Ahead of a column on China, I would like to add some remarks to yesterday's column about the EU's trade policy.
Saving the Doha Round by making do with what has been won so far. In yesterday's column, I listed the negotiations at the World Trade Centre in Geneva (WTO) on the Doha Round (a global trade deal) as one of the world trade pipedreams, with the proviso unless one makes do with what has already been achieved. My views are clear -agreement on everything that has been discussed since 2008 is simply not going to happen because people are too greedy and the obstacles too intractable; but everything that was agreed before 2008 can be saved. The recent ticking off from the WTO director general, Pascal Lamy, of the trade negotiators seems to me to move in this same direction - for the first time, he talked about the possibility of failure and stressed the importance of saving what has already been won because the alternative would be catastrophic for the weakest nations. Lamy said that by giving up on the idea of totally scrapping customs duty in 14 industries and by restricting the opening of farm markets to trade, it would be possible to save the earlier agreements
Solidarity is a rare beast. It is proving difficult for the EU to put its customs duty offer to Pakistan into practice. The European Commission has designed aid for Pakistan after the recent floods in the form of the EU suspending import duty on Pakistan textiles for three years (65 tariff lines), along with shoes, leather goods and other products. This would have allowed Pakistan to export some €100 million-worth more goods to Europe than in 2009. India, Bangladesh, Peru and other nations have opposed this, licking their lips at potential financial gains for themselves and demanding the same conditions for their own exports (but of course if they were extended to all exporting countries, then the special benefit for Pakistan would disappear). The deadline for a rapid decision has passed and the idea now has to go before the WTO General Council in May 2011, but nobody is holding out much hope.
Royal youngsters should know their place. The royals in Europe have a keen understanding of their role and the limits of their powers, but this does not always extend to their children. Not, at any rate, to Prince Laurent, younger son of the King of Belgium, who is dealing in trade and industry in Congo and Mauritania. The Belgian prime minister, Yves Leterme, has sent Prince Laurent a letter pointing out that the government says the Prince must consult the government in advance of his business trips because “Any foreign travel by a Belgian official takes place in coordination with the Foreign Office to ensure the trip fits in with the country's foreign policy.” Particularly because, according to press reports, Prince Laurent is in the habit of “opening doors abroad” for companies that then “pay his expenses”. The Prince has gone ahead with his trip to Congo (where he is reported to have met with the head of state - which makes the trip an official visit). The Belgian prime minister told parliament that “the Prince has made an error of judgment by going ahead with his trip despite formal warnings from the government and the Royal Palace”, in other words, his father, the King. Yves Leterme learned about the trip from the Belgian ambassador in Kinshasa… Leterme said the Prince had to make “a clear choice” between his duties and the state funding he receives as the king's son.
Pithy comments. EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht likes pithy phrases. He has told Brazil and other countries, for example, “Emerging economies have to understand that in a way, they have already emerged.” Pascal Lamy, the WTO director general, was blunt. He said the problem of the Europeans was that “they have by far the best social model and to keep it up, they can no longer rely on economic growth or demographics because Europe has neither economic growth nor demographics on its side”. Pascal Lamy again: Why should the Doha Round be saved? Because “80% of the work has been done. The Round has to be concluded because bilateral deals cannot solve problems like farm subsidies or non-tariff barriers.”
(F.R./transl.fl)