Reciprocity and other conditions. A few solemn phrases at the signing of the agreement between the EU and South Korea, or expressions of satisfaction with one or other of the projects, is not going to change anything: the principle of global free trade is no longer considered in itself as an essential driver of well-being. Misgivings and, above all, the conditions to which any move forward is submitted, are increasing massively. The demands with regard to standards on the environment, social protection, children's rights, animal welfare and so on are becoming inescapable. At the same time, the concept of reciprocity is becoming stricter and it does not just cover the usual barriers to trade (customs duties and quantitative restrictions etc): it also incorporates many other elements as well, such as investment, the protection of geographical indications, copyright and marks etc. The European commissioner for trade, Karel De Gucht, in his interview with Le Monde (discussed in our publication EUROPE 10229) referred to the case of China, access to public markets and even exchange rates. He explained: “I am a free-trade supporter but free trade is based on principles. In the context of our trade defence instruments, we are working on the possibility of banning access to public markets in the event of restrictions in third countries. We are going to launch a reflection exercise on the subject in October”. At the same time, he did, nonetheless, reject the hypothesis of being able to negotiate an agreement with Brazil and Mercosur as a whole, without including the agricultural question in it. Does France have misgivings about this? This is the answer provided by Mr De Gucht: “If we had to apply all France's demands, we may as well put a stop to our discussions. If we want an agreement, it will be necessary to put forward an offer on agriculture”. Nonetheless, we are aware that there are significant misgivings with regard to a substantial opening up in the European market to Brazilian agricultural products and these misgivings are not just from France. Those who do harbour concerns are motivated by a wish to safeguard a diversified agricultural production in Europe at a reasonable level, despite its higher costs. They also seek to protect a regional balance, a reasonable degree of food self-sufficiency and the ability to fight against starvation in the world.
The very notion is up for discussion. Certain political forces are calling for a rethink on the very notion of free trade. Henri Weber MEP from the Socialist Group said that the distinction between supporters of free trade and protectionism was hypocritical “because the champions of unbridled free trade are only free traders in some respects but also seek to protect themselves”. He called for the notion of free trade to be replaced by fair trade and said that just getting rid of the barriers to the free movement of goods, services and capital would not lead to “stronger, more sustainable or fair growth”. Modalities are essential.
The most radical and virulent position our publication reported on recently was the call for an “immediate halt” to the free trade agreement between the EU and India (EUROPE 10229). Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that supported this appeal, during the EU-Asem summit found that the agreement envisaged is “potentially disastrous for people's rights, their way of life and the environment”. Nothing less! Is it possible that the European institutions and the Indian government are pursuing a common agreement with these objectives? One of the details involved in this question, requires that certain problematics are not ignored: the most developed aspect of this virulent attack involves the fact that the envisaged agreement endangers India's role as “the pharmacy of the developing world”, due to its ability to “provide cheap and reliable medicines to poor countries”. These medicines are quite simply copies and one has to ask whether the Indian pharmaceutical industry is not behind this radical position. It is obvious that the access of poor countries to medicines is a legitimate demand but nothing should prevent this from being discussed within the EU-India agreement, in view of defining an appropriate mechanism. Why should a comprehensive agreement between the EU and India be rejected outright?
It would be easy to provide a raft of examples proving that free trade is no longer considered as the universal panacea of all evils. There is no initiative that does not encounter opposition or reservations, whether this is on a bilateral level or in a multilateral context, such as the completion of the Doha Round (after almost 10 years of negotiations, the question of another year of debates is being raised again) or the ACTA Treaty on counterfeiting (strongly opposed by a part of the European Parliament). The specific case of China, with all the different factors, requires a specific commentary and this will be for tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)