Scepticism on both sides? The possibility of an EU-Mercosur association agreement leading to “the most extensive free trade zone in the world” is raising a number of concerns in Europe (see this column yesterday) but does Mercosur actually believe in it? Chance would have it that Paraguay is currently presiding over Mercosur and that it was therefore the Paraguayan president who held discussions with the president of the European Commission last week. Mr Lugo Mendez is obviously a serious player because he avoided expressing any satisfaction or optimism that went beyond the necessary diplomatic niceties (we are aware that after years of negotiations, the two sides are postponing the submission of their final offers until next November) and he provided a lengthy justification of the existing differences, which he considers are legitimate. Following this, he focused on the positive developments in bilateral relations between his country and the EU (EUROPE 10385). I believe that he does not have any illusions at all about his presidential influence on EU -Mercosur negotiations and that he also believes that only bilateral agreements, particularly but not exclusively with the EU and Brazil, can have any real and substantial content to them. This also happens to be the method promoted with regard to ASEAN countries.
Principles and objectives. The fact that the EU's trade policy is now less naïve and more focused on reciprocity did not happen overnight. The new orientation was outlined and justified by the European Commission last winter and the Council adopted the “Conclusions” on 21 December. These conclusions maintain the main thrust of the orientation and set out the following principles: “the condition for trade liberalisation is fair competition and no distortion is permitted” and the objectives are “improving access to public markets in all bilateral agreements (…); ensuring better protection and effective application of intellectual property rights, including geographical indications(…); promoting the EU's trade strategy and objectives on raw materials(…); recognising the importance of goods and services(…); aiming to eradicate many regulatory and non-tariff barriers on third country markets (…);developing a comprehensive European policy on international investment”. Several months were needed to ensure the general orientations were put into operation.
Unacceptable situations. With these orientations, the commissioner for trade, Karel De Gucht, practically travelled around the whole world to explain the European position. He is closely cooperating with his colleague, Michel Barnier, on certain aspects and enjoys the support of President Barroso and the Commission as a whole. The commissioner for agriculture, Dacian Cioloº, remains very much on his guard to ensure that agricultural and environmental interests are duly taken into consideration. Obviously, Mr De Gucht is not officially asserting that an association agreement between the EU and Mercosur and its most extensive free trade zone in the world, is plausible but he did openly indicate that the major emerging countries have already emerged, and denounced the respective situations that the EU is no longer prepared to accept. Some of the situations were discussed in this column yesterday, particularly the EU's demand for access to third country public markets in similar conditions to those provided for their own countries. The pharmaceutical dossier is a particularly sensitive case in point. In India this involves the question of patents and elsewhere dangers are related to false products which can actually kill or, in a less serious scenario, are totally inefficient. These are just a few examples.
EP keeps watch. The European Parliament's extended powers mean that it is playing an increasingly active role. It has already robustly intervened on a number of occasions (e.g. the car issue in the agreement with South Korea). It monitors free trade conditions and Japan, and is particularly attentive with regard to agriculture questions and demands that imported products respect similar rules to those included in the CAP because environmental and consumer requirements would be inefficient if they were not applied to imports.
Complex problems surround the issue of trademarks and indications of origin, as part of the eternal battle against piracy and counterfeiting. For the latter, the business community denounced the loss of €10 billion in 2008 (the most recent year for which assessments exist). Most counterfeit products at the time came from China and several African countries. In the meantime, the number of counterfeit products ordered on the internet has also massively increased.
Conclusion: the appropriate development of global trade is beneficial to all, including environmental protection and preserving different animal and plant species. (F.R./transl.fl)