Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

The opaque negotiations between the European Union (EU) and United States (US) regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have raised the alarms. Even though the agreement project also deals with the dismantling of some tariffs, its content preferably speaks about very important intangibles: food security, deregulation of competition, popular, legislative, and national justice systems sovereignty vis-à-vis international arbitrage tribunals; rights of internet users; or national rights to care for the general wellbeing through public policies.

The nature of the accord—a deregulating entente facilitated by the negotiating public institutions to benefit multinationals from one and the other side of the Atlantic so that they extend their domains beyond their traditional markets (Taibo 2016)—predicts benefits for a few and damages for the large majorities. “Disguised inequality of free market,” tells us Ekaitz Cancela (2015).

Despite the negotiating posture of the EU which seems to be more consistent than that of the Pacific countries who subscribed in 4-2-2016 the Trans Pacific Partnership with the US, this sets a precedent and a change in the pretentions that were notably favorable to the US multinationals’ interests.

The draft filtered by Greenpeace clarifies the issues under discussion: trade in goods, market tariffs and access, public procurement, trade in services and investment, rules of origin, regulatory coherence, technical obstacles to trade, health and phitosanitary measures, sectors (pharmaceutical, cosmetics, textile, automotive, medical equipment, information and communication technologies, engineering, chemical products, pesticides). At last regarding the norms:  sustainable development, trade of energy and commodities, small and medium size enterprises, customs and promotion of trade, intellectual property rights including geographic indications, competitiveness, protection of investment, difference resolution among States (TTIP, Leaks, 2016).

Negotiations development in each of these fields is highly unequal and, at this time, European public opinion—that mostly sees with extreme precaution the issues that appeared after the Greenpeace leak in Holland—does not favor its thematic expansion.

For the time being, cultural issues are not addressed but collaterally. This shows the compatibility of intellectual property norms from one and the other side of the Atlantic but it has to be developed; for now, the bet is placed on a restrictive interpretation of the circulation of digital contents that could be extended in the future to audiovisual, musical, and online editorial services. However, it does have detailed regulations regarding electronic and telecommunication commerce that affect the access rights of internet users and, in general, the protection of data favoring monopolies on the net where there is US hegemony (and without much more barriers than some access obligations for the “main provider” mainly not to impede competition).

The impact of these three questions on culture and communications is very important. Furthermore, except for citizenship reaction, nothing impedes the incorporation of the cultural issue in the future, revising issues that are doctrine in Europe such as “cultural exception,” the legitimacy of national cultural and communicational public policies and of cultural and RTV public services.

Read more (only in Spanish) at: http://www.sinpermiso.info/textos/ttip-en-torno-a-cultura-e-internet