Exactly thirty years ago, at the Madrid Summit in 1995, the European Community and Mercosur signed the Interregional Cooperation Framework Agreement, inaugurating an unprecedented ambition: to build a biregional strategic association based on trade, political dialogue and cooperation. With great pomp and deep conviction, all the heads of state accompanied the ceremony. We were there too and worked in Brussels in the following years.
Europe then represented almost 30% of global GDP and was projected as a global partner. Today, its weight has been reduced to approximately 14%. Mercosur saw this link as a stable and predictable path towards integration into the international economy.
But it’s not just because the European market is smaller today. The Franco-Italian veto does not only thwart this initial promise of association: it empties it of its content. We explicitly mention these two countries because they were present in Madrid. They are not new partners or marginal actors: they have been witnesses and protagonists of a commitment today frustrated by their direct responsibility.
What happened cannot be explained by technical difficulties or alleged structural incompatibilities. The texts were negotiated, reviewed and closed. Commitments were on the table. Mercosur even agreed to drastically reduce its access to the European market: the beef quota was limited to a tiny 90,000 tonnes per year (carcass weight). The equivalent of one hamburger per person per year! However, some argue that the cultural identity of French agriculture is in danger. This is not true. What failed was politics. And in particular European politics.
As the brilliant Draghi report warned last December, Europe’s problem is its inability to decide. A Commission which announces and Member States which veto make up a Union which regulates excessively, coordinates little and executes poorly. In this context, no external partner can take seriously commitments that Europe cannot support, even internally.
The European Commissioner for Trade, Maroš Šefčovič, admitted a few days ago in the Financial Times that the agreement with Mercosur is a question of “credibility and predictability” for the European Union and that it requires a “strategic decision”. The problem is that this decision never happens. When the Commission recognizes the issues and Member States continue to block, the lack of credibility ceases to be a future risk and becomes a reality of the present. Like the current sad reality.
The European Union has moved from presenting itself as a defender of rules-based free trade to a defensive logic dominated by internal pressures and a growing inconsistency between discourse and action. In the name of environmental, social or health standards, late demands and unilateral reinterpretations are introduced which alter the agreed balances. Brussels raises standards that it cannot itself meet.
The message is worrying. In a world marked by fragmentation and geopolitical competition, the European Union refuses to consolidate a natural alliance with a region with similar values and history. Worse yet: it erodes your credibility as a player capable of reaching complex agreements and honoring protracted negotiations.
Mercosur countries can maintain their strategic patience, but not indefinitely. They must consider opportunity costs and look more decisively to the Asia-Pacific region. For Europe, the costs are even higher: its inability to transform 30 years of dialogue into an effective agreement weakens the very idea of strategic partnership.
Three decades after Madrid, the question is no longer why this agreement failed, but what this failure says about the European desire to exercise international leadership, when this leadership is more necessary than ever. It’s now or never.
Enough is enough! Or, to make it easier to understand, in French: Enough!
About The Author
