The transatlantic partnership has long been understood as a geopolitical consequence of the Soviet threats. During the Cold War, it was predominantly focused on military security. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was one of the few remaining constants in the new world order. The transatlantic partnership became increasingly a geopolitical necessity to maintain stability in a restructuring world.
It is only in the current decade that « the world’s premier security alliance [is turning] into the world’s premier economic pact ». The creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) and negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) brought back the hope that the transatlantic partnership reinforces its geopolitical position.
Albeit the pure intentions of TTIP and TEC, the main flaw of the increasing economic relationship is the political arrogance towards the people’s fears and resentments. Recent studies suggest that economic issues have become less important for populist movements since the end of the Cold War. The economic advantages of deep transatlantic relations won’t be enough to convince those who lost their faith in their governments.
The protests against TTIP were thus heavily disputed with non-economic arguments. Opposing voices doubted the level of standards of the partner on the other side of the Atlantic. The European and American people mutually distrust in the good of liberalising the market because they fear cultural differences. For instance, the debate in Germany eventually let the population imagine an « Americanised » Europe where people eat chlorinated chicken, watch only Hollywood movies and lack of a public health care system.
In order to curb the spreading of populist ideas based on cultural differences, it is imperative to engage in dialogue with those felt left behind by the globalisation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, and immigration over the last 20 years. The political establishment must listen to the populist claims, (emotionally) understand their fears and express their understanding, indeed their compassion. They must find together with them solutions for their future in a transatlantic environment.
Meanwhile, political parties and NGOs need to get in touch in the field with populist movements and engage with them to fight their fears. This will only be possible by achieving to « build new appreciation in party politics » and « incorporating those who feel left behind into the industries of the future ». These measures will pave the way to the foundation of a Transatlantic Community on all levels.
Another challenge of the transatlantic partnership are those who maintain it primarily: the so-called political establishment. Even though, in recent months trust in institutions is coming back, it is still far low for to endeavour thicker bonds between North America and Europe. The success of the future transatlantic partnership lies in the hands of every single citizen.
On the long run, the transatlantic partnership can only survive as a Transatlantic Community. It will take years, or even decades, to build a stable community between North America and Europe. Transatlantic organisations and programs help to move to a Transatlantic Community. The Next Generation’s Approach proposed by the « Atlantic Expedition » fellows is a further step towards the right direction.
The key elements of future transatlantic relations need to be social, subnational and sustainable. Physical exchanges between pupils, teachers, researchers, and blue-collar workers help to support « traditionally underrepresented stakeholders in transatlantic relations » (Next Generation’s Approach, p.9). Indeed, every further bonding of transatlantic relations must be based on the doctrine that it improves the next generation’s chances and lives.
The new transatlantic narrative should be a narrative of hope in a even better future, of genuine trust in the American and European people (especially the youth), of confidence in each other’s partner’s capabilities and responsibilities.
It is very clear that in the near future, the transatlantic partnership will not lead to a unification of both sides of the Atlantic under a single government. On the contrary, the transatlantic relationship must express itself on the very ground of our society, in the very basic structures of our society : the local communities.
Transatlantic bodies such as the OECD, NATO and the OSCE should include local communities in their work. This can be made by establishing « Permanent Contact Groups » supporting countermeasures against hybrid threats for instance. Supporting civil structures to invest in transatlantic issues eases the process of transatlantic identification needed for building up a Transatlantic Community.
Key players of the future transatlantic partnership will be the mayors and state governors (or their pendants). The Next Generation’s Approach is full of creative ideas (decentralised framework for climate engagement, empowering NGOs and local communities toward effective integration of refugees, and update the « Sister Cities » program). Similar to the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, American and European mayors should come together to promote transatlantic values and share expertise on best practices.
Johannes Bohnen, founder of the Atlantische Initiative, recently stated that « [if] governments in the future increasingly lack internal support and are absorbed by clashes along the fault lines of ideology or class, Western democracies become internally unstable and will simply lack the prerequisite for an active foreign policy. » The answer to this problem might lie in the introduction of the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda :
Today we face new challenges at home and abroad. To meet them, we must further strengthen and adapt the partnership that has served us so well. Domestic challenges are not an excuse to turn inward; we can learn from each other’s experiences and build new transatlantic bridges.
Hi Leon,
I found your article interesting and I’m glad you brought up the TTIP debate. I agree that the debate became sidetracked, focusing on cultural differences rather than economic benefits. You mention that engagement and discussion with communities is imperative to building a more informed transatlantic community. How would you propose editing the current narrative around TTIP and engaging with anti-TTIP groups? and which actors do you think would be best fit to engage?
Best,
Allison
I might pick up on this general idea regarding TTIP here: Don’t you think that opposition to TTIP doesn’t necessarily have something to do with an anti-American bias per se, but rather with a general conservatism about the unknown? Many German citizens know very little about regulatory processes like those of the FDA in the United States, for example, and hence there is a general fear of “unsafe food.” Clichés of unregulated capitalism then contribute to the image constructed in people’s minds. I think that this kind of attitudinal conservatism is best countered by education about others’ practices and methods. Knowledge of “the other” contributes to the disappearance of prejudices better than anything else. Agreed?
I think the opposition to TTIP was because:
1) it’s bad
2) the content of the TTIP deal was made in complete secrecy, so no one knew what was going to be in it. It was probably bad though.
I don’t think it is particularly astute to just write it off as simply being bad. Big agreements like this create winners and losers–it’s overly simple to describe it in such one-sided terms, especially considering the anticipated benefits in terms of economic welfare. What is apparent though is how misinformed voters are about what is being agreed upon. Add to that a fair amount of fear-mongering about “American safety standards” and you’d think the American system of economic governance was based on anarchism.
Regarding point two, almost all agreements are made in secret (that being said, go online and check the regularity with which they updated the “progress” of the negotiations, including their substantive (dis-)agreements–there’s quite a lot); it seems absurd to allow cameras into a negotiation like this. If one insisted on this kind of transparency, nothing would ever be agreed upon.
Hi Anna,
Thank you for your answer. You’re right that the secrecy of the negotiations do not help to diffuse a good image of it. I think that more transparency is absolutely needed. For instance, all topics of the trade deal that concern consumer rights should be developed with consumer organisations. Nonetheless, it is important to accept a certain amount of restriction. During negotiations, it may happen that extreme proposals are tabled. Without the right discretion well-meant leaks can undermine the idea of free trade.
Hi Mark,
Just to jump into the discussion again–I agree with you and I think you bring up a really good point about lack of education covering American standards and procedures. Maybe these agencies need to be more proactive on a global/transatlantic scale (in terms of transparency and education) if America is to forge more trade deals with countries skeptical about standards.
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your answer. I agree with you. The fear from the unknown is totally natural. You can observe this fear not only when it comes to TTIP, but also on the euro-crisis or the mass migration of the recent years. It is important to understand, even embrace this fear. After all, it is sometimes reasonable to fear changes. By engaging with those who are afraid of the unknown “other” we may even learn new aspects that can help to foster the transatlantic relationship.
As you said it, to learn about the unknown contributes to lift prejudices. Everyone interested in the trade deal should illuminate sceptics on the advantages of TTIP. Actually, scandals like Volkswagen emissions scandal could help to prove that the standards on both sides of the Atlantic are high.
Do you think that this might be a good idea to argument with such events ? I can understand if that seems too extreme.
Hi Mark, Leon, and Anna,
I agree with Mark and Anna’s point that the fear of TTIP was not due to fears of Americans or Europeans, but fear of corporations negotiating in secrecy (in ways likely to most benefit the the corporations themselves).
Mark, are there any comparisons you could make in this argument between TTIP and TPP? Do you think the same fear applies here?
-Lindsey
Hey Lindey,
A quick note to your response: I don’t think that it’s so much fear of corporations per se, even if there is a worrying degree of lobbying going on in negotiations like these with attempts of “regulatory capture.” There seems to be a lot of fear (more so in Europe than in the United States) that American standards are not sufficient. This is somewhat ironic because the U.S. has stricter standards in several areas (getting drug approval through the FDA is much more complicated than in Europe, for example, or consider that the Volkswagen scandal was *discovered* in the US, in part because of its stricter environmental standards pertaining to fuel efficiency).
Your question regarding a comparison to TPP is interesting: I think there generally tends to be less fear about standards among Americans, especially in terms of agreeing on standards with Europeans; the concern with TPP is more about structural change and its impact on employment. This is a bigger issue for TPP either way, since TTIP would not bring about the same kind of structural changes that TPP would. But it should be noted that *someone* needs to set standards in trade. If the US refuses to set standards vis-a-vis TPP, other will fill the vacuum. (China?)
Cheers,
Mark
Hi Allison,
Thank you for your answer. In my opinion, it will be difficult to pass by the discussion on cultural difference and it is important that the parties negotiating TTIP acknowledge that. The current narrative has to include this aspect. At the same time, the discussion needs to get back to its core élément, the economic benefits.
It would be helpful to integrate (more) nongovernmental actors in the negotiations. Among the groups opposing the trade deal, there are some who are against globalisation and FTAs in general (Campact, Attac). It will be hard to find compromises with these groups. Hence, the EU and the US should first engage with the groups which are open to discussion and interested in shaping the deal. I think of SMEs, consumer organisations and farmers.
I also like Leon’s article. I’m actually really surprised by how many NGOs, think tanks, and organizations treat populism like a dirty word, and whose solution is to essentially make more reports about how it is wrong and they’re right.
Populist parties are getting more support and votes. The individuals who are vote populist? Their concerns are valid, and their issues need to be listened to and addressed. Populism isn’t a thing that can re-educated and re-narratived away.
Agree in part, Anna. Populism won’t be re-educated or re-narratived away, but what we can do is try to diminish the elements of ethnic nationalism inherent in many of the movements in the United States and Europe. There is much we can do there and I do think this is what most of the criticism of populism is directed against.
Hi Leon,
thanks for your article! I agree with your assessment of TTIP and that its discussions failed mostly due to “political arrogance towards the people’s fears and resentments.” If we want to furter transatlantic relations then we have to include those people that feel (and indeed are) left behind. I differ, however, with your assessment that people are left behind “by globalization, gender equality and women’s empowerment.” With globalization there are actual ‘losers’, I agree, but increasing equality of the sexes, gender, or races does not leave people behind but instead levels the playing field. I regard this as a misconception many conservatives bring forth but that needs to be dealt with differently than factors like globalization or demographic changes.
Hi Christin,
Thank you for the answer. It seems I have badly explained my concern. Of course, gender equality and women’s empowerment do not leave people behind! My concern is that there are voices that accuse these phenomena of being the reason for their misfortune. It is clearly a feeling that is not based on rational viewpoints. Nonetheless we need to understand their fear from accepting basic human rights to everyone.
I would like to add that in my opinion, it is not globalisation that has left people behind rather than bad politics. It is unfair to blame those who lost their job because of globalisation as they cannot be held accountable for global political trends. Politicians around the globe must recognise that they are the principal responsible actors to mitigate the risks of globalisations. Else we will only stay in a loop of blaming and shaming.
Hi Leon,
Thanks for your article. I am very grateful that you worked out the gap between competition and cooperation so well. I would sum your points up by saying that the United States and the European Union are considered, by the analysts, to be the most strategic partners in the international system nowadays. Also I would say because of their common interests, these two world powers are in constant competition and cooperation. Analyzing transatlantic economic and trade relations, it can be drawn some features of state of these relations. The status of EU of an ‘economic global power’ has forced the US to deal with it in terms of dialogue and negotiations. The economic partnership US-EU, correlated with strong economic interdependence was and is always stated and extended, despite tensions in the
political and security. The transatlantic partnership has always an ambivalent character, being called the ′competitive cooperation′. This is due to the fact that this type of relationship is characterized by ambiguities, beginning with the internal evolution of both parties and ending with their role and importance in the international system. The United States are seen like representatives of the hard power while the construction of the European Union was rooted in the predominant soft power. So for me this is the reason why raised questions regarding the nature of the US-EU relation: it is defined by cooperation or by competition?
Greetings
Tim
Hi Tim,
Thank you for your answer, I like your analysis. I believe that cooperation and competition do not exclude one each other. In fact, when competitors cooperate everything is possible as for instance the international cooperation on the International Space Station shows. The EU is another example where competitors are better off to cooperate. We should spread the idea that the modern transatlantic narrative lives from cooperation thanks to the competition between the EU and the US. In order to tighten the bond between the both sides of the Atlantic, we need to ease competition.
Thank you, great article! I agree that people’s constraints towards TTIP will not just disappear when we argue on an economic basis. The reason is -and that’s what you are saying, too- that TTIP is not about economic, but about geopolitical goals. I think the most important goal should be to take people’s concerns serious and discuss critically the arguments pro and con TTIP on an equal basis- this is what you refer to talking about “arrogance”. However, you have to be careful not to fall in the same trap saying that Germans fear to “wath only Hollywood movies” . Therefore I would suggest that it is really not about “winning” but about being more “convincing”. What do you think`?
Hi Nora,
Thank you for your comment, you sum up my points very well. Indeed, TTIP has geopolitical goals. On both sides of the Atlantic, supporters hope that thanks to TTIP the transatlantic partnership becomes a global trendsetter. The core of TTIP is on economic issues and the negotiations are primarily focused on them. On the other hand, the public discussions are dominated by social and ecological concerns. Emphasising the geopolitical goals of TTIP might bring all the concerns and issues together under one common term.
I agree with you that the arguments for and against TTIP must be presented on an equal, respectful basis. By bringing all the aspects of TTIP together rather than limiting to specific issues, it may even become easier to find solutions. Hence, you are right stating it is less about « winning » and more about « convincing », and I might add, « persuading ».
Thank you for your advice on « watching only Hollywood movies », I will try to avoid such expressions.
Best,
Leon