Where are we going if EU officials no longer fear to speak frankly to friendly countries, tell them the truth even if - at first sight - disagreeable? The question is obviously an ironical one. We welcomed as a pleasant surprise the declarations made by Pascal Lamy and Francisco Seixas da Costa., a gesture which, given the all too often reluctance and rhetoric, is to be considered as an act of courage.
Pascal Lamy does not want to fool the Brazilians. In a press conference during his recent trip to Brazil, the Commissioner responsible for European trade policy explained that the EU would continue to help and support its farmers in the sense that "they are necessary in that they participate in Europe's overall balance", stipulating: "We know that many of them are not competitive, but they are all necessary". And there is no reason to believe that he did not develop the same concept, with more explanations and arguments, in his talks with the Brazilian Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and even President Henrique Cardoso. He no doubt explained that the aforementioned principle - essential for the overall territorial balance of Europe and to safeguard its nature, its traditions, its countryside - involves both a certain level of direct aid and limits on imports.
Lamy's words stem naturally from the decisions of the European Heads of State or Government on the multifunctional nature of farming and the need to retain agricultural activity throughout the Community territory. The new fact resides in the frankness of actually going and saying so in Brazil's capital, one of the countries stepping up pressure to secure the total opening of the European agricultural market, and to do so on the eve of negotiations over an EU/Mercosur agreement.
Franz Fischler opens negotiations. A few days later, referring to the new agricultural negotiations that were opening in the framework of the WTO, Franz Fischler placed emphasis on the demand to take account of "non-commercial concerns", as "civil society is concerned by the affect of globalisation on the environment, health, social standards and cultural diversity". And added: "The European agricultural model provides an answer to these concerns and thus offers agriculture a perspective more directed at the future than the mechanical appeals of a total liberalisation of trade in agricultural products.
The reader may well imagine to what extent these declarations please those who for years now have been, in these columns, trying to get the same concepts across, even at the time when the European Commission wanted to offer "free-trade areas" (agriculture included) to the whole world, followed sheep-like by the General Affairs Council. To our taste, there still lacks a dimension to what Pascal Lamy and Franz Fischler said. If sacrificing European agriculture could contribute to resolving the problem of hunger in the world, to eradicate the shame of starving children, it should be accepted and other solutions considered for Europe. But the contrary is true. The strategy of axing the global agricultural strategy on the opening up of the European market - as it is that of which it is a question in the framework of the WTO - is absurd, reckless, criminal even. To have as main goal that of invading a market that only corresponds to 5 or 6% of the world's population and which is already over-saturated is not in the general interest of humanity. The only valid strategy consists in safeguarding agricultural production everywhere where it has traditions or prospects, and especially encouraging all the countries of the world to make a priority of producing for the needs of their people rather than leaving their people dependent on the large international trade by producing for exports, to the advantage of multinationals or some large local landowners (or politicians and their entourage).
The EU is the world's largest agricultural importer. It has already made many sacrifices in its traditional or potential production, and has noted to what extent any uncontrolled and programmed opening (in other words, any concession to the principle of free-trade in agriculture) has repercussions on its own production. The soja, manioc and rice affairs proved that. What the EU still has to do, is reduce its export subsidies so as not to upset the markets of countries developing their production or compete unfairly with farmers elsewhere. Sure, the large European exporters oppose this; they'll just have to live with it.
The message by Mr. Seixas da Costa to the Mediterranean countries. Having stressed that Portugal intended injecting new life into the Euro-Mediterranean process, the Council President added, when addressing the European Parliament: "The Southern countries of the Mediterranean also have work to do, especially to develop their interregional cooperation. We sometimes have the impression that they don't understand this. This message must get through, otherwise our relations will always be difficult and will never lead to a genuine common area".
A few weeks previously, a leader of a large European industry had declared without beating about the bush to the authorities of Mediterranean countries who were complaining of the very low level of private investments in their country that none of their countries on their own had a sufficiently large market to make investment an interesting prospect. Without a unified market, no possible private investment.
The current situation is absurd. Countries that do not demonstrate the sufficient political will to overcome their differences and rivalries, that only have derisory trade amongst themselves, demand total free access to the European market, EU membership even. They want free movement of agricultural products and almost that of persons, whereas they practice neither of these at among themselves. They seem to ignore that the "generator effect" of European unity was definitive reconciliation between Member States and the increasing placing in common of their national sovereignty. Beyond periodic proclamations, nothing similar seems to be happening on the other side of the Mediterranean. It is obvious that these countries should themselves decide on their relations and that Europe has nothing to impose on them, but it is equally obvious that there will never be a common area with Europe if they do not create one among themselves, there will be no massive European investments as long as their markets remain separate. The Euro-Mediterranean process will still produce many speeches, many meetings, much paper work; but not a common area.
Need we add that the real friends of the South American countries and the Mediterranean countries are not the most dab hands with rhetoric, but those who speak the truth?
Ferdinando Riccardi