A global contest of values in EU-US-China trade

As China endorses a reformer as president and the EU and US plan a free-trade pact, the competition to set trade rules heats up. A EU-US pact would strengthen their economies and send a signal to China to take more responsibility for higher trade standards.

|
Reuters
Karel De Gucht, the EU trade commissioner, is in the US drumming up support for a proposed EU-US free-trade agreement.

On one side of the globe this week, China opened its annual legislative meeting to endorse the new Communist Party leader, Xi Jinping, as the country’s next president. High expectations have been set for Mr. Xi to radically reform the Chinese economy – but by what standards isn’t yet clear.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, the European Union trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht, was in the United States to drum up support for a proposed EU-US agreement on free trade.

These two events in the world’s largest economies are the latest moves in an ongoing contest to define the values that drive international commerce.

The overriding reason for an EU-US pact, Mr. De Gucht told the Monitor, is to ensure that standards used by Europe and the US – such as openness, rule of law, respect for rights – can be universal in a world challenged by China’s norms of behavior, such as a lack of transparency and mercantile favoritism toward state-run enterprises.

The EU does not want to be aggressive toward China nor is it being defensive, De Gucht said. Rather, because China is no longer an emerging economy, it must take responsibility for improving the international system.

“They are entitled to a place in the universe,” he said.

Yet, De Gucht points out, China “doesn’t have a strategic approach to remodel the world.” So in the meantime, the US and EU must band together to find an equilibrium with China and its brand of “authoritarian capitalism.”

An EU-US pact would, for example, raise the bar on what a free-trade agreement should be – higher than the standard currently practiced by the World Trade Organization (WTO). By harmonizing their respective standards in many fields – especially intellectual property – the EU and US would further cement global standards.

China’s willingness to join in the setting of world standards has been slow. Last year, a World Bank report stated that China’s participation in global governance “will inevitably be gradual as the international community and China make constant adjustments to accommodate each other.”

One example of its behavior is China reneging on a pledge to the WTO to open its market for credit-card payments. It still allows its own UnionPay enterprise to dominate the domestic market.

An EU-US pact wouldn’t be the only shaper of global trade rules. After the 1998 Asian financial crisis exposed a practice of crony capitalism and lack of transparency in the region, the West took the lead in establishing high standards in financial accounting. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which represents most wealthy nations, also develops standards for business. The OECD, for example, has principles on investor rights and adequate disclosure in corporate governance.

With Europe and the US hit hard by the 2008-09 financial crisis, the world seems adrift on improving standards for capitalism. China, meanwhile, is stronger than ever but beset by domestic problems. An EU-US pact would both strengthen their respective economies and also send a signal to China to join the effort to set standards for global trade.

Trade isn’t a zero-sum game. By freeing trade even further, it will eventually benefit all.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A global contest of values in EU-US-China trade
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2013/0304/A-global-contest-of-values-in-EU-US-China-trade
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe