The ATLANTIC FUTURE third plenary meeting was held in Lisboa, Portugal, on 22-24 April 2015, organised by the Portuguese Institute of International Relations – NOVA University of Lisbon (IPRI-NOVA).

The meeting started with a public event on “Setting the Grounds for a New Understanding of the Atlantic”. The panel was composed of Nuno Severino Teixeira (director of IPRI-NOVA and former minister of Interior and former Minister of Defense of Portugal), Jordi Bacaria (director of CIDOB and scientific coordinator of Atlantic Future) and Daniel Hamilton (director of the Centre for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University)

Nuno S. Teixeira opened the floor by welcoming the assistants and by presenting the speakers. He then spoke of the Atlantic by referring how the end of the Cold War accelerated democratisation in the Atlantic. As a result, there is a new homogeneity in the interaction between US, Brazil, Europe, Africa and Latin America. There is recognition of common interests in international security issues, an increase in economic exchange, and growing linkages in several areas. Overall, there is more interaction in the broad Atlantic area.

He wondered what the challenges of the future are. These changes need to be institutionally and politically translated in order to create and Atlantic community. The Atlantic continues to benefit from a certain institutionalisation of the Atlantic relations. But in the South, emerging powers adopt a strategy of greater autonomy. In the long term, this may be beneficial to other areas, namely to Asia (China). The South Atlantic has emerged as an area of economic prosperity and energy production (Brazil, Nigeria, and Angola, among others). There is a diversification of the type of relations in the Atlantic, not only the traditional North-South but also new relations South-South in which Brazil has been playing a very important role. We are seeing the emergence of a new pan-Atlantic system of relations in the Atlantic Basin, far beyond the two traditional relations in the Atlantic: the alliance between Europe and the US and the traditional dependence North-South. However, according to Nuno S. Teixeira, a new pan-Atlantic system of relations is a vision, but it is a vision without a strategy. It is a vision without the instruments of multilateral institutionalisation of the system of these new relations. Something that is absolutely fundamental for future cooperation. According to him, this is the main challenge we face today and our aim with this project is to try to contribute to this vision and to this strategy, trying to build an Atlantic unity for the future.

Jordi Bacaria presented the Atlantic Future project, highlighting the European Commission funding and support in the research. Jordi Bacaria overviewed the project with the main outputs and the work ahead. He placed the project and the Atlantic in the context of latest developments such as the negotiations of the TTIP or the creation of the Development Bank.

Dan Hamilton started his intervention by pointing that there is a lot more going on in the Atlantic space that is generally understood. Globalisation is not limited to the Pacific. Most of the media and political discourse seems to conflate what is going on in Asia (mainly China) with globalisation. Hamilton clarified that both are much related, but globalisation does not only happen in China.

To support his statement he highlighted a few key areas. The Atlantic provides as much energy to the world as the Middle East, and the trends in the Atlantic are much more dynamic. In trade, the Atlantic is still where most trade takes place. Trade and goods are still very strong in the North Atlantic, and also between South American and Europe and South America and North America. South-South exchanges are still the weakest, though it is true that these are the most dynamic. Demand is going to find a new way, and ports are scrambling to take on big tankers. An example of that, Dan Hamilton, mentioned how Houston-Texas, has become the largest city export in the US. “People in Texas think they are Atlantic”, said Hamilton. Trade in goods is getting increasingly Pacific; however, services are a more Atlantic phenomenon, especially in the North Atlantic, and investment is still an Atlantic phenomenon. Finally, Dan Hamilton added that the expansion of the Panama Canal and the melting of the Arctic are creating new transportation passages.

Albeit these are the most prominent areas, Dan Hamilton considered that other areas are also worth exploring: 1) the Atlantic Ocean, as there are issues that are specific to the Atlantic Ocean. Globalisation dynamics are creating all sorts of new challenges such as rising sea levels in the Atlantic coast faster than anywhere else, pollution, overfishing where no regimes to take care for the full Atlantic, with no governance structures, among many others; 2) Maritime securities; and 3) Challenges to human security. He further referred to values in the Atlantic. In his view, there is no contestation of values in the region, as most people in the Atlantic agree and aspire to the same values. Although this does not mean that these are achieved, there is a common type of orientation. In the Pacific, on the contrary, there is much more contestation of values.

Thus the Atlantic becomes a laboratory. The Atlantic does not have the cleavages of the Pacific, so there is an opportunity to be a laboratory of governance. Beyond the North-South line, the Atlantic could pave the way and could be a pioneer. This is far beyond where we are today. It is true that disintegrative trends are there but, according to Dan Hamilton, opportunities are here as well. The Atlantic is half of the world. Therefore, if there is an Asian hemisphere, there is also an Atlantic hemisphere. We think of ocean basins, and the connections that those oceans create are a new way of thinking. Hamilton warned that disintegrative trends are the easiest to take us forward. The Atlantic, however, would be poor if we let these tendencies win. This is where the real battle is.

After the speakers’ presentation, an interesting debate ensued with the audience. On the United States pivot to the Pacific, Dan Hamilton wondered why the US could not use both vocations: the Atlantic and the Pacific ones. The same happens with Canada, Mexico, Colombia, and all South America. He said that the US is the pivot. It is still so despite relative decline. So from a purely US point of view, the US should enhance the position in the Pacific and also look at the Atlantic. The US has failed to become an Atlantic power and it is instead a North Atlantic power. For Dan Hamilton, the US should reposition itself in this world of diffuse power more pan-Atlantic than in the Pacific. From a security perspective, Dan Hamilton added that the correlation between societal developments, illicit traffic of drugs, humans and weapons with fragile states structure is one of the global challenges of the region -especially in Africa and Latin America. Therefore, he added that transposing institutions for part of the Atlantic Southward is not the way to go.

He was asked on legacies in the Atlantic. Victor Borges reflected how there are common features in the Atlantic such as languages or culture, and yet there are also negative things that are still lingering and that reverberates in the present. If these are not managed correctly, these will shape the future. We can see a big picture of homogeneous Atlantic, but we need to go deeper to see the details that can make the difference. The problem is who is going to lead. Whose perspective is going to be placed in the middle to develop this new wider Atlantic? To this reflection, Dan Hamilton added that certainly in the Atlantic we have to deal with legacies. But, he said, continuing in the same mould does not allow us to get beyond this type of thinking. If it is not managed in the right way it is going to backfire us. There is ample opportunity of new infrastructure, there are new things happening and some pioneering work could be done.

Hamilton said that the idea of the Atlantic space will not succeed if it is not shared by people in Brazil, in Africa, etc. It has to be driven “by Southern demand”, he added. The bigger efforts are in the South more than in the North for this reason. Can we get out of the North-South boxes, even from the BRICS boxes? The Atlantic frame could be a new window to overcome the North/South way of seeing things, as the traditional frame will no longer work.

Asked on the extent to which current and future trade relations will impact on the Atlantic, particularly on the TTIP and its potential disruptive power, seen as the North trying again to exert a leading role, Dan Hamilton pointed that the TTIP is not happening in isolation. A TPP is also being negotiated. He referred to TTIP as another effort to spring loose the multilateral system in another way. By advancing in these areas, it is an assertive effort by US and EU that should work for everyone. The question is whether it is open: leaders have not said that this is open to others, and this is the mistake. They have said it in the Pacific, but not for the TTIP. It is about the norms, standards, rules, that will guide us into the future, he added.

Hamilton referred to the importance of a non-governmental approach. In the world we face, the public-private network is more relevant than state to state. Despite differences, he said, things can be done. Years ago people looked at Pacific and thought that something could be done, and as a result nowadays APEC exists. The Pacific is a much more diverse region with greater challenges than the Atlantic. There could be different forms of collaboration in the Atlantic. Networks become the more relevant angle to look at some of the current challenges. There is an opportunity to explore.

Jordi Bacaria finished by adding that the Atlantic Future project itself tries to build epistemic communities. He reflected on the fact that if all projects are born in the North, we will have a Northern perspective. We need to have more projects in the South, he said. Otherwise, the perspective will always be North Atlantic. Nevertheless, he also pointed out that this is changing.

After the public debate, the seminar continued with a roundtable with Maria Raquel Freire (University of Coimbra), Tiago Moreira de Sá and Emanuel Joaquim (IPRI). The experts presented their research on Russian foreign policy and on the US and the Azores, and elaborated on the implications for the Atlantic.