Events

Restrictions of online freedom of expression have expanded alarmingly in the past years. Until now, most of Europe has remained silent. But now, after events in Northern Africa and the Middle East, it is time for European leaders to give it the attention it deserves in European policy. What could Europe do to stop online censorship from spreading further?

The global financial crisis knocked world trade off track and triggered a broad reassessment of economic integration policies in developed and developing countries worldwide. A huge shock to the trading system, combined with severe macroeconomic instability, makes it natural for policymakers to revisit the basic assumptions of trade openness and global exchange. However, it is crucial not to lose sight of the dynamic benefits that openness can offer. The real question is how to manage outward-oriented strategies so as to maximize the benefits of openness while minimizing risks.

Online censorship is about to take centre stage in the campaign to improve conditions for human rights, cyber security and commercial freedom of exchange on the Internet. Online censorship may be a recent phenomenon, but it is spreading quickly, increasingly curtails online exchange and has transformed the use of censorship by governments.

The world economy did not collapse during the crisis. Nor did we witness a 1930s style spiraling protectionism. The big wave of globalisation reforms since the 1980s was not reversed. Yet the crisis prompted many governments to go for creeping and murky protectionism, and the crisis exacerbated some pre-crisis trends of economic nationalism and fear of foreign competition. How bad were these policies of crisis-related protectionism – and to what extent will they be a hinder for future economic development?

In a new paper Razeen Sally examines China’s trade policy since its accession to the WTO. China, he argues, has a mixed record on WTO implementation; a flurry of litigation has followed several years of diplomatic reconciliation in dispute settlement; and China has been passive in the Doha Round. In contrast, it has been very active with PTAs, setting off a “domino effect” in east Asia. But its PTAs are “trade light”, driven more by foreign policy than commercial considerations. Unilateral liberalisation – the driving force of external opening in the 1990s – has stalled. There has been very little “WTO-plus” liberalisation, while measures of selective protection, especially related to foreign investment and industrial-policy targeting, have increased. China’s response to the global economic crisis has reinforced these trends, but it does not represent a dramatic increase in protection or fundamentally reverse China’s opening to the world economy.

It is central to European recovery and fiscal consolidation that growth orbits to a higher trajectory. Yet EU growth forecasts do not make encouraging reading. The recovery has so far been aneamic and the outlook for the next few years is not much brighter. The European Commission estimates growth to be 1.5% this year and 2% in 2012. Clearly, Europe has a structural growth problem and needs to take structural reforms seriously. But what should be the central elements of a new growth and competitiveness agenda?

Europe is edging closer to the final decision on the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement (EUKOR). After some delays, and political haggling between member states, it is soon time for the European Parliament to vote on the trade agreement. EUKOR is the first of the new FTA negotiations initiated under the EU’s Global Europe strategy to come to fruition, and it is an important element in Europe’s ambition to gain better access to Asia’s growth markets. Yet the opposition to EUKOR has at times been strong, and there have been lots of myths surrounding the agreement. What will EUKOR achieve – and what are the relevant costs and benefits? What will this agreement mean for the future role of bilateral FTAs?

New initiatives have now been taken to advance the Doha Round negotiations to a successful end. After years of stalemate, there is increasing optimism in the Doha talks and trade ministers decided during the Davos meeting in January that serious efforts should be made to conclude the Round before the end of this year. What are the chances for new efforts to bear fruit – and how do the negotiation dynamics need to change for deals to be struck? If past approaches by governments remain intact, the result will be the same as in the past. So: what needs to change?

What’s the role of intellectual property rights in a modern economy – and has the role changed with globalisation and the structural re-orientation of Europe’s economy?

Does the EU need agricultural tariffs and subsidies to ensure its food security? The food price surges in 2007/08 and the 2010 spike in wheat prices have pushed this question into the headlines, while climate change and global population growth fuel concerns about the EU’s long-term ability to produce and import sufficient food supplies. Note new venue: Rue Montoyer 47, Representation of North Rhine-Westphalia