Complete failure will be huge waste. Everything is in constant flux: one day they affirm that there is no chance of concluding the Doha Round in a reasonable time frame, another day they say the conclusion of an agreement is within reach. If one well-known figure gives his opinion on which way he believes things will go, then the hitherto evaluation is turned on its head. Complete failure will be a huge waste because on several aspects there is consensus, which would allow for the facilitation of trade and improving how it works. Why should this all be abandoned? Nonetheless, if each party continues to demand additional concessions, which the others reject, everything will remain blocked and negotiations and timeframes will be further protracted. Industrialised countries will not obtain the progress they seek in services (banks, insurance, etc.) and in other domains connected with trade, and developing countries will not obtain total liberalisation of agricultural trade. The longer the discussions go on, the more the complications increase. How can we distinguish between poor countries (benefiting from specific advantages) and developing countries, which have become industrial giants, such as China, Brazil and India? How should special rules be introduced for fishing products, marine protection and protecting the species which live in the sea, which have become absolutely essential? How can a healthy compromise be reached between free trade and the need to protect intellectual property and effectively fight counterfeiting?
Bilateral relaunch. If we seek to settle everything, nothing at all will be obtained. The most extreme positions have absolutely no chance of succeeding. I share the opinion of those who affirm that agricultural trade could partly be scrapped because it damages the environment, biodiversity, the food self-sufficiency of poor countries and the quality of food, but this radical notion is opposed by a coalition of powerful interests (producers, transporters, merchants and speculators etc) and it will never be taken into consideration. Without wishing to return to the questions of principle, which have already been developed on several occasions in this column (EUROPE 10084, for example), we are able to observe an increasing number of signals indicating a certain disinterest or even distrust with regard to the Doha Round. Going beyond a number of sceptical comments made by a few of the leaders responsible for negotiations, such as the American Ron Kirk or the “mediator” for agriculture David Walker, we are witnessing a relaunch of bilateral negotiations between countries or groups of countries. For a certain period, the EU put the brakes on reaching new agreements with Mercosur, South Korea and India, indicating that they needed to wait for the results of the Doha Round. Negotiations with these different countries have now resumed a new impetus. In cases where group agreements were envisaged (with Mercosur, ASEAN and Central American countries), bilateral agreements are now sought with Brazil, Vietnam, Singapore and Thailand etc. as well as with Russia and other countries from the same zone. The European Parliament is calling for free trade and co-operation agreements with all countries, even with Algeria, which is not asking for one and does not even have the intention of joining the WTO.
More rules. At the same time, the goals of bilateral negotiations are increasingly covering aspects which were largely abandoned in the Doha Round because they went beyond trade in goods - public procurement, non-tariff barriers, respect for intellectual property (with chapters on pirating and illegal downloading) and so on and so forth. The European Parliament, whose powers in the trade arena have considerably increased under the Lisbon Treaty, and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) are also requesting that trade agreements cover international labour conventions, environmental standards and respect for human rights. In the context of the chapter on agriculture, a large majority at the Parliament believes that reform of the CAP, which has already been carried out, marks a limit to further concessions being made by the Europeans on market access, and that the EU must demand similar concessions from third countries. The EP and the Agriculture Council have also shifted in the direction of strengthening the indications of origin for food products.
We have not even touched upon the subject of illegal and criminal trafficking in medicines, cigarettes and drugs, which remain in the remit of other bodies, but whose impact is sometimes compounded with those in the customary trade arena.
My conclusion is a monotonous one because it has been the same for a long time: there will be no positive conclusions to the Doha Round, with pomp and ceremony and flamboyant speeches, if we fail to be satisfied with what has already been achieved and if each party continues to demand additional benefits and concessions. It would be better to accept the bilateral agreements, which have their merits besides.
(F.R./transl.fl)