Why geopolitical arguments in favour of TTIP are also flawed
by Ferdi De Ville & Gabriel Siles-Brügge
The PR campaign in favour of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) has subtly changed over the past two years. In
response to criticism of the figures used to trumpet the economic
benefits of TTIP, advocates have started to put more emphasis on the
geopolitics at stake. In a recent speech the EU’s Trade Commissioner
Cecilia Malmström stated that ‘the economic gains are certainly central
to this deal. But the global impact of TTIP is essential to understand
what it’s all about.’ Having analysed this argument as well, we suggest
that this justification for TTIP is also seriously flawed.
When advocates of TTIP appeal to geopolitical arguments they refer
often to different things: the need, for example, for the EU to develop
closer ties with the US amidst the instability of the current security
environment, or the need for the EU and the US to promote ‘Western
values’ at a time when other politico-economic systems (such as ‘state
capitalism’) are gaining prominence. That said, the main argument that
is made is unquestionably that the agreement will allow the EU and the
US to ‘set global standards’.
