The EU And US Decision To Negotiate TTIP/TAFTA

Market Access, Specific Regulation, and Broader Rules and Principles

Discuss about the The EU and US Decision to Negotiate TTIP/TAFTA.
 

The US and the EU have come together to undertake the negotiations, i.e., Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), between themselves keeping in consideration the economic adversities that the entire world is facing. The negotiations between these two economies will be able to reduce the tariff and non-tariff barriers that create obstacles in conducting the smooth trade relations. This will help in conducting the trade and investment relationships among the nations of the world and thereby increasing the financial strength of the countries across the world. This partnership is an ambitious attempt on the part of the two economies of the world, as it will open new scope for employment of the citizens of different nations. These two economies constitute the two developed countries of the globe; therefore, the population of each of the territories can utilize the highly profitable opportunities of these two economies. The negotiations or the agreement made between EU and US will upgrade the economy of EU by 136 billion dollars and that of US by more than 102 billion dollars. The workers can easily migrate from the US to the EU and vice versa. The already existing strong bond between the two nations would help in boosting the economic growth by adding around 13 million jobs to both the economies.

EU is the largest export market for the US and other nations of the world. EU is the largest export market that supports around 2.2 million American jobs, and they each other support nearly 7 million jobs or more. These negotiations would remove all the customs duties on the manufactured goods and services and thereby better opportunities for the companies operating in both EU and US. The possibilities of such negotiations seem to be very promising. 

The information concerning the negotiations was not revealed to the public. This means that nobody was able to access the information without authorization. The people directly associated with the negotiation proceedings only had access to the information provided in the agreements. Both the US and the EU arrived at the decision of undertaking these negotiations because they needed to improve the economic growth of the first world countries. The negotiations were kept hidden from the glare of the public (Brightbill et al, 2012). The reason for doing so was to address the security concerns that were associated with the negotiations.

How did Government and/or Institutional Policy makers Define or Represent the Issue?

A growing economy will be highly beneficial for the two countries and whole world in general. The negotiations were characterized in such a manner that would benefit the whole world (Pauwelyn, 2014). With an improved and expanded economy worldwide, there would be reduced cases of poverty across the world. Economic growth will bring about improved standards of living. Improved standards of living would help in the reduction of the level of poverty. This formed the main goals and objectives hoping to be achieved in the negotiations by the two countries (Jovanović & Damnjanović, 2015). This was viewed as a solution to the high poverty levels that were witnessed across the world.

The course of action released by the EU in 2014 suggested that the two countries had three major categories of discussion throughout the negotiations. These included Market Access, Specific regulation, and broader rules and principles. These were seen as the target areas for discussion between the two economies. It was believed that addressing these categories would result in adapting certain strategies that would lead to economic improvement for the two economies involved in the negotiations. (Mares, 2016).

The EU explained the various concerns that the public may have as a result of the leaked information. The EU and the US have had several relations with each other for several years. In the year 1998, the Trans-Atlantic trade agreement was developed. The TTIP was a continuation of these negotiations; more than hundred CEOs from both EU and the US conduct trade and investment conferences. At least twice a week, the EU high representative meets with the US secretary of State. The EU Commission president meets on a biannual basis with the American president in order to discuss matters affecting two continents. This is gradually improving the relationship between both countries. The US and the EU have also made trade and investment agreements in Asia. For example, the EU and US developed FTA with Mexico in 1997. The EU and the US made a trade agreement with Canada in 2013 called CETA (Pauwelyn, 2014). This shows the manner in which the two countries have been in relations with one another. The negotiations of the TTIP were no different from the rest. Both parties identified a problem and sought to have discussions to provide solutions to the problem.

The EU and the US expressed that regulating the economic activities would help in improving the economic status of the world and their respective countries at large. Poverty was becoming a major concern in the eyes of various leaders. The governments of these nations are trying to offer humanitarian support to poor families around the world to the tune of billions of dollars on a yearly basis. This shows the true scope of the problem that is being faced by a majority of the people in the world. Various world leaders have often raised the issue of having high levels of poverty in their countries. This can also be attributed to lack of employment (Brightbill et al, 2012). Employment, thus is presumed as one of the most accurate solutions to the problem of poverty. For this reason, the governments around the world strive to increase job opportunities in their respective countries. The issue is often represented by the calls to the private sector to provide none discriminatory job opportunities. Therefore, the governments of the US and the EU approached the problem by initiating the negotiations that sought to provide a solution to the problem faced by a majority of the countries. 

Did Policy makers Perceive the Issue as Potentially Beneficial or Potentially Threatening to their Interests?

The policy makers perceived the situation to be potentially beneficial to the members of the society. There are various reasons as to why the situation is seen to be beneficial. The system of having an active economic process within a country is seen as a positive move to a country and the world at large. The US and the EU are in the process of ensuring that they are able to increase the size of their economies for the benefit of every citizen in the respective countries (Jovanović & Damnjanović, 2015). The justification of the negotiations was hard to understand at the beginning. The intentions of the two countries in conducting the negotiations were clearly based on the intentions they explained to the public. It was highly expected that such negotiations would yield good results that would be beneficial to the international community at large. Several factors were prioritized within the negotiation processes. These were seen as the true reasons as to why the negotiations were categorized to be beneficial to the community.

 High poverty levels symbolize that the members of the various communities continue living in degraded lives rather than improving them. The public society believes that the policy makers are willing to uphold (Pauwelyn, 2014). However, providing a solution to the problem would improve the lives of the people living within the community. When the employment opportunities will rise, the people across the nations will be in a position to cater to every need. It will facilitate an improvement of the living standards. The policy makers institute various regulations that will encourage the employers within the countries to increase job opportunities. If people are not working, they will not be able to sustain themselves. For this reason, the policy makers and the governments have categorized this as a serious factor. The solutions obtained from the negotiations will be highly beneficial to the society.

The policy makers created awareness of the benefits that were associated with the negotiations. The relationship between the two countries will be heightened because of the negotiations. For example, the citizens of both countries will experience free and fair trading activities. Bans that had earlier been imposed on the trading activities will be revoked (Lu, 2014). This will facilitate the growth of trade between countries. The good relationship will result in the reduction of the price of goods and services from different countries. Cross-border trade will help in improving the economic activities that are practiced by the citizens. Policy makers argued that the two nations in negotiations would strive to benefit their economies. The negotiations looked at the benefits they would first gain. However, these benefits will be spread to the rest of the world.

The people living in both the EU and the US will begin to start enjoying the benefits of these negotiations as soon as they are completed and finalized. The gesture seems like it is good when the desired outcome is analysed. The policy makers make perceptions over the current situation of the negotiations. They provided information about the status of the negotiations and the large benefits they would have to the communities living within the two countries and the world at large. Policy makers believe that the TTIP negotiations will improve the economic nature of countries across the world (Mares, 2016). This will be accomplished by the increase in economic activities that will be witnessed in the global economy. Policy makers believed that the economy could expand with an increase of trade activities that are conducted within the trade sector. 

The poverty levels in various sections across the world are constantly increasing. This has led to the reduction in the standards of living. It is crucial to educate the people on the importance of engaging in economic activities. People who are beginning to see the importance of spending their money to buy goods and services characterize a growing economy. The key is to ensure that money is constantly in circulation and this can be done through the rise in the rate of employment. The partnership trade negotiations are seeking ways to which people can be persuaded to spend their money. This will reduce the culture of saving money. Saving is a spirit that has been engraved in the mind and hearts of many (Grether & Mathys, 2010). This causes the money to remain stored in the possession of consumers. Consumers should be urged to spend their money. This is the key to economic growth.

Several policy makers have the need to meet their interests through these negotiations and strategies. However, the negotiations were seen as potentially beneficial to some of the policy makers in that trade relations within the EU and the US will be upgraded. Improved trade relations means that the policy makers will be in a position to exercise the new trade opportunities that will have come up after the negotiations. Aside from the interests of the society members, the policy makers stand a chance to benefit largely from the opportunities provided by the negotiations. New trade treaties were developed, which opened new vistas in the field of trade activities with different communities (Crook, 2013). This has reduced the workload cut out for the policy makers in terms of developing policies that will help regulate and govern the economic activities that will be taking place. Ultimately, the perception of the issue under negotiation is highly dependent on the personal issues that are being observed by an individual. This means that the policy makers observe their personal interests as well. A majority of the policy makers will benefit from the solving of the problem.

What possible alternatives did policymakers consider, or fail to consider, that might have been taken into account?

The negotiating countries have had some things that they overlooked during their negotiations. There are billions of people on earth. For this reason, it is difficult to satisfy the needs of every individual. When conducting such huge negotiations, it is the responsibility of the negotiators to ensure that they satisfy the needs of the majority of the people. The argument is that when a large group of peopleis satisfied, they will influence the other people who were on the other end. This will result in an improvement of the lives of the people in these countries (Jovanović & Damnjanović, 2015). For example, the negotiators had a view that the partnership would benefit the economy of the world. As much as the US and the EU would benefit from these negotiations, the rest of the world would benefit from it as well. This is despite the fact that other people were not involved in the negotiation process.

The policy makers considered the possibility of passing on the benefits to the rest of the world. This concept was discussed, and a solution was arrived at. The potential benefits of the negotiations indicate that the world economy would increase by 100 billion pounds. This is alongside the fact that the individual economies of the EU and the US would increase as well. However, the economy of the EU would increase much more than that of the US. This means that the EU is benefiting more than the US. Despite these results, the ultimate outcome of the negotiations is still good, and a majority of the communities around the world would benefit and begin experiencing better standards of living. The policy makers did not just put their interests first (Brightbill et al, 2012), they also considered the interests of the other people living on the planet as well. This can be the basis of the negotiations that were conducted between the two countries.

However, the policymakers have omitted some elements during the initiation of the negotiation process. The policy makers did not remember to assess the perception of other people in the world. The omission of other countries in the Partnership trade agreement would make them feel as if they have been neglected in the negotiations. Such huge talks should involve a lot more countries, other than just the two countries that are involved. The problems they were facing are those that are affecting all the countries of the world. Before the negotiations could begin, the two countries would have strived to include more countries in the negotiations. The outcome of the negotiations would affect the economies of all countries in the world (Harris, 2010). For this reason, the policy makers should have considered, including the other nations in the negotiations as well. Including other countries would have resulted in the addition of new concepts and ideas that they might have. Also, people living in othercountries are better aware of the challenges they face in their respective countries. For this reason, they should be allowed to air their views and contribute towards proving a global and lasting solution to some of the problems being faced. This move could improve the desired outcome of the negotiations that are taking place.

By ensuring that this provision is included, the policy makers would have made the other members of the world feel as if the negotiations are looking into their best interests. The larger number of people involved in the negotiation process, the better the ideas that will be developed from the negotiations (French, 2015). It is crucial for the policy makers to look at the best possible outcome of the negotiations. The idea is to ensure that the best of the desired goals are achieved. However, the policymakers were reluctant to release this information to members of the public. This was one of their best-guarded secrets. The draft leak that occurred in the year 2014 was met with a strategy to restore the level of security for the information that was discussed at the negotiation conference. They found it to be best to hide this information from the public. However, people in the world have a desire to access this information. The leaders are not in a position to define what problems the local communities are facing. The policy makers had the obligation of ensuring that sectors of the economy are adequately examined and assessed. Omitting some sections will result in uncertainty of the public.

There were some security concerns regarding the negotiations. This prompted the high level of secrecy in the negotiations. These concerns were legitimate, because if the information fell into the wrong hands, there are some consequences that would have been incurred. It was the view of the policy makers that the information is held in secret to ensure that it is safeguarded against any malicious threat. It would have enabled the negotiations to go on smoothly (Crook, 2013). The TTIP negotiation talks conducted by the US and the EU invited other policy makers to help in ensuring that the talks were successful in contributing to some of the factors that may have been omitted from the beginning of the talks. This would be the finished product that would achieve all that was promised. The finished product would be used as a gauge guide on the progress that has been made with the partnership. However, another alternative would be to ensure that the negotiations were completed within the stipulated period. Extending the timeline will reduce the level of confidence from the public on the negotiating team.

Some successful elements were brought about by the negotiations. The intentions of the negotiations are to improve the trade activities between the EU and the US. For this reason, it is expected that the benefits would be tailored to these two continents alone. The realistic perspective that has been displayed by the policy makers is that the negotiations would increase the economies of every country in the world. These two countries have some of the largest economies in the world. For this reason, their impact will be felt throughout the world. The increase in the economies belonging to the two worlds would affect the additional countries in the world to ensure that the rest of the world has felt the benefits as well. There are increased chances that any country in the world would conduct trading activities with these countries. For this reason, it is important to ensure that the relationship between these countries and the trading countries have been addressed in the best way possible (French, 2015). Trading activities are conducted throughout the world. This was considered as a major success for the negotiating team. The results that would have been achieved from the process indicated that the process was a complete success.

The increase in the economic capacity of the world was identified as the biggest gain of the negotiation. Improving the standards of living for people across the world would reduce the level of poverty in the world. Poverty has been a major problem that world leaders have been trying to eradicate. People usually work tirelessly to increase their income and reduce the level of poverty they are in. These benefits would help the people in different parts the world to begin understanding why the negotiations were conducted, the benefits they would bring to them. Creating this awareness would help in ensuring that the people have the adequate knowledge to eradicate poverty in their lives (Mares, 2016). The negotiations would develop new guidelines and restrictions that would ensure the standards of living are improved. The new guidelines would eliminate the ancient old regulations that existed. They would reduce the number of barriers that hindered trade activities take place smoothly. A lot of bureaucracy is witnessed in the cross-border trade systems. For this reason, the level of economic trade is limited.

A majority of the countries in the world is seeking to benefit themselves through trading activities. However, the process has proven to be difficult because of the stringent security features that have been placed. Trust is a major aspect that hinders various operations in the world. Countries are looking to protect themselves and their citizens from the harsh external environment. Breaking these barriers would be the key to improving international trading activities. Increase trade levels would result in improved economies. This would ultimately result in improved standards of living. Improved living standards would cause the level of poverty to reduce across the world (Harris, 2010). Economic activities would result in increased circulation of money, which is good to achieve all the goals of the negotiations.

On the other hand, the policy makers failed in including other countries in the negotiations. The result of the negotiation talks would affect all countries of the world. For this reason, they should be involved in the process. This would have given an opportunity to air their views and opinions. In any gathering, two minds are better than one. For this reason, the more people brought on-board to the negotiating table; the more likely the outcome will be better. However, this was felt to be a burden on the policy makers. Organizing the logistics of the process where various leaders are expected to grace the occasion, would have been a headache for them. Therefore, the policy makers failed in including other countries in the negotiations.  These high profile dignitaries would be attending the session (Lu, 2014). For this reason, a high level of security detail at the conference would need to be implemented. The negotiating countries sort to eliminate this burden by limiting the number of countries that were involved in the process. Also, they would have an opportunity to discuss matters that affect them alone. The benefits of the negotiation were so big that they would spill over to the rest of the world. This forms part of the good news that was associated with the partnership deal. Inviting the rest of the country for the conference would be a logistical nightmare for the organizers trying to ensure that everything runs smoothly.

The decision to engage in the trade negotiations between the US and the EU has yielded some positive outcomes in the community. Countries in the world will be able to improve their economic status, because of these negotiations. The general outcome of the forum would be very beneficial because the interests of the policy makers will have been satisfied. This forms one of the decisions that were made by the policy makers. They put the interests of other people before them. This caused them to practice generosity. On the contrary, they would have opted to have their independent talks that would not result in any benefit to any other person or country. These would have been their selfish gains. However, thinking of the rest of the community members is a wise decision (Grether & Mathys, 2010). It also yielded positive results for them and the world at large. This was successful because it raised the standards of living for a majority of the people in the world. The scope of the discussions incorporated the larger part of the world. This was aimed at spreading the benefits to them through the decisions that were arrived at. However, the benefits that were carried through the negotiations would benefit the two countries more. Additional benefits would be reflected in the rest of the world, by the fact that they will be interacting with these countries through trade activities. 

Conclusion:

The entire discussion regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) or the Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) makes it evident that the agreement or the proposal that would be made between the two economies of the world would be able to ensure benefits for the entire world. As and when the monetary status of the first world countries will raise the condition of living and income opportunities would also increase throughout the world. The expansion of the trade relations due to smooth partnership between EU and US will create new vistas for the population across the world. They can migrate from one region to another without any such said barriers, and can seek suitable employment in the EU and US. The poverty that is prevailing across the third world countries would decrease when the free export and import of the goods would become possible all around the world. Very high value products especially the agricultural products, such as cheese, hams, wine, olive oil, chocolates and spirit to US, if high tariffs placed at US customs are removed and vice versa, then the farmers can receive a boost in their economic growth. Such strategies would help in creating an overall development of around 800 million citizens across EU and US. The agreement will also assist in benefitting the Europeans by opening more possibilities to trade and globalization. The European firms can easily have an active participation in US and the US companies can also open their branches for more profit in the regions of EU. The market of EU will be also able to get cheaper American Imported items with more varieties. 

List of References

Brightbill, T., Laroski, J. A., Sullivan, T. O., Bentes, P. M., Smith, P. L., & Wharwood, D.

(2012). International Trade. The International Lawyer, 46(1), 81–95. American Bar Association.

Crook, J. R. (2013). Contemporary Practice Of The United States Relating To International

Law. The American Journal of International Law, 107(3), 650–696. American Society of International Law.

French, S. (2015). New Generation Trade Treaties — The Transatlantic Trade and

Investment Partnership. International Union Rights, 22(3), 28–28. International Centre for Trade Union Rights.

Grether, J.-M., & Mathys, N. A. (2010). Is the world’s economic centre of gravity already in

Asia?. Area, 42(1), 47–50. Wiley Press.

Harris, J. (2010). The World Economic Crisis and Transnational Corporations. Science &

Society, 74(3), 394–409. Guilford Press.

Jovanović, M. N., & Damnjanović, J. (2015). Saving Multilateralism in a higgledy-piggledy

Trading System. Journal of Economic Integration, 30(1), 29–65. Centre for Economic Integration, Sejong University.

Lu, X. (2014). The Development Process, Functional Evaluation, and Implications of World

Free Trade Zones. World Review of Political Economy, 5(3), 359–371. Pluto Journals.

Mares, R. (2016). Decentering Human Rights from the International Order of States: The

Alignment and Interaction of Transnational Policy Channels. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 23(1), 171–199. Indiana University Press.

Pauwelyn, J. (2014). The Re-Convergence of International Trade and Investment Law:

Causes, Questions, and Reform. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (american Society of International Law), 108, 255–258. American Society of Internal Law.

Serfati, C. (2015). The transatlantic bloc of states and the political economy of the

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation, 9(1), 7–37. Pluto Journals.