Maria Åsenius - Head of Cabinet for the EU Commissioner of Trade
Maria (Mia) Åsenius talks about the highlights of her 5 years as the Head of Cabinet for Cecilia Malmström (EU Commissioner of Trade). She discusses the "Trade for All" initiative and how it helped to guide the negotiations of the bilateral agreements negotiated under their administration: EU - Singapore (re-visited and split into FTA an investment agreement), EU - Vietnam, EU - Japan, EU - Canada (CETA), and EU -MERCOSUR (concluded but not ratified).
Maria discusses what goes into negotiating these agreements and why Commissioner Malmström has been so successful in doing so. Other topics include the WTO dispute settlement body, geographical indicators, and the future of EU trade.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/malmstrom/team_en
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october/tradoc_153846.pdf
Contact us:
Email: womenintradepodcast@gmail.com
Twitter: @Tradepodcast
Full episode transcript:
Introduction (00:01):
Welcome to Women In Trade, a podcast for up and coming professionals like you in the field of international trade. Kellie Kemock is your guide on this journey, an accomplished lawyer and trade compliance consultant who's passionate about helping young women navigate this complex field, equipping you with the tools and resources you'll need to pursue an exciting and meaningful career. You'll hear candid interviews with other successful female leaders and benefit from their experience. It's time to build the career of your dreams. Here's your host, Kellie Kemock.
Kellie Kemock (00:41):
Today we have a special episode all the way from the WTO Public Forum in Geneva, Switzerland. I got the chance to travel and meet some amazing women doing great things in international trade. One of the women that I met was the head of cabinet for the EU Commissioner of Trade. Her name is Maria Asenius. Since most podcast listeners are from the US I asked one of my new contacts, Hannah Norberg, a EU expert in trade who will be on the podcast in future episodes. I asked her to give us a primer on EU trade administration so that we all have a background before we jump right into the interview with Mia, the head of cabinet. So here is Hannah Norberg with her primer on the EU Trade Administration.
Hannah Norberg (01:41):
So the story is that there's a European Commission and it's now 28 member states, 27 after potential Brexit, and they run certain things that are what we call EU competence. And one of those things are issues that have been outsourced to the EU. And one of those things are then trade policy. So the European Commission, their Directoral general is in charge of negotiating trade agreements for all 28 member states. So it's a pretty powerful position that takes basically the destiny of trade for 500 million people is what they do. And at the very top of that of trade policy is the trade commissioner, which in the US case is the Cecilia Malmstrom. And so she has the direct general (DG) trade that's like a department of trade. And so at the very top is a politically appointed person, and that person is Cecilia Malmstrom, who is from Sweden. And so she becomes the boss as she takes on this role, she becomes the boss of that DG of that department. And then she hand picks a number of people for her cabinet. There are around 10. And there's one who is the boss of all of them, and that's her wing woman. And her wing woman is Mia Asenius
Kellie Kemock (03:20):
We got the chance to sit down with her at the WTO public forum. And she got to tell us her story about the trade for All initiative. Now can you give us just a little bit of history on the Trade for All initiative? It's not exactly legislation.
Hannah Norberg (03:35):
No, it's actually the first of its kind at least that I have seen. And I've worked in trade policy for about 15 years on EU level and comparing to other countries. So what they did was at the time during the ttip the issues that were covered in trade agreements changed a little bit. So up until TTIP and sata, which is EU D eu, Canada Free Trade Implement, and TTIP was the EU US one for those who have forgotten if possible. And there they started talking about liberalizing other things other than just tariffs. So they were talking about non tariff measures. Tms, when you start doing that, you start looking at regulation and other issues. And those things are covered differently and they're done differently in the EU and the us. And it's also one of those things where the general public can get a little flustered because it's not just about lowering tariffs as a cost, but it's actually things that we regulate in our communities.
(04:46):
For example, safety. So the commissioner before to say he started the negotiations in the old fashioned way. They used to do tariffs, but the issues were differently and that didn't hit the public very well, <laugh>. And so there was a backlash as she was taking office. And there was a lot of discussion with regards to well, we're always afraid of what we don't know. So when people started talking about liberalizing trade with the United States and having similar regulation, they were afraid that the standards of regulation would be lowered because certain things that are okay with regulation in the US where the US has lower regulatory sort of laws standards. So it can be certain things like chemicals for example, that are allowed in US makeup or in bread, and that's not allowed in the EU and the other way around <affirmative>. And so they were afraid that going into negotiations with regards to regulation would lead the EU to lower the regulatory barriers or regulation laws.
(06:00):
And so that they would make it easier for US firms to come in and compete and then they wouldn't uphold the regulatory standards that we are used to. So she came in at this point and there was a lot of drama going on. And so what they did, so both Mia and Cecilia are Swedish, and I think that's very important in this issue because Swedish government is extremely transparent. And so what they did was they said, All right, let's meet this head on. So let's ask people what it is exactly that they worry about and then let's make the negotiations completely transparent with regards to that Instead of trying to shy away, they straight up met it up
Kellie Kemock (06:46):
And they deliver. That makes sense. And it's still something that is the basis of, it's a document that's still directs their involvement with trade agreements.
Hannah Norberg (06:58):
Yes, very much. Very much so. I mean, I think it's brave to put yourself out there five years ago and say, This is our gps. These are the values that we're go gonna go after and this is what we're gonna look for. So if you look at that document, it will say stuff about regulation. It's not about lowering it, it's about exporting values. It's about looking out for sustainability for small to medium size enterprises and so on. And at that point I thought that was a very brave thing to do. And what's amazing is that it has upheld very well. So even until now, they can go back. So whenever they make speeches, they go back and they reference that particular document and say as we said them, So not only have they followed it, but it's still very clear and it's still very useful. And I think that five or 10 years down the line, and this will be seen as their legacy.
Kellie Kemock (08:04):
Can you give us a little more detail on CETA agreement with EU in Canada
Hannah Norberg (08:10):
And really setting the stage for everything else? So that was the first of the more progressive trade agreements that really took other things into account, like small medium sized enterprises and sustainability and so on. And they really did set a new brand new standard for it. So while TTIP stalled and was put in the freezer, the EU Canadian agreement kept going on and it actually was finished quickly because Christia Freeland and Cecilia really hit it off and they called each other sisters of TRA and they decided to get this done. And sister to sister they did. Yeah. They're like high fiving each other saying, Well, we got it done <laugh> good. Cause we sister's in trade <laugh> very cool. And mama's with kids at about same age. And also you have to remember that Cecilia, once she finishes these negotiations, she has to get go back and get it ratified by 28 member states. So it's like a huge political machinery that people don't realize that she has to run through. So without further ado, here is the interview.
Kellie Kemock (09:29):
How did you get into trade and yeah, have you always been interested in trade?
Maria Asenius (09:34):
Yeah, almost as long as I can remember because already as a teenager I got engaged in the liberal youth part in Sweden, and I also grew up in a country that is a small open economy dependent on trade. I mean that's what made us rich for decades and decades.
Kellie Kemock (09:50):
Where did you grow up?
Maria Asenius (09:51):
Up in Gonberg? In Sweden. And I remember also in my first real job after the university, I worked as an editorial writer writing about different topics every day, but on slow days when there wasn't any obvious topic to comment on, I always volunteered to write about trade and the importance of getting rid of textile photos because we had textile photos at the time. Or I would write an article about agriculture subsidies and how bad that was for the world. So this goes way back. So I've always been wanting to work with trade but haven't really had an opportunity until five years ago when Cecilia Mums took over the trade portfolio. Earlier when I worked in the Cabernet of the Finn Commissioner <inaudible>, I used to sneak into meetings that Pascal had in the European parliament. He would brief meps and I had absolutely nothing to do with the trade at the time, but I would just sneak in and sit in a corner and just listen because they found it so fascinating. But I really didn't have any business there. So
Kellie Kemock (10:58):
Allow from those meetings is you absorb
Maria Asenius (11:00):
A lot. No, I found it terribly interesting. <affirmative>. So of course I was overjoyed when Cecilia actually managed to get the trade portfolio. I mean, I was there saying, Of course we should ask for it, but I honestly didn't really think we would get it. I heard that there were rumors that Germany wanted that portfolio and others as well. So I thought it'll not happen. And then it did happen.
Kellie Kemock (11:21):
How did you link up with Cecilia then? What
Maria Asenius (11:23):
Was that where? Well, I started, I have known her for very many years, but I started working for her really closely 11 years ago when she asked me to come to Stockholm and work as her state secretary when she was European affairs minister. I became state secretary for European Affairs in the run up to and during the Swedish council presidency. And actually I used that time to convince her that she should volunteer to become the next Swedish commissioner. And at the time she said, That will not happen. It would be somebody from the biggest party in our coalition. But I said, Yeah, well you can always volunteer your name. And actually the prime Minister said that's a brilliant idea as we put her name forward. And <inaudible> had already said that if I get women, they will get important portfolios. And at the time then she was given home affairs portfolio, which was quite a difficult one, but she did rather well there. And I think that paved the way for her to get another important portfolio, which is one of the happiest you can get in Europe. I think trade policy and competition are the two heaviest portfolios because that's where EU has a lot of decision Decision making, power and competence.
Kellie Kemock (12:41):
That is what binds the states together in
Maria Asenius (12:44):
Many ways. I think also the internal market is very important for binding states together, but we really have decision making power in the commission. Otherwise, if you fight in national elections, most politicians will talk about education, health services, pensions. Maybe that's very important, but not at European level that's not very heavy to deal with education. So anyway, here we are. That was a lucky break five years ago. It's been exciting. Five years really.
Kellie Kemock (13:15):
So you went from home affairs with Cecilia and then you were able to make the transition into trade. Right. And can you tell the story of, again, the story of the atmosphere when you and Cecilia entered the trade sphere?
Maria Asenius (13:38):
Yeah, it feels like such a long time ago, but at the time we were negotiating actually with several countries, but the only negotiation that anybody cared about was ttip, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment partnership. <affirmative>. Every time I was invited to speak to a group of people or journalist or whomever, they always said, Ti tip, ti, ti tip. And sometimes I insisted on first telling them that we are actually also negotiating with Japan and Vietnam and et cetera, et cetera, just to make them aware. But then everybody only wanted to hear about Ttip anyway. But that was the big negotiation. Also the most controversial one. We had demonstrators outside our offices practically well every other week but negotiations, I mean they made progress that it progressed. The most difficult issues, of course are always left until the end. But then we had a change of government in the US and it depended up in the freezer where it has remained since then.
Kellie Kemock (14:41):
So can you tell us a little bit about your role on a day to day basis and how you are working on these negotiations at this time?
Maria Asenius (14:55):
Well, it's been my role to organize the Cabernet, a number of handpicked people around the commissioner who are there to give her specific policy advice and help her think of initiatives to take how to communicate. Of course, we also have at our disposal director general full of people in trade full of civil servants. And they can give us drafts and briefings for all kinds of issues. But it's always good to have people who know the commissioner a bit better and who can advise her and tweak the speeches so that to her liking
Kellie Kemock (15:36):
<affirmative>. And so five years ago was the advent of the trade for all initiative. Can you tell a little bit about that?
Maria Asenius (15:43):
Yeah, that was one of the first things we started working on. That was a communication that would guide our policy for the following years.
Kellie Kemock (15:56):
What did it take to put that into
Maria Asenius (15:58):
Place? Well, it took a few months, and of course we had some controversies here with our civil servants in the dg, which I would say generally speaking, all of enormously high quality and the briefings we get from digital trade were among the best I've seen in the commission. But on when I got the first draft for trade of trade for all, I actually was close to crying because that was not all what I had expected. So at the time I decided that we have to take this into our hands in the Cabernet. And actually we made a new draft in the Cabernet. The different members of the Cabernet wrote different chapters. I have to say they were not very good either, but this was to shake up the DG a little bit and say that this, we have to get this really right. And then they kinda woke up and asked to make a second draft took on board more of the things that we found missing in the first draft. And in the end, I think we produced a product jointly that we can all be very proud of.
Kellie Kemock (16:58):
So in the first draft, what was missing? Just more transparency.
Maria Asenius (17:01):
Well, I think some of the most important things that Commissioner Monro did right from the beginning was to insist on much more transparency and to demystify trade policy because we were accused of making backroom deals in secrecy with big business dictating the rules very common misperception. So we decided to be much more transparent than practically everything we can online. We had the most transparent trade negotiator in the world today. Of course, you cannot put out everything because then you become a very lousy negotiator. Mean sometimes you have, I mean you red lines that you keep close to your chest. It's like if you want to sell your car, you're not going to tell people that you will sell it for between three or $5,000 because then you never get more than three if they know that that's your margin <laugh>. And sometimes of course, with some parts of the negotiations, you can't be totally transparent but we are the most transparent and we put things online as soon as we possibly can, sometimes with notes that explain what we are doing. And I think that Cecilia's approach also to outreach has been very helpful. I think she has had more meetings with civil society, trade unions, different stakeholders and also national parliament than any other trade commissioner before her. I think that has also been very much appreciated and to make trade more values based. And also, as the title indicates, that was a title that Cecilia Monro chose herself trade for all not just for a few,
Kellie Kemock (18:44):
Not just for the businesses that Not
Maria Asenius (18:46):
Just for the big companies. Yeah.
Kellie Kemock (18:48):
Yes. And so trade for all the goal was to be more transparent, to be
Maria Asenius (18:54):
More inclusive,
Kellie Kemock (18:55):
More inclusive of diversity in people, but also diversity in business types.
Maria Asenius (19:02):
Indeed, I am very happy that we have made a chapter on SMEs, small and medium sized enterprises standard feature of our trade agreements. I think that's my favorite part of the agreements
Kellie Kemock (19:18):
Were was that the first agreement to,
Maria Asenius (19:21):
Actually in Japan, I think we had the chapter for the first time. And because the big business they manage anyway, but small businesses may really need a help to understand how to use the trade agreements. So the idea is that they can go to a dedicated website and quickly find out what rules apply if I want to sell my paint to that market.
Kellie Kemock (19:37):
Is that part of the outreach that you were mentioning, the dedicated website, the training, the knowledge?
Maria Asenius (19:42):
No, the outreach is mere more going out and meeting people and regularly invite experts to give input. I mean, there was a lot of criticism and sometimes it was misconceptions and done right lies that were circulating, but sometimes also criticism that we thought, yes this is something we have to take seriously. For example, one of the most hated acronyms four years ago was ISDs, the investment state dispute settlement. And there we thought, yeah, there is something in this critique. And we decided to reform the system and instead now we have something we call the investment court system that is with arbitrators that are more independent instead of being picked by companies. And where we have actually moved a bit the power more towards the government's right to regulate and a bit less for the companies than in the older system <affirmative>. And ideally in the future, we could maybe have a multilateral investment court instead of having a plethora of different bilateral agreements on investment courts, we could have one that gathers them all. That is our long term vision.
Kellie Kemock (20:57):
And so your work in doing this was to gather all of the input from cabinet, from all the different players to try to gather all of the important pieces that made it into the trade for
Maria Asenius (21:11):
All. It did not consult companies on the trade for all that was more internal. So it was between us and our people in the
Kellie Kemock (21:18):
Dg. Okay. And to make it more values based. So we talked about transparency and we talked about making it inclusive. Any other values that were prioritized?
Maria Asenius (21:33):
Yeah, I think also bigger emphasis on, yeah, well making it work for everybody I think is also a value that consumers the smallest companies, also the poorest countries, one of the early initiatives was also on conflict minerals with the proposal on due diligence there so that it's benefit crooks.
Kellie Kemock (21:58):
What do you think the overarching effect of this is in what can we see in the future? What would you expect?
Maria Asenius (22:05):
But it's been a breathtaking taking five years. If you look at the number of bilateral agreements, Yeah, we got cita in place after some struggle. We also got Japan agreement in place, which is the biggest so far, economically in force. And we managed to conclude, well, we've concluded with Vietnam, we concluded with Singapore, well actually Singapore agreement was concluded by Cecil predecessor, but we decided to send Singapore agreement to court because there have been tensions between the commission and EU member states after into force of the LI Treaty 10 years ago about who does what is responsible for what. And we decided to clear the air once all <affirmative> and we go to clear verdict on Singapore. And after that we split Singapore into two parts a Singapore free trade agreement, which is based on EO competence. It means it has to be approved by European parliament and member states in council. And then we have the other part, and that's this invest investment agreement. And that is mixed competence. And that means that in addition, it also has to be ratified by all our national parliament. And sometimes there are more than one parliament in United States. Like in Belgium, there was six which complicated in the ratification of cita anyway. So Japan of course enormously big. Yeah, Vietnam, Singapore. And then of course my favorite negotiation. That was also the most difficult one that we actually politically concluded with <inaudible> countries before the summer break this year.
(23:37):
Now it has to be legally scrubbed and translated. So there is work for Cecilia's success to push forward. But to conclude that was speech. So based on a 20 year old mandates <laugh>,
Kellie Kemock (23:52):
What is it you tell us about negotiating these agreements? What goes into that and what kind of work do you have to do? I mean, to make that happen?
Maria Asenius (24:04):
A lot of consultations and of course here the key people are our trade negotiators in the DG or experts on exact tariff lines and all the nitty gritty. But we have to regularly also have meetings at political level to give things a push and to sort out some issues. And here I think that one of Cecilia Mastro's big strengths has been her way of dealing with people. I think the most successful trade negotiator is not always the one who is the toughest one and who wants to squeeze out the loss of blood from the partner at the other side of the table because it has to be a win-win at the end. Everybody has to feel like a winner, otherwise you don't have a trade agreement. And I think that her personality and her way of dealing with people has been really helpful. She creates a good atmosphere and a win-win around the table
Kellie Kemock (25:02):
To open that discussion of what is it that we really need from each side to make this happen.
Maria Asenius (25:09):
Because of course there are conflicting interests but it's also about making people comfortable, especially at the end when it is about walking that last mile to really clinging the be. And Marco Zoo is really big because in South America they have been living behind high tariff borders for decades. Having had some kind of import substitution policy, we shouldn't really import anything. Everything should be produced in South America. But now the Brazilian government and their continuing government notably have changed policy. So very important now that we could use that opportunity to tolin deal with UA and Uare of course, also part of Microsoft cuz. And we would come in as a first mover. And that would be very important because so far I think Marco countries don't have any trade agreements with anybody outside South America, apart from Israel, which is so for the European Union to come into that market before everybody else, it's huge for our course and machinery and chemicals and cosmetics and for a lot of every food stuff as well.
Kellie Kemock (26:20):
Is every negotiation different since you're dealing with a different region, different country, different industries,
Maria Asenius (26:28):
Different culture as well? Different interests sometimes. I mean in Japan for example, we had offensive interest when it came to beef because they are not so good at producing beef in Japan. So that was an offensive interest that we wanted to sell beef to them. When it came to Masu, it was obviously the other way around. They wanted to sell to us and we had to limit it in certain ways to make it acceptable to our member states. And sometimes we, yeah, so it's different product, but it's always important for us of course, to consult our businesses to find out what is really valuable for them and important for them and to see what they can live with and what is an absolute must
Kellie Kemock (27:12):
<affirmative>, how much research goes into finding out what you think they might need.
Maria Asenius (27:16):
Quite a lot of consultations both at Cabernet level and at DG level.
Kellie Kemock (27:21):
<affirmative>
Maria Asenius (27:22):
<affirmative>, because we are not doing these trade agreements because we think it's fun to negotiate. I mean it has to work for our countries and our industry and our employees
Kellie Kemock (27:31):
<affirmative>. And that research is done by dg.
Maria Asenius (27:35):
And also we have a number of meetings also at Cabernet level, but mainly the DG consults, the different sectors.
Kellie Kemock (27:46):
So we talked about the trade for all as a basis for how you have been working the last five years. And we talked about trade agreements. So in addition to trade agreements, what other trade policies were born out of this trade for all mindset?
Maria Asenius (28:11):
Well, I really should take the opportunity to say that, and this may seem paradoxical after having been bragging about all our bilateral agreements, and I haven't even mentioned all of them. We are multilateralists at heart. We do think it makes much bigger sense to have one set of rules for practically all the countries in the world, or at least all the 164 that are WTO members. <affirmative> instead of having the infamous speculative of bilateral agreements, difficult for companies to keep track of all the different tariffs or rules of origin and voting, you name it. So we have really tried to reform the WTO because it is in a crisis, deep crisis right now. And here, of course, I can't say that we have been as successful as we would've wanted to be, but we have put proposals on the table for new rules, for better enforcement of current rules and also for proposals to see if we can unblock the unfortunate situation as concerns the body where we are running up the arbitrators now because of the US blockage.
Kellie Kemock (29:17):
So I did attend the panel on the dispute settlement <affirmative> and they did mention that the impending issue of that. So were you able to talk to that at all about what kind of strategies at all that we could take?
Maria Asenius (29:37):
I wasn't in that particular meeting, but of course this has been very much on our agenda now for the last few years. And our attitude was when we talked to our American friends that nothing is perfect. If you are unhappy, please make proposals and we are ready to discuss and see what we can improve. But the America's never tabled anything. So in the end we said, Okay, we shouldn't really negotiate with ourselves, but what the hell, Let's make a few proposals that at least answers to some of the points that the Americans have been complaining about and see if we can draw them out of their bush, get them to sit around the table and engage in real reforms. So we did put proposals on the table table, but they are still not engaging from the US side. And sad to say
Kellie Kemock (30:26):
That was the overarching consensus of the discussion was
Maria Asenius (30:31):
That it's, And of course time is running, but yeah.
Kellie Kemock (30:36):
And no one really had a solution, but we all know there's a problem. So I don't know what the solution might be except
Maria Asenius (30:44):
No, I mean we will always be ready to engage and sit down and see if we can agree on enough for the US to stop this blockage. Cause we do need to launch the call for new arbitrators. It takes time also to get them in there. It won't happen overnight. You have to start procedures, good time. And because the risk, if we don't get this right, I think in the longer run it will undermine the respect for the rules. If you don't have a proper dispute settlement at the end, why should you respect the rules? So it's not like WTO will die overnight in December, but it'll be a kind of slow asphyxiation I'm afraid of.
Kellie Kemock (31:23):
Right. Cuz the enforcement mechanism is the reason to follow the rules. And if there isn't the enforcement mechanism, the rules based system has no teeth.
Maria Asenius (31:35):
Correct.
Kellie Kemock (31:36):
Okay. Not to get too negative here, but did you wanna go back and talk about the different free trade agreements? You said we didn't talk about them all. We talked about the big ones, right? Like
Maria Asenius (31:47):
Japan,
Kellie Kemock (31:48):
What
Maria Asenius (31:48):
Has also taken a lot of our time is of course managing relations with the United States and also with China. I mean two big important players. Well, we've tried to build a positive agenda with the United States, and we have had some success in, for example, facilitating trade between us when it comes to medicine, saving time and money by not doing double inspections because we both adhere to something called good manufacturing practices <affirmative>. And this is something we should be able to do also for maybe animal medicines or also totally different areas. We can do more on regulatory cooperation and so-called conformity assessments. But all it sounds a bit bureaucratic, it's not very tweetable. So maybe it'll not have a lot of traction on the United States in the United States, but it's still worth doing. And we also have a mandate from our mandate member states to negotiate industrial goods agreement also including fisheries. If the US would be ready to do that, take away tariffs on industrial goods and fish. But so far they have said no way, because if we don't include agriculture, it won't get through Congress. That's been the response. So nothing has been launched there yet.
Kellie Kemock (33:11):
When the us, they wanted input from industry on U S M C A. There was some talk about geographical indicators in the S mca and it was mentioned in one of the hearings that even though the geographical indicators wasn't an issue in North America with Canada and Mexico, it was mentioned because of the concern with eu. So yeah,
Maria Asenius (33:37):
Because the EU has agreements both with Canada and with Mexico, where we have a lot of gis. and this is something I'm not personally maybe super enthusiastic about gis, but a number of member states care enormously and they are, I mean, if they don't get the protection for their different cheeses or whatever it is, I mean the agreements wouldn't get adopted in council.
Kellie Kemock (34:04):
Was that one of the issues for ttip?
Maria Asenius (34:07):
Yes, it was one of the issues, maybe not the most difficult one.
Kellie Kemock (34:10):
I was new to free trade agreements. So listening to that hearing, I was like, that doesn't make sense. This is U S M C A. Why are you so concerned? That doesn't really apply. But what you're saying is because of the EU Canada connection, EU Mexico connection, yes. Wow,
Maria Asenius (34:29):
Interesting. That's how it came into it. I assume that was how it happened. Yeah. Yeah, that's the link.
Kellie Kemock (34:36):
So between the big FDA's bilateral agreements that you created in your term, cita, eu, Japan, and I guess mar so could be considered multilateral?
Maria Asenius (34:50):
No, it's region to
Kellie Kemock (34:51):
Region. Okay.
Maria Asenius (34:52):
It's bilateral, but region to region. This time, EU meur instead of a one country, it's four countries on the other side, which made it even more complicated to negotiate. Of course.
Kellie Kemock (35:02):
Well, so meur is one region. Did you have to individually negotiate with
Maria Asenius (35:09):
Before? No, no. We insisted on them on talking to them as one, as a group. But of course sometimes they had to break off and go out and consult between themselves. And of course sometimes there has to be an acceptance in all four countries at the same time. And that's what has made, I think these negotiations take 20 years because at some point maybe you have three after four countries, very keen, but not the first one. And you have to have everybody on board, <affirmative>, <affirmative>, and now the stores will rely on this spring.
Kellie Kemock (35:43):
Do you have any sort of insight as to the biggest differences maybe between cita e Japan and Marketo? Do you see any big differences or maybe big similarities between these agreements that were signed?
Maria Asenius (35:58):
Well, in cita we have also investments, although it does not enter into force yet that is not included in the Japan agreement. We are still negotiating investment agreement with them say <inaudible>, but also does not include investments that way. It's more limited otherwise, even if it's an old mandate from <inaudible>, we have included things like trade and sustainable development and SMEs for example. So even if it's an old mandate, it's a modern agreement.
Kellie Kemock (36:31):
So sustainable development, you mentioned that that has to be part of the trade for all too. I mean you Oh, trade just for the environment.
Maria Asenius (36:38):
Yes. No, definitely. And I was no modern trade agreement without the chapter on trade and sustainable development for sure, <affirmative>. And that's where we commit both sides to respect the number of international conventions in the area of labor, notably ILO conventions and environment. For example, the Paris Climate Agreement. It's now a standard feature.
Kellie Kemock (37:18):
What is your opinion on where free trade agreements will go in the future and how cita e Japan, all of these new agreements will affect future negotiations in other regions as well?
Maria Asenius (37:33):
One important aspect is now also to make sure that we not only negotiate great agreements, but that they are properly enforced. When we came into office, we made a study of the old EU South Korea trade agreement that had been enforced and for five, six years. And we noticed that a number of countries or companies kept paying tariff that we had abolished because I don't know, they were not aware I, So that's of course something that we have tried to become better already during Commissioner Mastro's time in office. But that's something that we have to continue under the next trade commissioner, much more focused on enforcement. And then of course he has other negotiations to touch forward. We have launched with Australia, New Zealand, and we will not have time to finish. We have other black sorry, white spots, I should say maybe in the mark around the globe. India. We have made zero progress during these years. So I think even we could even say that we are further away from each other now than we were five years ago because of the policies that we have developed here and the policies they have developed in India. We are maybe even further away,
Kellie Kemock (38:43):
But the aspects of the agreements like CITA and EU, Japan are being utilized by other regions. Is that correct?
Maria Asenius (38:51):
Well, I think, yes. I think what is very interesting, if you look at regions now we have in Asia, which is of course a very interesting region because that's where most, most of the growth is expected to take place in the next 10, 15, 20 years. We have now an agreement with Vietnam in place, which is one of the least developed countries in the region and Singapore, which is the most developed. And that put benchmarks for the other aian countries to kind of use, I think when they feel that they are ready to finalize negotiations with us <affirmative>. And that could also PA the way for EU AAN regional agreement in the future, which would facilitate for your favorite topic. Groups of <laugh>.
Kellie Kemock (39:41):
Not my favorite, just what I was stuck doing for a while. <laugh>. Great. Well,
Maria Asenius (39:46):
So yes, I think we set standards, and I think as I said earlier, no modern trade agreement without chapter on sustainable development. And I think SMEs is also something that is there to stay.
Kellie Kemock (39:57):
Mm-hmm. <affirmative> listening to this morning's discussion on trade and services. I mean, how is that part of these negotiations?
Maria Asenius (40:08):
Yes, they are in there too. But here, I think that one of the things we really should focus on in the European Union is to improve our internal market for services because it is representing some 70% of our economies, but we do not even trade very much with each other across borders within the European Union. So I think we have some important homework to do, and that would also make us more interesting for third countries
Kellie Kemock (40:36):
To come in and negotiate with
Maria Asenius (40:37):
To come in and benefit from a functioning services market within the European Union.
Kellie Kemock (40:43):
How would you improve internally within the
Maria Asenius (40:47):
Eu? Well, there are all kinds of strange barriers and old special rules for certain professions and no, no, there is a lot to do within the European Union. So a lot of work for the next commissioner, responsible for the internal market. Hopefully <inaudible>, who is in a bit of a trouble right now in her hearings in the European parliament, but I hope she will come out of this.
Kellie Kemock (41:17):
So trade in the devices used to impose death sentences and torture and torture.
Maria Asenius (41:26):
A bit more than two years ago, Cecilia launched an initiative during the UNGA week, the general assembly in New York. She launched something called the Global Alliance together with Argentina and Mongolia to stop trade in products that can be used for torture. And that sentences, and I can't remember exactly, I think we are more than 70 counts that have joined this initiative now, and hopefully one day it'll be in United Nations convention that would prohibit trade in this with these devices.
Kellie Kemock (42:07):
So 70 countries have
Maria Asenius (42:10):
More than 70. Oh,
Kellie Kemock (42:11):
Okay. 70 plus. Yeah. What is, in your opinion, prohibiting a wider adoption of this kind of policy?
Maria Asenius (42:20):
No, I hope we will get a wider adoption and even a human convention one day. Yeah.
Kellie Kemock (42:25):
What is the objection?
Maria Asenius (42:27):
Well, of course there are companies making money after these horrible devices. And of course some countries do not share our review that torture children definitely is a bad thing.
Kellie Kemock (42:40):
And so this would be like the countries who have agreed, they have agreed to add this type of policy to their internal enforcement or
Maria Asenius (42:49):
To, Yeah, and also, yes, and to also help us advocate for it at the UN level.
Kellie Kemock (42:59):
Thank you so much.