EU-US free trade talks show why Britain is better off in

Few can seriously claim that UK on its own would have as much clout in trade negotiations as the whole of the EU.

Like it or not, David Cameron had a good win at the EU budget summit last week. After over 24 hours of caffeine-powered talks he got what he came for - a real terms cut in EU spending. That said, it is easy to overplay Cameron's role in the marathon talks. Germany's Angela Merkel was, as ever, the real dealmaker.

In any case, as Will Straw wrote last Friday, the budget deal is hardly something to celebrate. The budget headings that suffered the biggest cuts were "Global Europe" - which includes development spending - and investment in infrastructure projects. In contrast, despite being cut by 11 per cent, spending on the Common Agricultural Policy - possibly the worst and most wasteful of all EU policies - remains the largest single area of spending.

But while 99 per cent of the summit media coverage was about rehearsing centuries-old cliches about European diplomacy - in last week's case, Britain screwed the French by making a deal with the Germans - the importance of the EU budget was actually pretty low. In fact, while over 24 hours were spent haggling over how Europe would spend just over €900bn of its own money, leaders spent a few minutes and several pages of the summit communique talking about something of far greater significance to the EU's future.

The importance of Barack Obama's launch of formal negotiations aimed at agreeing the world's biggest ever bilateral trade deal during his State of the Union speech to Congress yesterday, dwarves the endless debates in Brussels on rebates, "own resources", and the difference in funding for Pillars 1 and 2.

It hasn't happened overnight. Since autumn 2011, diplomats have been working behind the scenes on preparing the ground for a EU/US trade talks. Full negotiations on a deal looking not just on the elimination of tariff barriers but also on harmonising regulatory and technical standards for products could generate 2 per cent of GDP on its own. EU officials think that, by itself, a US trade deal could translate into €275bn per year for the European economy and two million new jobs.

The EU - as both its supporters and critics would agree - is not just about the single market, but its status as the world's largest market is a valuable and, so far, relatively under-used commodity. At the moment, just four of the EU's 29 trade deals are with countries from the G20, and those four are with South Korea, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey. But the EU is now devoting increasing amounts of political capital to trade. An FTA was agreed with Singapore in December while a deal with Canada is expected to be completed imminently. Negotiations with Japan are expected to be launched in Tokyo in April, meaning that the EU will spend the next year brokering trade deals with the two largest world economies. In contrast to the EU's budget talks, there's nothing inward looking about that.

It is also a welcome sign that leaders are recognising that trade is the single most effective alternative to austerity. The collapse of the Doha round of WTO trade talks in 2005 followed by the financial crisis did real damage to world trade and to the European economy. One of the little-noticed developments in economic policy in recent years has been the glut of protectionist measures. The World Trade Organisation stated earlier this year that only 18 per cent of the trade restricting measures adopted by G20 countries since 2008 have been scrapped, amounting to a total loss of 3 per cent of world trade - equivalent to some €350bn.

But while the drive towards trade marks a decisive shift in priorities by the EU, it is also hugely significant to the debate on Britain's continued EU membership and to the Conservative Party's attitude to Europe.

One of the common lines of attack from the 'better off out' brigade is that, shorn of its EU shackles, Britain would be able to go around agreeing its own free trade deals. In response, one of the most convincing argument in favour of Britain being at the heart of Europe is that together we're stronger. In the EU we are one of the most powerful players in a bloc of 27 countries and 500 million people. Outside, we are, at best, a medium-sized power. When it comes to dealing with the likes of the US and Japan, few can seriously claim that Britain on its own would have as much negotiating clout as the whole of Europe.

Besides, an EU pursuing a free trade agenda should be like manna from heaven for most moderate Tories. It should also pacify those who grumble that the EU should be about trade, not political union. At the very least, if the EU continues the shift towards using its muscle to drive international trade deals it will becoming increasingly difficult for Conservative eurosceptics to maintain that we are better off out.

A couple of days before last week's summit, the Europe minister, David Lidington, told reporters that, come 2017, he and David Cameron wanted to be "campaigning with enthusiasm for a 'yes' vote". On his wish list, alongside less EU regulation and a liberalisation of the services sector, was the "fantastic prize" of a transatlantic trade deal. In Lidington's words, failing to go for it would be "betraying future generations". Cameron himself said today that an EU/US agreement would "create jobs on both sides of the Atlantic and make our countries more prosperous." It looks as though his wish may yet be granted.

It goes without saying that a transatlantic trade agreement is far from a fait accompli. Both sides like to subsidise large parts of their economy - particularly farming - and both will be under pressure from powerful internal lobby groups hoping to strangle the baby before it is born. But the EU and US have, nonetheless, made a bold statement of intent which could eventually lead to a seismic change in the world economy.

Ben Fox is a reporter for EU Observer. He writes in a personal capacity

European Commission President José Manuel Barroso speaks following a summit with US President Barack Obama as European Council President Herman Van Rompuy looks on. Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty
Show Hide image

Building peace in a dangerous world needs resources, not just goodwill

Conflict resolution is only the first step.

Thursday 21 September is the UN-designated International Day of Peace. At noon on this day, which has been celebrated for the last 25 years, the UN general secretary will ring the Peace Bell on the UN headquarters in New York and people of good will around the world will take part in events to mark the occasion. At the same time, spending on every conceivable type of weaponry will continue at record levels.

The first couple of decades after the end of the Cold War saw a steady reduction in conflict, but lately that trend seems to have been reversed. There are currently around 40 active armed conflicts around the world with violence and suffering at record levels. According to the 2017 Global Peace Index worldwide military spending last year amounted to a staggering $1.7 trillion and a further trillion dollars worth of economic growth was lost as a result. This compares with around 10 billion dollars spent on long term peace building.

To mark World Peace Day, International Alert, a London-based non-government agency which specialises in peace building, is this week publishing Redressing the Balance, a report contrasting the trivial amounts spent on reconciliation and the avoidance of war with the enormous and ever growing global military expenditure.  Using data from the Institute for Economics and Peace, the report’s author, Phil Vernon, argues that money spent on avoiding and mitigating the consequences of conflict is not only morally right, but cost-effective – "every dollar invested in peace building reduces the cost of conflict".

According to Vernon, "the international community has a tendency to focus on peacemaking and peacekeeping at the expense of long term peace building."  There are currently 100,000 soldiers, police and other observers serving 16 UN operations on four continents. He says what’s needed instead of just peace keeping is a much greater sustained investment, involving individuals and agencies at all levels, to address the causes of violence and to give all parties a stake in the future. Above all, although funding and expertise can come from outside, constructing a durable peace will only work if there is local ownership of the process.

The picture is not wholly depressing. Even in the direst conflicts there are examples where the international community has help to fund and train local agencies with the result that local disputes can often be settled without escalating into full blown conflicts. In countries as diverse as East Timor, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Nepal long term commitment by the international community working with local people has helped build durable institutions in the wake of vicious civil wars. Nearer to home, there has long been recognition that peace in Ireland can only be sustained by addressing long-standing grievances, building resilient institutions and ensuring that all communities have a stake in the outcome.

At a micro level, too, there is evidence that funding and training local agencies can contribute to longer term stability. In the eastern Congo, for example, various non-government organisations have worked with local leaders, men and women from different ethnic groups to settle disputes over land ownership which have helped fuel 40 years of mayhem. In the Central African Republic training and support to local Muslim and Christian leaders has helped reduce tensions. In north east Nigeria several agencies are helping to reintegrate the hundreds of traumatised girls and young women who have escaped the clutches of Boko Haram only to find themselves rejected by their communities.

Peace building, says Vernon, is the poor cousin of other approaches to conflict resolution. In future, he concludes, it must become a core component of future international interventions. "This means a major re-think by donor governments and multilateral organisations of how they measure success… with a greater focus placed on anticipation, prevention and the long term." Or, to quote the young Pakistani winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Malala Yousufzai: "If you want to avoid war, then instead of sending guns, send books. Instead of tanks, send pens. Instead of soldiers, send teachers."

Redressing the Balance by Phil Vernon is published on September 21.   Chris Mullin is the chairman of International Alert.