Európolis

José María Aznar afirma en el Wall Street Journal que la mejor manera de trabajar por la prosperidad de los pueblos europeos sería lanzar con urgencia unas negociaciones comerciales de fondo entre la UE y los EE.UU., fundamento, a su modo de ver, de un “área atlántica de prosperidad”.

Aznar se pregunta como pueden cooperar los EE.UU. y Europa contra el terrorismo islámico, e intentar adoptar estrategias comunes en terrenos capitales, como la seguridad o los suministros energéticos, si la UE y Washington son incapaces de ponerse de acuerdo en terrenos puramente comerciales.

Follow up:

Aznar en el Wall Street Journal, del 4 jul.06

Free Trans-Atlantic Trade
By José María Aznar
Let's be honest -- Doha is stuck. As if anticipating the failure of the global trade round, European Commissioner Peter Mandelson is working on bilateral agreements with Canada and India. That is all very well. But why is the U.S. off the European Union trade agenda? America could become the only NAFTA member to be excluded from the EU's bilateral trade policy.
If the trans-Atlantic Allies can't even agree on commercial issues, how can they cooperate on a host of security threats, ranging from Islamic terrorism and their sponsoring regimes in the Middle East to securing our energy supplies, dealing with illegal immigration and the rise of populist and pro-Communist governments in South America? Just think what a common U.S.-EU trade position, Latin America's two biggest investors, could do to curb the arbitrary expropriations in Bolivia and Venezuela.
And yet, although trans-Atlantic business links run deep, the U.S. and EU have no shared political-economic project. It's high time to change that and work toward a formal U.S.-EU trade agreement to forge an "Atlantic Area of Prosperity." The potential benefits are huge. A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates that trans-Atlantic trade liberalization could lead to permanent per capita income gains of up to 3.5%. That is equivalent to a full year's income during a working lifetime.
It is absurd that U.S. goods and services face obstacles in getting into the EU and vice versa because of consumer or environmental protection regulation. The same applies to technical norms. Unless the U.S. and EU agree on common standards, which would immediately be accepted by the world, the two risk being leapfrogged by such rising stars as China or India who might instead set the global benchmarks.
Little needs to be said about the French threat to classify its yoghurt industry a "strategic" sector, a glaring example of protectionism. But protectionist government procurement policies on the other side of the Atlantic are just as counterproductive. The abuse of anti-dumping measures by the U.S and the EU has not only harmed consumers. It has also provoked tit-for-tat reactions from third countries. It was embarrassing to see the EU Commission impose safeguard measures on Chinese textile imports last summer in spite of the fact that the agreement to dismantle the quotas on these products was signed in 1995.
A trans-Atlantic trade initiative fits in well with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso's priority of promoting economic reforms and improving EU competitiveness. And yet, at last month's EU-U.S. summit, the leaders missed another opportunity to lift the trans-Atlantic economic relationship to a higher level.
With the collapse of the Doha talks possibly around the corner, a free trade agreement between the world's two largest economic zones would be the next best game in town. Fears that this might become a fortress or a closed "rich man's club" are baseless. Instead, it would serve as an engine for free trade elsewhere, providing prosperity not just to the U.S. and the EU but to anyone who wishes to join. Canada and many Latin American countries would be natural partners in such a deal. Instead of the usual trans-Atlantic platitudes, this would constitute real action for a change.