Europe in the World Lecture 2014

Priorities for the EU-US RelationshipAmbassador Anthony Gardner Fernando Andresen Guimarães Martina Bianchini Sanford Henry

iCES Occasional Paper XVIInstitute of Contemporary European Studies

2

iCES Occasional Paper XVI© Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Ambassador Anthony Gardner, Fernando Andresen Guimarães, Martina Bianchini, Sanford Henry, 2015

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the permission of the publishers.

ISSN [2040-6509] (paper)ISSN [2040-6517] (online)

First published in Great Britain in 2015 by the Institute of Contemporary European Studies (iCES), Regent’s University London, Inner Circle, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4NSwww.ebslondon.ac.uk/ices

1

Contents

Welcome 3 Professor Aldwyn Cooper Foreword 5 Professor John Drew Lecture 7Priorities for the EU-US Relationship Ambassador Anthony Gardner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Discussion Fernando Andresen Guimarães 15 Martina Bianchini 19 Sanford Henry 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Report of the Debate 26

Institute of Contemporary European Studies 29(iCES) Publications

2

3

WelcomeProfessor Aldwyn Cooper, CEO and Vice Chancellor, Regent’s University London

Mr Ambassador, honoured guests, ladies and gentlemen, and members of the Regent’s community. As Vice Chancellor it is my privilege and pleasure to welcome you here to Regent’s University London for our annual Europe in the World debate; this year it is on the priorities for the United States–European relationship.

We believe that one of the great responsibilities of a university is in becoming engaged in the debates around the key issues. We are one of the most internationally focused universities in Europe, and indeed we have a very strong transatlantic relationship with 75 institutions in the USA and many more in Canada.

We are pleased to reinforce our international commitment not only with discussions like the one this evening and our Jean Monnet Lecture, which we have at another time of year, but also with the latest reports we produce, the Regent’s Report. These reports are designed to address current global economic and social issues and to provide challenges and stimulate debate within and beyond the academic community.

Last year we focused on the relationship between the UK and the EU. The information that the report contained has been featured in debates in the House of Commons and amply covered by the media. We hope that we are now going to be able to update that report in the near future and circulate it extensively before the general election next year.

This year’s report, Transatlantic Relations: A European Perspective – and it is a European perspective; it is people from here looking at America and looking at our relationships – is going to be published shortly.

I would like to thank the UK offices of the European Commission for their support in all of our European activities. They enable us to reach further in our continuing work in this area and to support activities such as tonight’s discussion and, indeed, our report.

Finally, I would like to thank Ambassador Gardner, US Ambassador to the European Union, and all of our other expert speakers here this evening.

I now call on our Chancellor, Professor John Drew, to introduce the speakers and to commence the debate.

4

Professor John Drew

Chancellor, Regent’s University LondonDirector, Institute of Contemporary European Studies

A former UK diplomat in Paris, Kuwait and Bucharest, John has held the positions of director of international corporate affairs at Rank Xerox and director of European affairs at Touche Ross International. He was the representative of the European Commission in the UK and is the Jean Monnet Professor of European Business and Management, Regent’s University London.

5

Foreword

Thank you very much and good evening. I have a very pleasant duty this evening, which is to chair the meeting, which means that I don’t have to prepare what I am going to say, so I can say things as they come along! Within a few weeks we shall be able to publish the findings of this.

We have had the two Regent’s Reports and this one, and when we started it, with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the way in which US–EU relationships were going, it was an appropriate moment.

We were very fortunate for the Institute of Contemporary European Studies here, of which I am the director, to have two things at the same time. One was the report, which was ongoing, and then I went to see the ambassador in Brussels and asked him if he was prepared to come and talk, not to launch the report but to say what he felt about matters, but as he had only been in post for two or three months would he like to wait a little bit, which is why we have waited until the end of November.

6

Anthony Gardner

Ambassador of the United States to the European Union

Ambassador Gardner has dedicated more than 20 years of his career to US–European affairs, as a government official, lawyer and investor. He served as director for European affairs on the National Security Council in 1994–95. During that period, he worked closely with the US Mission to the European Union to launch the New Transatlantic Agenda and also participated in the launch of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, an advisory group bringing together executives from leading American and European companies to advocate for a barrier-free transatlantic market.

Prior to his government service, Ambassador Gardner worked with the Treuhandanstalt (German Privatisation Ministry) in Berlin, with the Commission des Operations de Bourse in Paris, and as an intern at the Directorate General for Competition Policy at the European Commission in Brussels. He has been a managing director at Palamon Capital Partners, a private equity firm based in London, and served as an executive director in the leveraged finance departments of Bank of America and GE Capital. Ambassador Gardner has also been a director in the international acquisitions group of GE International, all based in London. In addition, he has worked as a senior associate at international law firms in London, Paris, New York and Brussels.

7

Priorities for the EU–US RelationshipAnthony Gardner

Thank you, Professor Drew, for that kind introduction. I am pleased to be at Regent’s University to speak about US–EU relations. I’m pleased to be joined here by my friends Fernando Guimarães of the External Action Service and Sanford Henry of Chatham House.

Today is the 96th anniversary of what we both used to call Armistice Day, the end of World War I. I took my family to visit the Passchendaele Memorial Museum this past Saturday so that my children could understand the sacrifices of past generations for the values they take for granted. This weekend marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the escape of millions of people wishing to escape their Soviet prison to be free Europeans. The East Germans called the Wall the ‘Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart’; today Vladimir Putin exhibits the same world-view and respect for the facts.

We are reminded nearly every day that democracy, tolerance and the rules-based international order are under threat. Our freedoms are not free; they need to be defended. US–EU cooperation is more necessary than ever before.

During the 23 years that I have been involved in or have followed transatlantic relations, I can’t think of a time of greater opportunities and challenges. Ever since President John Kennedy, the United States has been a supporter of European integration. This has been so not out of a starry-eyed idealism but out of the conviction that a united Europe can be a strong partner of the United States. Naturally, there have been and will be areas where we disagree, but the areas where we do agree are so much more numerous.

Never before have the US and the EU collaborated on such a broad array of issues: not only related to our bilateral economic agenda, but globally about sanctions against Russia, combatting ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), responding to Ebola, dealing with numerous refugee crises, seeking to limit Iran’s nuclear programme, and many other crises. Our cooperation with the UK on EU issues continues to be strong; we share many of the same views and objectives, and that is why we continue to favour, as President Obama has stated, a strong UK in a strong EU. Our view is shared by many EU members.

I have believed in the European project as a force for good since I started studying the EU as a graduate student at Oxford and then at Columbia Law School. My 13 years in the UK prior to my arrival at post have not diminished my enthusiasm; they have just provided me with a good source of anecdotes about how the tabloid press routinely caricatures the EU.

I recall walking to the tube one morning and seeing out of the corner of my eye large headlines on the front page of a tabloid newspaper concerning a European Commission ‘plot’. I rushed over to the news stand to find out more. Apparently, the Commission had been planning to

8

merge southern England into northern France to create a new country called ‘Arc Manche’ with its own flag and anthem – that is, until the tabloid in question intervened.

I started my career in Brussels in the early 1990s because it was a compelling place to be: the single market was being completed and the EC was opening up to the East. I feel the same sense of excitement and possibilities today. Why?

First, external threats – including continuing Russian aggression in Ukraine and the spread of militant Islam – have refocused minds on both sides of the Atlantic on the importance of our shared values and the necessity of working together to address a wide variety of global challenges. We are now, more than ever, essential partners.

Second, this is a time of change in Brussels. President Juncker has presented a bold vision of how the new European Commission should work. We applaud the effort to promote greater cooperation around broad themes; the creation of new portfolios around better regulation and energy union; and the focus on growth, jobs and entrepreneurship. We look forward to fruitful collaboration with him and his entire college of commissioners, as well as with President Donald Tusk, just as we enjoyed with their predecessors. We have much work to do together.

The change in the EU institutions offers an opportunity to turn the page on some of the disagreements of the past. The EU has its own list of irritants it wishes to address; I have made it a major priority to address some of the concerns expressed around how the US deals with EU citizens’ data privacy. We have our own list of irritants we would like to address, but let me mention just one major one.

The outgoing college of commissioners failed to act on eight pending applications to authorise the importation for processing into food and feed of genetically modified commodities. These applications have been pending for many years, along with a backlog of 59 others for import, cultivation and renewal. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been deemed to be as safe as their conventional alternatives by the European Food Safety Authority; Anne Glover, who was President Barroso’s chief scientific adviser, agreed. Major US export interests are being injured, and EU food and feed business operators are seriously hampered in their ability to import much needed protein-rich products used to feed Europe’s livestock industry. President Juncker will be conducting a review of the legislation applicable to the authorisation of GMOs. The outcome will indicate whether science will play an enhanced or diminished role in Commission decision-making. We hope that the former will be the case.

Tonight I will focus on some areas of cooperation that will be familiar, as well as others that may be less so.

9

TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Let me start with TTIP. There is no doubt that one of the biggest projects that the US and the EU have over the next few years is TTIP. Tonight I don’t want to get into the details of the substantial work that has been done over seven rounds of negotiations. I simply want to make a few general observations about what we are trying to achieve before addressing a few misconceptions.

Simply put, TTIP is about providing consumers with more choice and better products at lower cost; it is about growth and jobs necessary to provide work for the unemployed, to fund pensions for our retirees and pay for the health, safety and environmental protections our citizens demand; it is about providing businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, with greater opportunities to export and with access to cheaper inputs so that they can grow and be more competitive. Much of what we are trying to achieve is actually a natural extension of what Europe has already done in creating a single market without tariff walls in which goods and services can circulate freely. There are many vocal critics of the TTIP negotiations, but there are no critics of the extraordinary achievement of the single market, and for good reason.

Although TTIP is certainly an ambitious undertaking, especially due to its focus on removing non-tariff barriers, both sides have negotiated many free trade agreements in the past. We know from our own experience (including the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]) that these agreements have in fact stimulated exports, high-paying jobs and consumer benefits.TTIP would also be of tremendous geostrategic importance – a point that I think is underappreciated and should be discussed more. TTIP would set a standard for future regional and global deals that reflect the value we place on rules-based trade, high standards, and regulatory transparency and accountability. It would enhance the US–EU global partnership in the realm of trade negotiations, helping to make progress in stalled World Trade Organization (WTO) talks and ensuring that world trade rules will continue to be compatible with free-market democratic systems. We have a window of opportunity during the next few years to set a standard for future regional and global trade deals that reflect our shared support for rules-based trade, high standards and regulatory transparency and accountability. If we fail, other countries who do not share our values and whose weight in the international trading system is growing fast will set the agenda themselves.

According to my dear Balliol College, Oxford, classmate Boris Johnson, ‘There is nothing not to like about TTIP. As Churchill might have said, it is altogether unsordid.’ And yet many myths are being repeated, especially on social media, by those who seem not to want to let facts get in the way of a good story. Boris has put it better than I ever could:

They say that the EU–US free trade deal will be a ramp for all sorts of undesirable American imports: American chickens bathed in chlorine and so genetically modified as to possess three drumsticks per bird; pale and tasteless American cheese that has been processed to the point of macrobiotic extinction; vast American gas-guzzler cars with seats that have been designed specifically for the supersized American buttock. They say that the

10

notion of mutual free investment will lead to McDonald’s being given the catering for the NHS, while J.R. Ewing will arrive in the Home Counties shouting yee-hah and insisting on his right to frack the place to kingdom come.

You laugh, but I have seen many reports that are extremely close to what Boris describes. The myth that TTIP will lower European standards persists, despite numerous academic studies – including one recent one authored by two European and two American experts – that conclude that the levels of health, safety and environmental protection are not necessarily any higher in Europe than in the United States.

The United States is not going to sell TTIP to Europeans; that is not our job. Europeans are going to have to sell TTIP to Europeans. It is time for certain European governments who have been on the sidelines of the debate to start speaking up. It is time for more European businesses, especially small and medium-sized ones, to speak up.

And it is time for the non-governmental organisations who criticise us for inadequate transparency in the negotiations to live by their word by making clear for whom they speak and by whom they are financed. That is not clear today in Europe.

The reasons for Russia’s opposition to TTIP are much clearer. The Russian state-funded and -controlled RT television channel, formerly known as Russia Today, has just launched a news channel specifically for the UK audience. It will no doubt spread its anti-TTIP message here. Why does it hate these negotiations? As Professor Dan Hamilton explains:

TTIP presents a huge challenge to the Kremlin’s efforts to divide Europeans from Americans. It offers something that the Kremlin cannot match: a transparent, mutually beneficial agreement that creates a rules-based framework for international cooperation. A reinvigorated transatlantic marketplace among … highly competitive democracies … would challenge the Kremlin’s version of ‘managed democracy’, render Russia’s own one-dimensional natural-resource-based economic model increasingly unattractive, and consign its rival economic project, the Eurasian Economic Union, to irrelevance.

The Kremlin also hates TTIP because it would facilitate the export of natural gas to Europe, thereby undermining Russia’s ability to exploit its ability to use energy as a weapon to divide and control Europe.

This leads me to another area of US–EU collaboration: the coordination of sanctions against Russia.

Ukraine

The Ukraine crisis started with Russia’s refusal, which continues to this day, to allow the Ukrainian people to choose their own destiny, including a free trade agreement with the EU. The EU and the US are standing up for the principle of territorial integrity, the rejection of

11

changes of borders through the use of force and respect for international law. Russia’s actions represent a fundamental challenge to our shared values and the rules-based international order; they require a steadfast response and a willingness to bear the costs.

Russia’s recognition of the ‘so-called’ local elections in Eastern Ukraine is a clear violation of the Minsk Agreements, and calls into question Russia’s commitment to the agreements. This is just another example in a long series of aggressive actions. According to press reports, Putin recently argued that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that divided Poland wasn’t so bad after all. He has boasted of his ability to take Kiev in days. Russian forces have repeatedly violated Baltic airspace. Russian troops remain in Ukraine and Russia continues to train and equip the separatists with the aim of making this a ‘frozen conflict’. It is clear that the vision of a stable, democratic, prosperous Ukraine is, for Russia, not a dream but a nightmare because it would provide a model, on Russia’s own borders, of another success story and would lead to unfavourable conclusions by Russia’s own people about the direction of their own country.

Over the summer the US and the EU were very successful in rolling out significant sanctions against Russia, notwithstanding the different perspectives and vulnerabilities of the 28 EU member states. We need to keep the pressure up. This is no time for us to roll back sanctions; we need to consider the possibility of expanding them if Russian aggression continues. Statements by some European leaders that sanctions are not working are contrary to fact. They are working. The rouble is at historic lows; in October alone the Russian central bank spent $29 billion trying to defend it. Foreign direct investment has dried to a trickle. Interest rates have spiked to 9.5 per cent. The Russian economy is tipping into recession. On top of this, oil prices are far below the levels needed for Russia to cover its outlays. And Russia’s sovereign credit rating is at one notch above junk, with a negative outlook. Although TTIP and the Ukraine crisis are getting a great deal of press attention, they are certainly not the only way the US and EU are working together. Tonight I’d like to talk about a few other areas.

Iran

With regard to the ongoing talks relating to Iran’s nuclear programme, High Representative Ashton has shown remarkable leadership. The United States remains committed to working with our European partners towards a long-term, comprehensive solution that provides confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful. An initial step was taken with an interim joint plan of action, which provided limited relief of certain sanctions in exchange for Iranian steps that halted its nuclear programme and rolled it back in key respects. The relief agreed was limited; US sanctions remain in place and we continue to enforce them – an essential part of our dual-track policy to continue to maintain pressure on Iran in order to achieve a successful outcome in the negotiations over its nuclear programme. We remain hopeful that we can finally conclude a permanent agreement.

12

Countering Violent Extremism

The fight against ISIL and the issue of foreign terrorist fighters who travel to and from Syria and Iraq has also been a top issue for the European Union and the United States. The United States is particularly focused on building a common EU passenger name record system, and on increasing the effectiveness of sharing information collected through this system with US border security officials in order to prevent acts of terrorism by foreign terrorist fighters.

Cyber Security

The United States and the EU also cooperate to increase cyber security. The US–EU cyber dialogue has focused its efforts on promoting public–private partnerships, with an emphasis on combatting botnets, protecting industrial control systems, and addressing market access barriers, while continuing to coordinate on improving awareness of cyber issues.

The United States and the European Commission are exploring closer cooperation in the field of standardisation for the protection of critical infrastructures. This is critical to ensure a similar level of protection for our interconnected networks and also US and European businesses operating on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Fight Against Ebola

European member states, the European Commission and the United States are collaborating to combat the Ebola crisis in Western Africa. The United States has already approved $360 million and has announced its intention to devote more than $1 billion; we have deployed more than 250 civilian, medical, healthcare and disaster response experts and are committing to sending as many as 3,200 troops to the region. We applaud the EU’s ambitious commitment to reach €1 billion in collective contributions to fight the Ebola epidemic. The United States is grateful for the UK’s extraordinary leadership, which includes 700 treatment beds, funding for burial teams and up to 200 new community care centres in Sierra Leone. This has enabled the United States to focus its efforts and resources in neighbouring Liberia.

In the fight against Ebola, US–EU collaboration has been deep and highly effective. The United States Agency for International Development and the humanitarian aid agency of the European Commission coordinate daily, sharing information on the situation on the ground, strategising how to encourage more healthcare workers to volunteer in the region, and identifying where our skills and assets can be complementary and mutually reinforcing.

Combatting Cyber Crime

We have also been engaged in bilateral talks aimed at improving the lives of citizens on both sides of the Atlantic by increasing law enforcement cooperation. One of our big concerns is the anonymity of financial transactions through some virtual currencies, such as bitcoin, and the challenges this poses to criminal investigations.

13

Last week US law enforcement worked with 21 other countries and Europol to arrest 17 individuals for involvement in selling illicit goods through an online marketplace called Silk Road 2. This marketplace was used by thousands of drug dealers and other unlawful vendors to sell kilograms of illegal and harmful drugs, as well as firearms and other dangerous contraband. In addition, this law enforcement action shuttered hundreds of other online marketplaces and confiscated property and illicit cash proceeds. What used to take years to organise took mere months through the working relationship US law enforcement has developed with European authorities.

Conclusion

I have mentioned a number of areas where the EU and US are working closely together; there are many others. The new institutions and decision-making procedures introduced by the Lisbon Treaty have made the EU a more effective voice on the global stage and partner of the United States. We need to continue to broaden and deepen US–EU cooperation. There is a great deal at stake.

14

Fernando Andresen Guimarães

Head of Division, US and Canada, European External Action Service (EEAS)

Fernando Andresen Guimarães has served in the European External Action Service (EEAS) since its inception and is currently head of the United States and Canada division. Previously, he was the EEAS adviser for multilateral relations. From 2004 to 2010, he was the diplomatic adviser to the president of the European Commission. Fernando also served in the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations and with the Portuguese Foreign Service at the Permanent Mission to the UN in New York. He earned a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1992.

His book, The Origins of the Angolan Civil War, was published by Palgrave in 1998. He was born in Lisbon, Portugal.

15

Discussion

Fernando Andresen Guimarães

Thank you very much and good evening. I will share the European institutional view, but particularly formed from foreign policy, as that is where I work in the European External Action Service (EEAS) in Brussels. And perhaps the point I would like to start with is something Ambassador Gardner referred to as well.

He made the point that EU–US relations today are actually in good shape with all that’s going on. Today, we do work together to a greater degree and on more policy challenges than ever before. This is not least because, as the ambassador kindly said, the EU post-Lisbon Treaty is a stronger partner for the US, with the network of EU delegations across the world, the EEAS up and running, and also other initiatives to have more joined-up dialogue, such as the Iran nuclear talks (still ongoing) and the Serbia–Kosovo agreement in the western Balkans, which are both good examples of that. This is, however, not enough to address the big picture and long-term challenges that we have both in the EU and the US. The world remains a dangerous place, and we in the West actually face the likelihood of long-term relative political and economic decline of power. Furthermore, over the last few years we’ve had trying times as we finally emerge from financial and economic crises, but we are still struggling to find answers to maintaining competiveness, to creating jobs, to creating growth, to fighting climate change, to addressing security, and to addressing conflict that is not far from our borders. The question is: How do we, the EU and the US, develop a stronger and more effective partnership in order to tackle this difficult agenda? What we need, I believe, is substantial economic, military and political commitment in the following priorities.

First and foremost, we in Europe need to address the neighbourhood and beyond (and the professor has already referred to this); the Ukraine crisis is a major focus, and rising tensions along the border as we speak remind us that this is not going away and that, while we are not likely to see a major confrontation, we must work to ensure the crisis is resolved peacefully. To that end, as the ambassador referred to, we must work very closely together in the EU and US, not least on the energy question as, supported by the US, the EU did work to achieve an agreement to ensure Ukrainian gas supplies over winter. We continue this work in the face of ongoing tensions. Longer-term work is pushing for reform in Ukraine to modernise its energy sector and to use its energy more efficiently. The calibration of our sanctions was very important because, as important as the impact of sanctions may be in and of themselves, their effectiveness is made by transatlantic unity. Paraphrasing Dan Hamilton, we know that Moscow does not like it when we are undivided.

We must continue to work on this Eastern policy, and EU energy security is a crucial factor of that, and of course we have a new framework for 2030 approved by the EU Council to go forward with energy and climate policy. The idea is to become much more of a single market in energy as well. I think that that is an important objective for the new European Commission. News from the East that Gazprom is now going to build a pipeline to China is a clear sign that

16

Moscow is doing its own energy security work and trying to reduce its dependence on Europe.

Having mentioned the East, we must not forget the South. The southern neighbourhood is crucial work. The High Representative/Vice President is now in the Middle East, and that continues to be a shared concern of the US and the EU, as does ISIL, as the ambassador mentioned. But there is also the long-term more patient work in sustaining reform in Morocco, the highly volatile challenge that is Egypt, avoiding state failure in Libya, countering terrorism, and addressing the challenges of foreign fighters and the nuclear deal with Iran. All of this is on the to-do list – lots to do – but those are the first priorities.

In addition, we need to build on this foreign policy cooperation by strengthening our security and defence capabilities and increasing what we do with the US in this area. I think we still don’t have the free-flowing security and defence cooperation that we should have across the Atlantic. We still have some problems in EU–NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) cooperation, and there are other issues as well, but we have come a long way since the days when NATO and EU security and defence were said to be in the same town – in Brussels – but on different planets.

EU and US cooperation in security and defence is increasing every year. We now have US contributions to EU missions in Kosovo and the Congo, and we will build on this further. We had a very good experience of cooperation in the Horn of Africa, where the EU and US worked in different ways to address the challenges through combining counter-piracy and security sector reform. This was a good example of making a difference on the ground and of EU security and defence working with the US. This is an issue of member states being seriously committed to developing these common security and defence capabilities for both NATO and the EU as the ideological war is over. And of course we know where we are going as the December European Council and the NATO summit have set the goals and the path, and the Ukrainian crisis shows the need for stronger capabilities.

I’m sure I’ve gone on too long already, but I will also say a few words about TTIP because this is more than just a trade deal. Everything that has been said has been about important aspects of TTIP and that it is about creating jobs and promoting growth. I would stress that the geopolitical dimensions are also very significant and have the potential to have a binding and strengthening effect on transatlantic relations. As the ambassador was saying, it would achieve across the Atlantic what amounts to economic integration but would also assert a credible leadership role for the EU and the US for the transatlantic partnership in governance and makeup of what the global economy is going to need in the 21st century.

For you and for your children – this is why we are working on TTIP. It’s got to be about getting a good deal for Europe – we want access to the US market, goods and services, capital and people, we want to grow and create jobs in Europe – but the significance and the implications of TTIP go far beyond this. It is about increasing our leverage in a changing global system where EU and US economic political clout is declining as other powers emerge. All we need to do is look at what is going on right now in Beijing and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit, and the work that China is doing to attach Asian economies to its own. Ultimately, TTIP is a

17

trade deal, but it is also a political undertaking. It signals the commitment and determination of the partners to strengthen and stand behind their shared vision of how the world should be governed.

It’s important nevertheless to stress that TTIP cannot be seen as a strategic project to exclude other economic powers – that is not what we are doing – but it is a project to shape the 21st-century economy. TTIP is a rising tide that will raise all boats and provide economic benefits more widely. The Ukraine crisis is a good example of how the geostrategic significance of TTIP can be seen. We can send strong signals about how the transit of energy should be done across borders, and how international trade rules can respond to principles of good governance, of transparency, pro-competitive regulation, free access to natural resources – we can put these rules in TTIP and show that this is the way it should be done. TTIP has been rightly called a strategic bet on the transatlantic relationship, giving it renewed purpose and direction, and in fact it would be the very first treaty ever to be signed by the EU and the US, and with that in mind it is very important that we work in the EU to make TTIP a success. It is now mired in the politics of trade, as the ambassador was saying. I think we need to inject geopolitics into this mix and ensure that we don’t lose sight of the greater strategic significance and the challenge that the ambassador laid down for EU member states to demonstrate their commitment to this policy initiative. I think it is also important for the US to recognise and demonstrate a broader understanding of the geostrategic value of TTIP. In the US, the focus seems to be currently on Asia, and we understand that – we too should be and are focused on Asia – but a bet on the transatlantic relationship, on TTIP, will pay big for the US, and the US should recognise this in pursuit of TTIP.

I shouldn’t end without saying that it is important in this regard that we sort out the data protection issues that have been raised by the revelations of the National Security Agency surveillance programmes. These are issues that have had an impact in Europe and they very much need to be addressed, but I want to recognise the efforts of Ambassador Gardner specifically, and also President Obama, to try to sort these issues out, and we very much hope that they will succeed very soon. I will leave it there.

18

Martina Bianchini

Distinguished Visiting Fellow, iCESFormer Vice President of EU Government AffairsPublic Policy for the Dow Chemical CompanyBoard Member of the Club of Rome EU Chapter

Martina Bianchini is former vice president of EU government affairs and public policy for Dow and the head of the company’s EU liaison office in Brussels, Belgium. Prior to joining Dow in 2001, Martina worked for 14 years in the private sector, both in the US and Europe, on different assignments in environmental, regulatory, public and government affairs and sustainability.

Martina is a board member of SusChem, the European Technology Platform for Sustainable Chemistry, European Partners for the Environment, a former board member of Corporate Social Responsibility Europe and a member of the advisory council of the Kings Centre for Risk Management. In 2008, she was awarded the title of ‘Distinguished Visiting Fellow’ at the Institute of Contemporary European Studies (iCES) of the European Business School London.

19

Discussion

Martina Bianchini

Thank you very much, John. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to share a European perspective on the ambassador’s comments, because we have in the room here today students, business contacts, and academia. It is the youth of today that are the leaders of tomorrow. In that respect, it is very important that we all work together. I would like to start with citing what the ambassador said in his opening remarks. First of all he said that we take a lot of values for granted. Europe and the USA have worked together for a long time. Europe and the USA built two very strong economies on shared values. On the rule of law, Europe has built a strong social market economy. The USA has built a strong free trade economy, which Europe has followed and which is built on the success of the rule of law. We must not forget that both regions have worked together on shared values for safety, security, peace and prosperity.

The ambassador cited several items on the political agenda – Ebola, nuclear threats, the Russian threat, Islam – and gave us good examples of where cooperation between Europe and the USA is very good and of how it has kept us safe. This collaboration needs to continue in the future as there is a lot at stake. The ambassador spoke of the geostrategic importance, and on TTIP the world is watching – other countries are watching what the EU and the USA are doing. What the EU and the USA are doing has an impact on third parties as we live in global economies and in an interconnected world. Trade rules that are set here will impact indirectly on and have consequences for the rest of the world. The world is watching, and in that respect it is very relevant that the public may not necessarily want to see this new trade agreement between the EU and the USA happening. The ambassador made remarks about SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) and the benefits of SMEs, and called upon them to speak up. When we talk about TTIP there are a lot of technical details. The negotiations, the details, are being worked on in technical working groups. The devil is in the detail – we all know it.

I would like to give one example. I have a product here from the SME sector – a scarf. It is a scarf made by a Scandinavian manufacturer – an SME. They like to sell online and they are selling this to American customers, but there are challenges to selling this scarf online. It contains natural fur, which is of animal origin. In the USA this goes to fisheries and wildlife. This takes a lot of time and you cannot ship in two days, overnight, via FedEx or DHL. There is an extra administrative burden, plus the US requires you to put a scientific name on the product, which causes a lot of confusion in the marketplace, and then you have to ship through fisheries and wildlife. It can only go to certain ports in the USA and then it may be redirected to another port so it arrives with the consumer in the USA two, three or four weeks later – when actually we could have 48-hour delivery. The consumer may say, ‘I wanted this three weeks ago, and now I’ve got the product and shipping it back may take another three weeks’. The SMEs in this part of the European fashion business would welcome TTIP and welcome the remarks of the ambassador as this also offers opportunities for SMEs in Europe to benefit from exports. We would be delighted to see some reduction in the administrative burden, or a helpdesk for SMEs, as it is very complicated currently to offer online sales to the USA. The call to action

20

for European SMEs to speak up is a good thing. I’m sure that many SMEs are speaking up as the partnership is more about the economy at large – and not only about multinational corporations’ goods and services.

I would like to comment on the myth that the ambassador cited (with a bit of humour). When we look at the myth, it really shows that people are value-driven, and the concerns that people raise in Europe are about the partnerships – the jobs. Will it create more or less jobs? Some have talked about food safety, food security, and concerns over faster trades, lower standards and weaker oversight. Is public health in or out of TTIP? What about democracy? The very fact that these things are on the agenda, to my mind, show that people are talking about the unintended consequences of this and want to have reassurance that the partnership is actually going to deliver. When we talk about partnership, it has to deliver added value, because you enter a partnership based on common ground and not on regulatory divergence. Ironically, a lot of the debate right now is on the regulatory divergence, but we could only build a partnership on the common values that add value. In that respect, it will be important to have good sustainability impact assessments on what the consequences of TTIP actually are in practice. How will it work? Will it work as anticipated? Or will there be unintended consequences that you only see when you drill deeper into the various policy areas, where one policy action might have consequences for another?

One thing we see is that we talk about the single market and the federal market in the USA. The EU–US partnership could require that there is a single market on both sides. We all know in Europe that the single market is still not complete in all areas. That is one of the challenges when it comes to the technical level, but the same is also true in the USA. The federal level does not have all regulatory areas harmonised, such as chemicals – there is federal legislation but there is also state legislation. In that sense, the best option would be for the partnership to focus on the common ground where we all know it will deliver benefits and added value. For that, we need some good impact assessments on driving investments in the right direction for long-term economic competitiveness for both regions, but also driving it in the direction of sustainable development because Europe is built on the belief that economic and social progress are inseparable; that is part of our philosophy in the EU and is also true for the USA, as it is for other regions. Hopefully, we will be able to put the best brains together and put the necessary thought leadership to work on this extremely complicated and complex agenda so that it can deliver all the things that are at stake and broaden and deepen the relationship on both sides of the Atlantic. Thank you.

21

22

Sanford Henry

Former Visiting Fellow in the Americas Programme, Royal Insitute of International AffairsFormer Visiting Fellow of Chatham HouseAdviser on International Trade as Managing Director of Asset Solutions

A graduate of Michigan State University in 1966, Sanford Henry has been involved in investment banking since the early 1970s, principally around the area of leasing assets. He is considered a world-leading expert on asset management. He has advised the US government (he is a keen Republican) and Imperial College London.

Sanford is described as having a ‘formidable network of contacts’ and is retained as a senior adviser for numerous companies. He recently became a Regent’s University London mentor.

23

Discussion

Sanford Henry

Thank you very much, Professor Drew, Ambassador Gardner; thank you to all my fellow speakers, and thank you all for coming. This is a very topical debate and I think that Ambassador Gardner touched on many of the points that I feel are very significant and on which I wish to expand.

My area of expertise and career experience is trade. I hopefully will be able to find a way of looking at transatlantic trade as a topic for the European and American future based on the past. It also serves as a reference as Regents launches today its Transatlantic Relations 2014, which includes a chapter I wrote on TTIP that I hope you will read.

I know we are given a very limited time so let me begin by saying, as Henry VIII said to each of his six wives, ‘I won’t keep you very long’.

The idea of my friend, Ambassador Tony Gardner, starting out with the armistice and 100-year memory of World War I is very poignant, indeed another sad history. It was another instance when trade negotiations to resolve nations’ differences were replaced by conflict, as in many other conflicts, led by mankind’s great enemy: hubris. I’m going to take a quick panorama across trade history, which, if trade works, conflict – at least between Europe and the United States, and hopefully elsewhere – will not happen in the future!

Going from the Vikings to the Dutch to the French to the Italians, the fact that America was even given an Italian name is of course a continuation of the Italian ability to create good brand names. America has been very lucky with its European lineage and influences, and the geography that attracted Europeans to come to America. The French in the American revolution were very supportive and also made us a wonderful gift of the Louisiana Purchase for four cents an acre, which has always been part and parcel of a fairly big expansion of the United States. The Germans were in America before there was a Germany, in the sense that the Hessian troops were there fighting for the British – and, you know, they are still fighting each other in different ways, but at least now only inside a common market. Scotland was a trading nation, namely with Glasgow and shipping across the Atlantic for many years, and then there is England. England developed different aspects of mercantilism going into capitalism, which was the effort of Adam Smith’s great contribution. But they created monopolies and initially a mercantilism philosophy of gun-boat diplomacy across the Atlantic. There wasn’t an EU, just nation states fighting each other; there were actually wars that went on for 100 years. There were civil wars, regional wars, republic wars, World War I, World War II. Millions of people died. With the Iron Curtain post-World War II, we remember the battle between East and West, the Cold War and Berlin.

At the end of World War II there was, however, a light. The development, after the dust had settled, came from Bretton Woods, the Marshall Plan, and then for Europe the European Coal

24

and Steel Community. Jean Monnet was inspirational in creating what then became the basis for the European common market.

The common market developed itself and has now expanded to the Lisbon Treaty, which includes 28 countries all working together, some inconsistently on matters of currency and regulation, but creating an entity that can for the first time in European history enter into negotiations on a bilateral basis with other countries, and for me the most important negotiations are with the USA.

This negotiation of TTIP is very significant because the WTO from 2001 until 2014, along with the Doha Round, has sadly not been a great success in creating multilateral trade amongst nations. A history of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) leading to the WTO presented, then as now, trade hope amongst all nations. Perhaps it is too ambitious a goal at this point in time. With India blocking this last WTO trade effort, it reminds me of Groucho Marx, who said that ‘any club that would want me as their member can’t be much of a club’. The WTO has been somewhat discredited, but the other thing that has increased is the change from multilateralism to bilateralism and minilateralism. Twenty years ago it allowed the creation of NAFTA between Canada, the United States and Mexico, and encouraged bilateral discussions on the TTIP, which will dramatically affect Europe and North America along with the about to be finalised in 2015 Canadian European Trade Agreement, or CETA.

Tony alluded to the five areas included in TTIP that Boris Johnson talked about: cheese, chicken, McDonalds, fracking and buttocks. I’m sure there is more to the treaty than these areas and I’m sure that Boris somewhat understated it – which is unusual for Boris. The efforts that the US–EU negotiators are undertaking include some of these areas, but more important are industries like automotive, pharmaceutical and chemicals, and some more specific ones. There are 23 different categories that are being negotiated with TTIP, some of which will merge already-existing entities. For example, in the pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration protects consumers in the USA, and there is a very similar organisation in Europe that does exactly the same thing, with the European Medicines Agency mostly using the same procedures, so merging these two entities using TTIP as the vehicle is creating a joint approach that is almost already being done on both sides of the Atlantic. Many in England might think the Ford Motor Company started out in Dagenham, but it really started in the USA in Dearborn, Michigan. It is one of those transatlantic entities that has been cross-border since the 1920s. Today it makes many of the same parts, same designs, same safety standards and a lot of other things that would be standardised by TTIP. For Ford, they are already recognised in many ways internally between Ford of Europe and Ford in the USA; many of their standards are already in place on both sides of the Atlantic.

I’ve participated as an observer in the negotiation rounds in Brussels and Washington DC since the beginning, in July 2013. The professional negotiating teams are working very hard to create (which is what Tony was also talking about), based on the rule of law, a standard for trade. By creating such a standard between Europe and the United States they are also hopeful of creating a standard for the world, so there could conceivably be an eventual global standard.

25

They need each other in the sense that the EU has needed the US markets and the USA has needed the EU because of some of the technological advancements, innovation and investments that have been created by the advancements in Silicon Valley (Apple, Google and others). The advancement shown in Europe in terms of developing alternative energy, nuclear research and mass transportation are other common learning areas leading to expanding and investing in new markets by both sides of the Atlantic. There are a number of avenues that are already of interest, and others to be developed. There are some references, but Dan Hamilton and the Center for Transatlantic Study have more. I commend his new release on transatlantic trade, which is also just coming out this Friday. They do a lot of this sort of work, which is quite important.

The main theme of what I’m currently writing about is the history of transatlantic trade, and the title of my book is Only Trade Works. The reason for that is I believe that coexistence and commerce are much better than the past wars that people have had, so it’s a way of creating an understanding and reducing, if not eliminating, regional and world conflict. I believe when you trade with somebody you may not necessarily go to war with them, and I think that is the ultimate aim, in my view, of what TTIP can create and why it should be encouraged.

Coexistence and Commerce was written by a mentor of mine, Sam Pisar, in 1970. The book was about Russia, the economic fall of the Soviet Union and its relationship to the West. The theme was that the Soviet Union would fail unless there was economic trade and cooperation with the West. The argument was developed for the West to trade with the Soviet Union, and by using trade the conflict fuelled by the cold war could be reduced. He argued you didn’t have to like the other fellow, you just had to cooperate with him, so Coexistence and Commerce was an appropriate title for his book. It is a title that has always been in my mind since I met him so many years ago in Paris. I think it’s the same today, in that if we can create a working relationship between Europe and the US there are already the historic, cultural, linguistic and a whole series of other reasons why the EU and the US should be working together. It might even help with Russia.

I think it’s better that we do this trade agreement together between Europe and the United States. TTIP can foster and develop some of the many industries and areas covered by these 23 categories of negotiation.

These are serious discussions for 21st-century countries in industries that don’t just look at individual areas like McDonald’s, cheese, chicken, and fracking, but create reasons to make trade work. I hope you read my TTIP pages in the Regent’s Report on transatlantic relations, and I welcome any comments.

Thank you very much.

26

Report of the Debate

The EU and Asia

Asked whether the EU has a specific Asia policy, Fernando Andresen Guimarães said that the EU ‘does not look to Asia as a spectre or as something that should be counted or organised against’, indeed, quite the opposite. He cited the example of TTIP as a way of strengthening the way the economic system is run and the EU wanting to have that kind of relationship with other countries, including China. ‘We will sit down at the table with the other partners (China being one of them) and invite them precisely to develop the system together. It’s not an exclusive project, it’s one where we want to strengthen our arguments in the way that we see how the international economy should be run and what the rules should be and that we should trade and have economic relations … It’s not the West against the rest or the West against China; it’s about strengthening our own game so we are a better partner for the rest of the world,’ he concluded.

The UK, US and EUResponding to a question about the USA’s view of the UK leaving the EU and the implications this would have for TTIP, Ambassador Gardner said it was for the British people to decide in the referendum in 2017. ‘But,’ he continued, ‘when asked (and we are asked), the answer that we give is that we believe that the UK should remain in the EU for two reasons. First, because the usefulness of the EU as a partner for us in many global challenges is enhanced when the UK is an effective, articulate member within the EU.’ He pointed out that the US was not alone in thinking that – many other member states of the EU, particularly in Scandinavia and central Europe, felt that the ‘UK contributes a lot in terms of its perspectives’. Second, the UK and the US have strong ties that go back a long way. ‘We think that the UK is an attractive partner because it is a member of this large organisation,’ he said. He added that the EU would lose and that he felt that the UK had defended its key interests within the EU quite effectively.

TradeWhen asked ‘do we need to trade through the EU as a whole?’ Martina Bianchini noted that the challenge was that, ‘we don’t have one global economy; we have hundreds of economies that operate simultaneously’. These economies are all interconnected and if you took action in one of them it would have an effect on the others. A way had to be found to deal with this interconnected world and it had to address wider concerns of unintended impact on other policy areas.

Faced with the suggestion that investor-state dispute clauses would have a very negative impact on EU member states because, in the view of the questioner, ‘they destroy national sovereignty and lack transparency’, Sanford Henry pointed out that ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) clauses had been part of previous treaties. He thought that they were a valuable provision and that the TTIP negotiators had made it very clear that they were not going ‘to give away things that are going to affect the domestic or state court system’.

27

Ambassador Gardner said that, having been a lawyer for many years, ‘ISDS is a subject that I love’. He had been involved in a number of international arbitration cases and believed that there was ‘much misunderstanding about this topic and it is hard to discuss it in two minutes’. He noted that recent research by the UN had detailed the use of ISDS clauses; he pointed out that EU member states were signatories of over 1,400 bilateral investment treaties that contain ISDS clauses. It was the ‘irony of ironies … that investors from Germany are the third-most frequent users after the Netherlands and the UK of this mechanism in bringing lawsuits before arbitration tribunals’. There was nothing in ISDS clauses that undermined the sovereign right to regulate.

Asked about the future of the WTO in an increasingly bilateral world, Fernando Andresen Guimarães did not see a conflict between TTIP and making a success of multilateral trade rounds, but a point had been reached where the multilateral trade negotiations went in a direction ‘which kept on passing open windows of opportunity that always seemed to close … As far as the EU is concerned, the WTO development round is still a key objective and TTIP still fits well into that.’

Martina Bianchini noted that the best partners for multinational companies were intergovernmental institutions, as ‘there are only a few global entities that can act in a truly multilateral way’. She felt that this ‘diminishes the need for the nation state on some levels, although not on all’. Ms Bianchini saw regional partnerships such as that between the EU and USA as being important, but emphasised the wider political aspect of these relationships in ensuring security and peace for those regions, as well as others.

Mr Henry explored the lengthy career of the WTO, noting that it has gone from GATT to its current different rounds, although he noted that he felt the ‘WTO was dying’. Mr Henry said that he had spoken to the head of the WTO, and that it is looking at the ‘different aspects on how they are going to reconstruct the WTO’. Mr Henry pointed out the administrative functions of the WTO, which he felt were ‘fantastic’, and that some of disputes it had resolved were very effective.

RussiaAmbassador Gardner noted the economic impact of the Russian embargo and the effect it has had on EU member states. He said that there was ‘no surprise that Russia custom built its retaliation to hurt those who are most in favour of sanctions’, and that it was no surprise that the Polish were the first to be hit. He cited the significant financial assistance that the EU has provided on this matter and that there have been talks on how to facilitate exports in order to mitigate the impact of the embargo. With regard to getting Russia back onside, the ambassador pointed out that the USA is continuing to offer a diplomatic ‘off-ramp’ to Putin and that they are

28

trying to ‘convince Putin that there is another way to actually prove or show that the Russian people got something out of the crisis, such as heightened autonomy to Eastern Ukraine’. The ambassador noted that improving relations with Russia is a long-term game and called for patience on the issue.

One member of the audience asked, in relation to sanctions on Russia, ‘was it a good idea to force one of the major economies of the world into a recession so soon after 2008?’

Fernando Andresen Guimarães felt that the EU was in a position where the ‘actions of the Russia on Ukraine could not be accepted’. He continued that what the EU was doing was facilitating Ukraine’s survival, ‘something that we must do. Russia wants to change the rules of the game and of course that is not acceptable.’ Russia is strategically important to the EU but it had decided that it would no longer be a strategic partner and had to be dealt with as such.

Sanford Henry argued that Russia was being subjected to sanctions to get them back onside and said he thought the EU should continue with trade measures. He thought that such measures might change Putin’s policies over time because of the domestic impact of sanctions.

Ambassador Gardner thought that the impact of Russian sanctions would not be great because Russia was a very small part of the world economy. ‘It’s a small percentage, so I don’t think it will have a major impact on whether we see growth in the world economy or not,’ he said. He noted that President Putin had delivered a major speech at the Valdai Discussion Club in October 2014 in which he had made it clear that his concerns were not a short-term matter. ‘Once you read that you realise that you are not talking about a short-term issue here; this is a fundamental restructuring of the rules of the game according to his perspective. I think we just have to be patient and again offer him at every step of the road another way, and hopefully he will take it,’ he concluded. 11 November 2014

29

The Institute of Contemporary European Studies at the European Business School, Regent’s University London, seeks to build on the existing pool of research and expertise within the University and its networks. It discusses topical events and publishes regular papers on contemporary European, business, political and cultural matters.

iCES Occasional Papers

The iCES Occasional Paper series publishes expert position papers by distinguished authors and specialists on European themes. They are published throughout the year and available online: http://www.regents.ac.uk/research-enterprise/research/research-centres/institute-of-contemporary-european-studies-ices/publications.aspx

1. Learning from the Financial Crisis: Global Imbalances and Lessons for Europe Gieve, J. Learning from the Financial Crisis: Global Imbalances and Lessons for Europe. iCES Occasional Paper 01, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2009) ISSN: 2040-6509 (paper), ISSN: 2040-6517 (online).

2. Twenty Years On: The EU Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall Brittan, L., Hannay, D., Zielonka, J., SEE. Twenty Years On: The EU Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall. iCES Occasional Paper 02, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2009) ISSN: 2040-6509 (paper), ISSN: 2040-6517 (online).

3. Jobs, Innovation and Growth Monks, J., Cridland, J., Walby, S., Lambert, S. Jobs, Innovation and Growth. iCES Occasional Paper 03, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2010) ISSN: 2040-6509 (paper), ISSN: 2040-6517 (online).

4. Where Will the EU’s Final Frontiers Lie? Avery, G., Butler, M., Kent, N., SEE. Where Will the EU’s Final Frontiers Lie? iCES Occasional Paper 04, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2010) ISSN: 2040-6509 (paper), ISSN: 2040-6517 (online).

5. Climate Change Post Copenhagen Porritt, J., Katz, I., Mehra, M., Luff, P. Climate Change Post Copenhagen. iCES Occasional Paper 05, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2010) ISSN: 2040-6509 (paper), ISSN: 2040-6517 (online).

30

6. EU and US Relations in the 21st Century Witney, K., Graffy, C., Jay, M., SEE. EU and US Relations in the 21st Century. iCES Occasional Paper 06, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2010) ISSN: 2040-6509 (paper), ISSN: 2040-6517 (online).

7. Towards a European Foreign Policy Avery, G., Bond, M., Crowe, B., Hannay, D. Towards a European Foreign Policy: The European External Action Service and the Role of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security. iCES Occasional Paper 07, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2011) ISSN: 2040-6509 (hard-copy edition only).

8. The Regent’s Lecture 2011: Business at the Crossroads: UK Issues in a European & Global Economy Cridland, J., Gieve, J., Hurley, B., Taylor, J. The Regent’s Lecture 2011: Business at the Crossroads: UK Issues in a European & Global Economy. iCES Occasional Paper 08, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2011) ISSN: 2040-6517 (online).

9. The EU & the Arab Awakening Hannay, D., Cowper-Coles, S., Segal, H.M., Black, I., SEE. The EU & the Arab Awakening. iCES Occasional Paper 09, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2011) ISSN: 2040-6517 (online).

10. The UK in Europe Budd. C., Cowen. T., Hutton, W., SEE. The UK in Europe. iCES Occasional Paper 10, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2012) ISSN: 2040-6517 (online).

11. The Russian Federation & the European Union at the Crossroads Yakovenko, A., Avery, G., Arsenyev, S., Barton, T. The Russian Federation & the European Union at the Crossroads. iCES Occasional Paper 10, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2013) ISSN: 2040-6517(online).

12. The UK & Europe: Costs, Benefits, Options Simon, D., Meyer, C., Carroll. D., Minor, J. The UK & Europe: Costs, Benefits, Options. iCES Occasional Paper 12, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2013) ISSN: 2040-6509 (online).

31

13. The European Union in the World Van Rompuy, H., President of the European Council. The European Union in the World. iCES Occasional Paper 13, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2013) ISSN: 2040-6517 (online).

14. The Energy Challenges Facing Europe: What Can the EU Do?

Kerr, J., Lowe, P., Drew, J. The Energy Challenges Facing Europe: What Can the EU Do? iCES Occasional Paper 14, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2014) ISSN 2040-6517 (online), ISSN 2040-6509 (paper).

15. The Eastern Challenge to the European Union

Cooper, R., Peel, Q., Volodin, I., SEE. The Eastern Challenge to the European Union. iCES Occasional Paper 15, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2015) ISSN 2040-6517 (online), ISSN 2040-6509 (paper).

16. Europe in the World: Priorities for the EU–US Relationship

Gardner, A., Guimarães, F.A., Bianchini, M., Henry, S. Europe in the World: Priorities for the EU–US Relationship. iCES Occasional Paper 16, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s University London: London, (2015) ISSN 2040-6517 (online), ISSN 2040-6509 (paper).

Glossary of abbreviations:EEAS European External Action ServiceGATT General Agreement on Tariffs and TradeGMO Genetically modified organismsISDS Investor-state dispute settlementISIL Islamic State of Iraq and the LevantNAFTA North Atlantic Free Trade AgreementNATO North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationSME Small and medium-sized enterprisesTTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment PartnershipWTO World Trade Organization

32

33

Acknowledgments: David Whitaker, Head of Development & Alumni Relations, and Caroline Waterfall, Stewardship Coordinator, coordinated the seminar and produced this iCES occasional paper on behalf of Regent’s University London. The seminar was supported by the European Commission.

34

Department of Development & Alumni RelationsRegent’s University LondonInner CircleRegent’s ParkLondon NW1 4NS

T +44 (0)20 7487 7792E lectures@regents.ac.uk

© Institute of Contemporary European Studies, 2015