FALLINGBEHIND: THE EUROPEAN UNION TRADE STRATEGIES FROM 1999 TO 2021

Aleksandar Milošević

Abstract

As one of the most important global trade actors, in the period that lasted from 1999 to 2021the European Union promoted five different trade strategies. Some of them, such as the strategy of “managed globalisation” (of 1999) and “Global Europe” (of 2006) represented a deviation from the previous trade practice, while others (“Trade, Growth and World Affairs” from 2010, “Trade, Growth and Development” of 2012, and “Trade for All” of 2015), for the most part, included significant improvements compared to previous strategic documents. The latest communication document of the European Commission, “Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy” (of 2021), points to the Union’s adaptation to new circumstances, emphasising the concept of open strategic autonomy and proclaiming a return to multilateralism based on fair and sustainable rules. Although the EU seeks to present itself as a leading initiator of change in the existing static trading system, this paper will attemptto prove that,in its strategic positioning and undertaken activities,the European Union is falling behind its key global competitors, the US and China. The systemic, state-centric and societal reasons for the relatively frequent changes of key trade documents and the essentially defensive action of the European Union in the global trade system will also be analysed.

References

• Abdelal, Rawiand Sophie Meunier.2010.“Managed Globalization: Doctrine, Practice and Promise”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 17 (3): 350-367, DOI: 10.1080/13501761003662040.
• Blockmans, Steven. 2020.Why the EU needs a geopolitical Commission.Last accessed 10October 2021.https://www.ceps.eu/why-the-eu-needs-a-geopolitical-commission/.
• Blockman, Steven. 2021.“The EU’s New Trade Policy: An Autonomous Assertion of Strategic Objectives?”, Friedrich Ebert Stieftung Analysis [online]. Last accessed 10 October 2021. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/singapur/18296.pdf.
• De Bièvre, Dirk, Patricia Garcia-Duran, Leif Johan Eliasson, and Oriol Costa. 2020.“Editorial: Politicization of EU Trade Policy across Time and Space”, in Politics and Governance 8(1): 239-242. DOI: 10.17645/pag.v8i1.3055.
• Dee, Megan. 2015.The European Union in a Multipolar World: World Trade, Global Governance and the Case of the WTO. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• European Commission. 2006.Global Europe: Competing in the World. Last accessed 10 October 2021.https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0567:FIN:en:PDF.
• European Commission. 2010a.Trade, Growth and World Affairs. Last accessed 10 October 2021.https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0612&from=en.
• European Commission. 2010b. Europe 2020. Last accessed 10 October 2021. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC2020&from=en.
• European Commission. 2012. Trade, Growth and Development. Last accessed 10 October 2021. http://aei.pitt.edu/37952/1/COM_(2012)_22.pdf.
• European Commission. 2013. Trade, Growth and Jobs. Last accessed 10 October 2021. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/april/tradoc_151052.pdf.
• European Commission. 2015. Trade for All. Last accessed 10 October 2021. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=celex%3A52015DC0497.
• European Commission. 2021. Trade Policy Review – An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy. Last accessed 10 October 2021. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0066&qid=1614007663855.
• European Council. 2003. A Secure Europe in a Better World: European Security Strategy.Last accessed 10 October2021.https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/30823/qc7809568enc.pdf.
• Evenett, Simon J. and Michael Meier. 2007. “An Interim Assessment of the U.S. Trade Policy of ‘Competitive Liberalization’”inUniversity of St. Gallen Economics Discussion Paper No. 2007-18). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.985521.
• Gstohl, Sieglinde and Dirk De Bièvre. 2018.The Trade Policy of the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kerremans, Bart.2004. “What Went Wrong in Cancun? A Principal-Agent view on the EU’s Rationale towards the Doha Development Round”, European Foreign Affairs Review 9 (3): 363-393.
• Lindeberg, Rafaela.2020. EU’s Free Trade Champions Challenge Protectionist Forces.Last accessed 10 October 2021. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-09/eu-s-free-trade-champions-challenge-protectionist-forces.
• Mandelson, Peter. 2008. Europe’s Openness and the Politics of Globalisation. Last accessed 10 October 2021. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEEC-08-64_en.htm.
• Merler, Silvia. 2016. The Wallonian Resistance.Last accessed 10 October 2021. https://www.bruegel.org/2016/10/the-wallonian-resistance/.
• Sbragia, Alberta. 2010. “The EU, the US, and trade policy: Competitive interdependence in the management of globalization”, Journal of European Public Policy 17(2): 368-382. DOI:10.1080/13501761003662016
• Schott, JeffreyJ. 2004. Reviving the Doha Round.Last accessed 10 October 2021. https://www.piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/reviving-doha-round/.
• United Nations. 2015. The Paris Agreement. Last accessed 10 October 2021. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement.
• Van den Hoven, Adrian. 2004. “Assuming Leadership in Multilateral Economic Institutions: The EU’s ‘Development Round’ Discourse and Strategy”, West European Politics27 (2): 256-283. DOI: 10.1080/0140238042000214900.
• Van den Hoven, Adrian. 2006. “European Union Regulatory Capitalism and Multilateral Trade Negotiations”, in Sonia Lucarelli & Ian Manners (Eds.), Values and Principles in European Union Foreign Policy. London and New York: Routledge.
• Woolcock, Stephen. 2013. European Union Economic Diplomacy. Farnham: Ashgate.
• WTO. 2020. Joint initiative on e-commerce news archives. Last accessed 10 October 2021. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/archive_e/jsec_arc_e.htm.