Read on Twitter
The op ed by Ambassador Lighthizer in WSJ raises an interesting question of the interaction between US and EU policies on free trade agreements.Thread.
Prior to the Uruguay Round,both the EU(EC) and the US had a very limited practice of out of region free trade agreements.The EC free trade agreements were essentially focused on tariffs and countries in Europe or in the Mediterranean.The US negotiated FTAs with Israel and Canada.
The conclusion of NAFTA had a significant impact on EU exports to Mexico and it was anticipated the same could occur in other Latin American countries with the FTAA.The EU negotiated quickly FTAs with Mexico,Chile and launched negotiations with Mercosur.
After Seattle,Lamy decided to have a moratorium on new FTA negotiations so as to focus attention on the DDA negotiations.With problems in the DDA,Zoellick launched the policy on “competitive liberalisation”,initially focused primarily on small countries in Latin America and MENA.
Mandelson introduced at a later stage a new policy of negotiation of comprehensive FTAs with emerging economies with a particular focus on http://Asia.At that time US was engaged in negotiations with Korea and several ASEAN countries.
Both US and EU policies were influenced by the realisation that the DDA would not deliver on ambitious expectations on market access and new rules.With the demise of the DDA in July 2008,FTAs became the only game in town.
Since 2008 both the US and the EU were very actively involved in free trade negotiations often with the same countries....and of course there was TTIP.The main reason the EU has more out of region FTAs than the EU is the US decision to drop TPP.
Correction “more out of region FTAs than the US”.At this stage the only country in Asia with an FTA with the EU and not the US is Vietnam.Mercosur still needs to be ratified.Negotiations with Indonesia ongoing and suspended with India.
