a long way towards cementing them as the gold standard of future international trade agreements.
Winning back the support of those that feel left behind by a globalizing world will be extremely difficult, but giving up on a comprehensive free trade agreement between the United States and the EU would be nothing short of disaster. Neither EU nor the United States can afford an extended period of economic isolationism. Further, attempting to close of economies to international trade cannot hope to reverse the trends that have created an increasingly interconnected world. All this will accomplish is to ensure that it will be others that determine the future international standards of trade and profit from preferential trade and investment conditions.
Hi Michi,
I really liked your article! Do you might have any suggestions in how the US or the German government could foster a positive free trade narrative within their populations? Could, for example, a media campaing convey the right message in your opinion?
Hi Katharina,
Unfortunately, the negative narrative on free trade has become far too entrenched for a media campaign to sway many minds. Particularly, in Germany many are convinced that a transatlantic trade deal would be nothing but a four-letter assault on their freedom, livelihood and safety standards. Therefore, convincing them otherwise will require visible changes towards how negotiations are conducted as well as the content of the deal. In short, the people must be shown that their concerns have not only been heard, but also that these misgivings will be addressed in all future trade negotiations. To take just one example, it is clear that trade negotiations require a certain degree of secrecy, but even members of both the European parliament as well as the national parliaments have long been denied access to the negotiation documents. This secrecy has ensured that neither negative nor positive claims could be substantiated and explains why the debate on TTIP has been dominated by exaggerations and half-truths. Accordingly, the trade negotiations should be conducted as transparently as possible to dispel fears of a toxic agreement being hidden from the public. However, after these changes have been accomplished a media campaign to convey how the new approach towards transatlantic free trade differs from the old one could be more effective when it comes to convincing people of the benefits of transatlantic free trade.
Hi Michael,
I enjoyed reading your article as it gave me some new insights on the TTIP negotiations. Having “those opposed to the treaty to dominate the public discourse on transatlantic free trade” seems to me too to have been a real big problem. Only knowing about abstractly formulated benefits like more economic growth due to better and more trades in comparison to knowing about precisely stated risks like the chlorinated chicken or genetically modified food made it difficult to advocate TTIP. I think showing more concrete benefits and comprehensible examples for them would be of help. As it would ease the work of
politicians.
Regards,
Mathias
Hi Mathias,
Trying to show the concrete benefits of the treaty to the public is a worthwhile suggestion. However, this might be easier said than done. Since, it will be difficult to come up with concrete benefits while the content of the treaty is still being negotiated. Can you think of a way to show everyday benefits, while the negotiations are still ongoing?
I was on a forum about TTIP once and there was a representative of a big
company in Germany. He told us how TTIP could impact their business. He illustrated
that very often they have to conduct certain, similar proceedings on both sides of the Atlantic when
importing and exporting goods. He said this could be prevented by TTIP and would save
a lot of time to them, resulting into a better standing of the company. I think examples
like these could show potential benefits.
Hi Mathias,
I also remember a couple of articles in major German newspapers that attempted to show tangible benefits of TTIP. However, as far as specific examples were concerned this was predominantly focused on advantages for Germany companies (e.g. no need to change the color of indicator lights). I was thinking along the lines of specific advantages for everyday Germans, most of what I have seen was very general, like greater choice for consumers or an average increase in wealth for all Germans.
Hey Michael,
I do agree that the benefits of free trade have been poorly communicated to the general public. It is also clear that many groups are riding the wave of a widespread mistrust in the established parties working for free trade (lobbyists, politicians, etc.). There is an uphill battle to “win the hearts and minds of the general public (esp. as opposition has effectively used their the “we against them” rhetoric to their advantage.
To supplement your proposal, what tools/methods do you recommend to support your message regarding free trade? Would social media be the best platform for spreading information about free trade?
Best,
Brandy
Hi Brandy,
Although traditional media shouldn’t be neglected, social media has become an increasingly important source of information for many people and studies have shown that what we see every day on Facebook or Twitter plays an important part in subconsciously affecting our opinion. Accordingly, social media has become one of the most important platforms for shaping public opinion on TTIP. Consequently, just as social media has become an important platform for opponents of TTIP, proponents of a transatlantic trade deal must show a much stronger presence on social media. However, social media naturally requires a different approach of communication as opposed to a media campaign in the more traditional media. For example, many people simply don’t have the time or inclination to read scientific essays or even newspaper articles in order to become an expert on such a complex topic as transatlantic free trade. Conversely, short videos that break down complex topics into digestible bits of information and combine information with entertainment have become very popular. My suggestion would now be to adapting this “infotainment” style of conveying information to TTIP. What are your thoughts on this?
Hi Michael,
I think your analysis makes sense. To execute it would require a carefully crafted strategy, considering not only the intended message but also how various readers, online authors and outlets would respond. The challenge is to change peoples opinion that may be quite cemented already and not very open to any new facts/ideas. Great dialogue and good luck with your proposal!
Best,
Brandy