It’s a very French psychodrama that repeats itself with each free trade treaty. While French farmers are in the streets to protest against a supposed “major replacement” of French meat with Brazilian beef or Argentine poultry, the entire political class is opposed to the EU-Mercosur agreement , who has become the scapegoat for all our ills. At the European level, Emmanuel Macron, although portrayed as a “neoliberal” by his detractors, is leading the charge to derail an agreement negotiated by the Commission.
For the Swedish economist and essayist Johan Norberg, this attitude of France is very “disconcerting”. According to the author of the recent The Capital manifesto (Atlantic Books), our country likes to fuel great speeches about European power, but “as soon as there is a negotiated agreement allowing in a concrete way to increase this European power, France opposes it”. As if the French lacked confidence in their own strengths. However, this supporter of liberalism assures that Europe must more than ever defend free trade, even though China and the United States risk dragging us into a devastating trade war, and that it is a question of finding partners abroad wishing to continue to collaborate with us.
L’Express: The entire French political class, including Emmanuel Macron and Michel Barnier, are opposed to the free trade agreement with Mercosur. Do you understand it?
Johan Norberg: No, it’s very sad. Trade generally benefits the economy, but this is even more the case today, when we Europeans are caught between the nationalist and aggressive policy of “America first” on one side. promoted by Donald Trump, and on the other hand a China from which we are trying to decouple our economy to limit the risks. The way out of this lies precisely through a coalition of partners willing to collaborate with us around the world. Mercorsur is an opportunity for this. This common market in South America has the mining resources we need for the energy transition, particularly batteries and solar panels. The agreement creates a significant market, with more than 700,000 consumers and a fifth of the world economy.
But French farmers have the impression of being the big losers from this agreement, to the benefit of the automobile industry…
When we look at the agricultural sectors that are most successful in Europe, they are precisely those that are competitive and are valued by the consumer, even if the products sometimes cost more due to their quality or their more restrictive standards in terms of quality. ‘environment. I would like to remind you that French agriculture has greatly benefited from the European common market. I bet that at the time, many farmers were opposed to it, before greatly benefiting from it.
Generally speaking, in the long term, we must have more productive jobs and businesses in Europe, with higher wages. This is how we support other sectors of the economy. The solution is in any case not to stagnate and curl up on ourselves. Selling cars – many of which are supplied by French industry – to wider markets is also a way of guaranteeing our high standards of living, and therefore of supporting quality agriculture.
Opponents of this treaty highlight the fact that Latin American countries do not have the same environmental or health standards as us, which distorts competition…
I can understand these anxieties. If we have agricultural standards that are too expensive and strict, it will be difficult to compete. We should sometimes make sure that European regulations are not excessive. It is of course important when it comes to food safety, antibiotics given to animals, or rules to combat global warming. But we will not save the world by being satisfied with these standards within the European zone. We will have a much greater impact if these changes also take place in other regions of the world. Thanks to globalization, low- and middle-income countries are raising their environmental or health standards. Those who do so are precisely those who benefit from economic growth. For poorer countries, you must first be able to feed your population before you can worry about the environment. If we are really serious about these ecological issues, we should do everything to facilitate the integration of these states into a global economy. The agreement between Mercosur and the European Union also contains clauses on environmental and social standards.
“If Trump is a liberal, I am not”
France is leading the opposition within the EU against the signing of this agreement. Is our country distinguished by its distrust of free trade?
On Mercosur, France is followed by other countries, such as Italy. From Sweden’s point of view, we sometimes have the feeling that France is always at the forefront of making big speeches about European power and independence. But as soon as there is a negotiated agreement making it possible to concretely increase this European power, France opposes it. It’s very confusing when seen from abroad. It’s as if your country lacked cultural and economic self-confidence, and felt like its industry or agriculture would collapse if it opened up to the rest of the world. But even in Mercosur countries, French companies are very present, often much more than other European countries. The European Commission has mentioned several thousand French companies, of different sizes, which export significantly to this South American market. There is thus a real disconnect between reality and perceptions. France has a real economic impact abroad, but as soon as we want to facilitate its exports by making the world even more open for French products, there is a Pavlovian reflex leading to say that this would be harmful for your country.
Donald Trump wants to increase customs duties to “make America great again”. What will be the consequences of this protectionism on its voters?
This is very ironic, because Trump won this election because of inflation. But he intends to pursue a policy that will only drive prices up even more. This will penalize the very people who voted for him, especially low and middle incomes, those who, even relatively speaking, devote a greater part of their income to clothing, electronics or household products. It is a tax that will harm their purchasing power and their jobs, due to the decline in general purchasing power. Even as the share of industrial jobs continued to decline during Trump’s first term. The United States is therefore shooting itself in the foot.
But the biggest danger is that it ends up, on a global level, in a trade war, with retaliatory measures from China and Europe. All wars are stupid, but trade wars are even stupider.
For some on the left, Donald Trump embodies the worst in liberalism. What do you think?
If Trump is a liberal, I am not (laughs). It represents the exact opposite of the classical liberal tradition on two important points. First, as we mentioned, Trump rejects an open world, with free trade but also immigration. It is much more part of an illiberal nationalist movement. But also domestically, he rejects the rule of law, the balance of powers, the constitutional protection of minorities… His populist program is opposed to these fundamental principles of political liberalism. His entire vision of the economy is based on a very transactional and personal conception of power. He wants to favor companies he likes because they have supported him or because they have a large domestic workforce, while targeting companies he doesn’t like because they have funded the Democratic Party. This is a nightmare for any liberal, and this is not how government should work. We are much closer to a mafia government than a liberal one.
The irony is that at the global level, China is today seen as a champion of free trade, even though there is absolutely nothing liberal about this regime…
This says a lot about how Europe and the United States have abandoned this fight for globalization, while China only claims to be the champion of a more open world. This is also the big risk if we abandon this agreement with Mercosur, because these countries will only move closer to China. The same thing happened when the United States, under Trump, withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. China is in no way a good representative of free trade, since this authoritarian regime does not follow the rules of the game, with trade reprisals and very mercantilist policies.
For Francis Fukuyamathe first election of Donald Trump in 2016 could be seen as an aberration. But his big victory this year demonstrates that we have entered a new era rejecting liberalism. Are you just as worried about liberal democracies as he is?
I agree with Fukuyama that this second Trump victory is much worse than the first. We now know that this is what a majority of Americans want for their future. And Trump has far fewer safeguards for this new term. So I’m worried about the world order. But it all depends on what we do! There is a lack of self-confidence among Europeans which concerns both the economy and the war in Ukraine. We tell ourselves that if the United States abandons us, it’s over. But our economy is almost equivalent to the American economy, simply being disadvantaged by the dollar rate. We have 100 million more inhabitants. We have many advantages! And let’s not forget that there are other countries in the world. Look at the Mercosur countries, or the East Asian countries that want to be part of the globalized economy. We could take leadership, which would be beneficial for Europe and the world. We could even show Donald Trump, who swears by the “deal”, that we are capable of taking our destiny into our own hands.
.