The European Commissioner responsible for trade, Pascal Lamy, has developed guidelines for initiatives the Commission could take to create the conditions for launch of the new round of international trade negotiations, after the failed attempt in Seattle (see EUROPE of 26 January, page 10). Mr Lamy explained his ideas in a speech before the relevant European Parliament committee.
EUROPE reproduces below the main parts of that speech.
A. The approach of a broad agenda remains valid. "On the substance, the full approach remains valid. I am convinced that the fundamental reasons for a broad agenda are still (…). The general public continues to be concerned, even alarmed, over the impact of globalisation on the environment, health, social standards and cultural diversity. This does not mean that we should not review some of our objectives or the way we present them. We are neither deaf nor blind. We obviously underestimated the level of opposition between the desires of our civil society and the interests of the developing countries. For example, there is a need to try to understand why we were alone in our ambition on the environmental chapter. We should also reflect upon how to respond to the controversial question of fundamental social standards and at least certain elements of our approach to investment and competition. But I maintain that these subjects must remain on the agenda."
B. No need to await the American elections. "We must continue to promote actively our position, namely the launch at the earliest date possible of a new round on the basis of a broad agenda. It will nonetheless be necessary to proceed with caution because we cannot risk a second failure. But I am not one of those who believe that nothing can happen until after the American elections. I believe we must not give up the possibility of launching a new round this year. I checked, before making this statement, to be sure that we were not alone but that this point of view is indeed shared by others.
Obviously, this supposes a political will by all WTO members. I have discussed this with the Japanese Foreign Minister, who backs our approach. Other partners with whom I have held meetings -for example, Minister Erwin of South Africa, Minister Lampreia of Brazil and Minister Supachai of Thailand- also wish to put the process back on track so that a new round can be launched as quickly as possible. I am also in regular contact with Ambassador Barshefsky and I intend to discuss with her the prospects of our positions moving closer. Of course, I am also in regular contact with WTO Director General Mr Moore, who also shares this point of view. Contacts with other partners will continue in the coming weeks."
C. The first stage. "I think we must advance in stages. There are a number of urgent questions we must address. These are what I call short-term measures for restoring confidence in the WTO system. And when I say short term, I am speaking of weeks rather than months.
First, we must address questions that concern the developing countries, especially the least advanced states, which are the most frustrated by the failure in Seattle. This means that in parallel with work on the built-in agenda, we must take forward our initiative of exempting the least developed countries from duties and quotas.
This must be matched with specific measures in the area of 'capacity-building' and technical assistance, which should target improved participation by LDCs in WTO negotiations. We should also consider dialogue with these countries on the problem of implementation, for which we must continue to be prepared to offer reasonable solutions.
In addition, there are also a number of other problems that should have been solved in Seattle. I would mention the question of transitional periods for subsidy agreements, TRIPS, customs valuation and TRIMS. And there is also the moratorium on electronic commerce that expired in Seattle. All these issues need to be dealt with in the very short term.
And lastly, on improved operation of the WTO, we are in the process of developing proposals, making a distinction between what we can do in the short term and what could be done on a longer-term basis.
In the short term, I believe we can envisage a series of measures that would aim at improving the organisation of ministerial conferences, facilitating the participation of developing countries as well as promoting increased external transparency (…). In order to improve the external transparency of the organisation, one could envisage strengthening and giving better structure to the dialogue with civil society (for example, through a formal accreditation system of NGOs in Geneva). One could also foresee a public annual meeting of the WTO for discussing activities of the organisation.
D. The second phase. More significant improvements of the WTO system, in the context of international governance, should be the subject of longer term reflection possibly in the context of a new round of talks, or in parallel. In order to facilitate an exercise of reflection of this kind, the Commission considers it would be useful to envisage setting up a "Group of Wise" responsible for producing ideas and recommendations.
I should also like to restate my conviction that MPs must be involved more intensively in deliberations within the WTO, in order to strengthen the democratic control of this work. Since December last, I have put forward ideas on this that are a little more specific:
- One way of strengthening this short term contact would be to hold an annual meeting of WTO Member State parliamentarians.
- Further ahead, one could envisage the establishment of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the WTO, as suggested by the parliamentarians of WTO member countries present in Seattle.
But let us not deceive ourselves: Such an initiative could be seen by developing countries as another attempt on the part of industrialised countries to impose structures on them that they cannot maintain, because of their limited resources and capacities. In order to avoid negative reactions from them, I believe it would be necessary for you to contact your counterparts in LDC, in order to define with them a common approach likely to fulfil our expectations and at the same time take the constraints of LDC into account.
I intend, of course, to fully involve the EP in reflection upon these proposals which, I would like to stress, have not yet been discussed in detail with Member States. Your ideas, reactions and suggestions would be very welcome".
According to Mr Lamy, the measures indicated would make it possible to "get the machine going again". It is obvious that they do not settle questions of substance linked to the divergence with the United States on genetically modified organisms and on electronic commerce, with the Cairns Group on agriculture, and so on. These different themes would be the subject of negotiation.