Further criteria. Quicker than expected. The demand for greater regulation in international trade is rapidly gaining ground. It is now part of the European debate at the different institutions. A month and a half ago, this column underlined that the idea of competition should not be the only criterion governing world trade. The EU should become less timid about affirming other parallel criteria such as: genuine reciprocity in concessions, eradicating unfair trade (counterfeiting and other similar anomalies), product safety and quality guarantees (EUROPE 10265). This movement is now speeding up. No one is disputing the fact that trade represents an essential factor in economic progress and civilisation: mutual knowledge of cultures, developing greater knowledge in general, helping develop the well-being of the respective populations. Technological progress has massively increased the possibility of fraud and other improper practices being committed, to the detriment of nature, as well as consumer safety and health. No-one is calling for the reintroduction of protectionism, just a better balance between the different assessment criteria.
The link with industrial policy. Opinions held among the public are obviously not all the same and neither are the views of the member states and the Community institutions. Nonetheless, a significant rethink is taking shape. The debate took another leap forward following the interview of the European commissioner for industry to a German publication (EUROPE 10285 provided an account of this interview). Antonio Tajani, the vice president of the European Commission, subsequently added another particularly sensitive element to those already discussed in this column at the end of November: Chinese penetration into European industry. Chinese companies are buying up more and more European firms that have key technologies in important sectors. This is both an industrial and trade policy question, which does not just cover the trade in goods but also the question of reciprocity in public procurement and investment. Mr Tajani pointed out that the benefits of free trade are undermined if reciprocity does not also cover these aspects. China is demanding that western companies investing in China accept technology transfers at the same time. The direct purchase of companies in Europe can also be added to this equation. Mr Tajani is calling for a European authority to be set up to assess foreign investments and knowledge transfers resulting from this (something similar actually exists in the US).
Controversial question. Let's be quite clear: Mr Tajani was speaking in a personal capacity as the person responsible for international policy and there is no Commission initiative as such in this connection. Pro-European veterans have pointed out that the very principle of industrial policy was opposed for a long time, particularly by Germany, which saw this policy as a danger of shifting towards a Soviet style command economy of five-year plans and rejected the terminology for such a policy. Certain developments then ensued, given the British trend to leave the task of the actual manufacturing of goods to non-EU countries, whilst leaving the “noble aspects” of industry in Europe to: industrial ownership, research, trade strategy, etc. Germany itself, France and other member states responded robustly and the European Commission supported them. Even in the United Kingdom, a tendency in favour of re-industrialisation subsequently developed, calling for the material production of goods to be relaunched.
Debate now open. The initiative should be located in this context and it is only at a verbal level for the time being. Mr Tajani does not have an exclusive remit for the external dimension of industrial policy, it also depends on other commissioners, notably, Mr De Gucht for trade aspects and Mr Barnier for the internal market. The debate, however, is now open, within the European institutions, in the member states and also in non-EU countries. The position taken by the European Parliament sometimes appears to lack clarity and courage. On one day it might vote in favour of global free trade (due to Europe's friendship and co-operation with the whole world) and on another day it might vote in favour of partial protection for a specific sector (for example, the car industry having to confront certain aspects of Korean competition). As for the positions taken by the national governments, these are not uniform either. A German minister has called for caution and his French colleague partly shares the position advocated by Mr Tajani. This is a debate that will not reach any swift conclusions. Tomorrow, this column will be returning to a number of different aspects, particularly the position taken by China.
(F.R./transl.fl)