Global trade changes
Sign up for myFT Daily Digest to be the first to know about global trade news.
Seeing last week’s clash between the US and France over the Aukus security deal, which threatened to disrupt the first US-EU Trade and Technology Council meeting in Pittsburgh, I was reminded of the famous line from the film Good Hand Luke“What we have here is the inability to communicate”.
Following pressure from the French to disrupt the summit, Thierry Breton, Europe’s Commissioner for Internal Markets, warned that something important had been “broken” in transatlantic relations. This may be true when it comes to the US, France and ships. But I wonder if a major trade and technical dispute between the US and the EU is not happening over the language issue.
While the US tends to focus mainly on China in discussing the re-emergence of transatlantic trade and technology, whites disagree with the idea of living between the two giants. Who can criticize them? China and the countries have been more sympathetic to it than the US accounts for about half of the world’s population. The EU itself is now trading more with China than with the US.
And yet, if Europe wants to adhere to its principles of generosity, find another way to control capitalism (whether it’s Big Tech or Big State), and make sure it plays out again in the 21st century economy, with no choice but to work with the US on things. such as smart rules, corporate security, financial management and export controls, and everything else that TTC has to hide. China is going its own way. The EU can follow, or not.
But European and American lawmakers need not say for China to find a common ground. They just need to look at a different word: competition. The key elements in this scenario can be easily implemented by creating the best markets as a possible cooperation agreement with China.
Take a firm stand on the industry, especially semiconductor supply security, which is a major problem in the US and EU (each with its own rules for making money to make more chips). Although China’s annexation of Taiwan was not possible in the next few years, does anyone think that having 92% of the world’s highest power in one of the world’s most politically opposed areas was a good idea?
Ensuring that one country (or more accurately, one company: TSCM) has no risk of nuts and digital financial buttons is just fine. A short-term stabilization of the foundation would be wise for the US and the EU, as well as for the rest of the world. The White House review in June did an excellent job of explaining the marketing challenges of semiconductor manufacturing companies and how the US and European and Asian allies with key components contribute to integration. A street map already exists; This is a fruit that is left over from the emotional bond.
Protecting the digital labor market can be an easy success. The plague made it abundantly clear that clean-up operations could be carried out remotely, and thus out of control, more than we expected. Software that converts foreign words into American English in real time attracts consumers in places like India and the Philippines. It seems that the workload for callers will soon be replaced by high-paying jobs, such as remote or telephone training.
Just think of the political crisis of massive disruption of jobs between the US and Europe and low-wage and labor-intensive countries. The use of digital and publishing back-up services (consider insurance claims and the preparation of medical forms) also raises questions about who might have the benefits of these services? Big American insurance companies? Medical machines in Europe? Asian companies are doing this?
These are living questions, and the US and Europe are playing a key role in ensuring that they do a better job of protecting workers’ rights and citizenship (not just consumers) in the digital media industry of the 21st century than they have in the past. decades of Pauliberal cooperation.
The agreements were made on the premise that allowing capital to go where it wants to always lead to positive results. But the rise of state-sponsored capitalism and powerful technological tools have created major market asymmetries. Not everyone plays with the same rules. Not all players on the market have the same experience.
This is why the common rules on when sending private technologies and the same when monitoring money in the US and EU are important. Issues such as IP theft, human rights in Xinjiang, or the lack of adequate information by foreign agencies mentioned in the major western markets are to ensure that markets are fair and equitable.
In fact, it is a goal we can all agree on.