The pilgrim of a new view. We have been told that the plan for a new round of international trade negotiations in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) progresses - slowly but nevertheless progresses - in peoples minds. It remains to be seen if it is of the same round that they are both speaking about. From our perspective as observers, the answer is clear: it is no.
The round to which Pascal Lamy is thinking is absolutely not the same as that thought of by, for example, the countries of the "Cairns Group". The European Commission's aim is not simply to make an additional step towards the liberalisation of world trade, but in practice to undertake a sort of rebuilding of the WTO, by introducing into world trade regulations criteria and rules that take into account the requirements justified by the developing countries, the protection of the natural environment and fair competition. Free trade, yes, but mastered and regulated by simple standards enabling to take into account the concerns of citizens and, to put it in a rather grandiose and empathic manner, the future of the world.
The "friends" that do not read. Pascal Lamy turned himself into the unstoppable preacher for these forms of international trade, which he tries to have understood in both the large and small third countries as with the European (with the European Parliament at the lead) or international institutions, and what is now called civil society: business and trade union circles, non-governmental organisations, university and scientific circles. His efforts are worthy, but the results are not clear. There are those who play deaf because their interests push them in other directions, be it countries that have as their sole true aim to invade the European market, or the multinationals in trade (notably agricultural) whose only concern is obviously to increase their trade whatever the conditions. There are those who do not try to understand the larger picture being drawn in Brussels. Before the attitude of some NGOs, we remain perplex. "Friends of the Earth" proudly announced and with a drop of arrogance their refusal to take part in the debate and clarification forum organised last week by Pascal Lamy (1), and their explanation for this attitude is unconvincing, it is the least we can say. It seem obvious that these "friends" have not read the long positions of Commissioner Lamy, which we tried to summarise the essence in this section (2), nor what the Commissioner for Agriculture Mr Fischler went to say personally to the Cairns Group countries (3) and, especially that they ignore the conference that the same Lamy gave, a few days ago at the University Institute for Higher Studies in Geneva. Obviously nobody is forced to read what Lamy says even less so this modest section; but he would does not want to inform himself, better keep quiet.
What he says in Geneva. What did Pascal Lamy say in Geneva? He noted "the widely held belief and strongly felt, that the WTO represents the unacceptable and too powerful face of globalisation", and that the developing countries have effectively remained marginalised. However he feels that "doing nothing is not a solution". What must be organised, is a global round that enables to modify the situation, the starting point being as follows: "the trade regulations, even if they are defined at the international level, cannot take precedence over the other concerns of society". Thus rules are needed, and "if we decide not to negotiate these rules ourselves, we will purely and simply delegate this task to WTO panels throughout their work of interpretation". Thus it is clear.
All the more so as the Commissioner explained over these mythical panels: "it is not hear that the rule must be drafted". The rules must be established so as to implement a sort of "international economic governance", which must obviously cover the environment - increasingly crucial, recent confirm it so - but also other areas such as access to carethe restrictive trade practices, monetary policy, investment or even organised crime", as "coordinated solutions at the international level are necessary if we want the governments, and not the market forces, to control the development of the world economy".
The four ingredients. The global round to which Mr Lamy thinks must include "four ingredients": a) the opening of markets, b) competition (notably in the interest of the developing countries because "at the root of under development you always find the rents of monopolies and cartels,. Also opaque public markets that are nests for corruption") and investment (in order to enable for the stability and planning required by LDCs to attract greater investment, "while preserving - added the Commissioner - the control of each country over investments made on its territory"); c) a new approach for development, not only through a preferential access to markets, but also through coordination of action by the WTO, the World Bank , the IMF, the UNCTAD and other organisations over subjects such as access to medication, aid, poverty reduction; d) the "measures that aim to answer concerns of the greater public". In this last chapter we find the environment, as "we certainly do not want the WTO panels to decide upon the link between trade and the environment".
In the name of who does Mr Supachai speak? Mr Lamy's approach is it shared by all the WTO members? Absolutely not. Mr Lamy has pointed out those who oppose it, and the list is not short. Firstly there are those who do not want a round at all, which would simply mean to loose the opportunity to introduce into globalisation (inevitable) the "governance" described. Then there are those who want "a round limited to access to markets". There, the no of the Commissioner is radical. He recognises that this formula is "the first tempting view, especially for the business community", but it "would exclude all updating of the body of WTO rules in fields such as investment and competition" and "would face opposition from "sectors of civil society who want, and fairly so, for the WTO to take steps in favour of sustainable development, the environment, health, product safety". The next WTO Director General, Mr Supachai, expressed "preference towards an approach exclusively based upon access to markets", which is obviously not at all to the taste of Pascal Lamy, who would like to know if he is thus expressing himself on behalf of Thailand, the Cairns Group or in the light of his future responsibilities in Geneva", and who added: this point "deserves to be enlightened". And Mr Lamy does not hide that "even within the European Union, there where the idea of a complete cycle emerged, we see clear signs of a phobia towards globalisation".
A "noisy and painful" reflection. Either way, it is out of the question that the European Commission accepts a round limited to access to markets. It is preparing for the summit next June a detailed communication on all the questions raised, but it is allowed to feel that the major principals are already established, and it is those that Mr Lamy outlined last week in Geneva. Without dogmatism nor rigidity, as in the same conference, he had indicated that the European Union is ready to think in a creative manner over its positions in all the fields and in particular over relations with developing countries". and when the EU starts to think, "everyone knows that this can be both noisy and painful". But the fact of being "flexible, creative and realist" does not mean letting go of the main pillars of the European position.
Ferdinando Riccardi
(1) see bulletin dated 24 November, p. 16
(2) see this section in our bulletin dated 25/26 September, pages 3 and 4,
(3) see our bulletin of 13 October, p.6.
Romano Prodi President of the European Commission in a interview with the 'La Stampa" newspaper on 26 November, over the institutional reform of the EU to be decided in Nice:
"Over the vetoes (majority decisions within the Council), no country should decide if the others do not cede. France, acting President, should set the example, take the first step. The others would then be pushed in the same direction (…) The point on which France, for understandable national interests, drags its feet, is that of trade policy, services that today form a significant part of international trade. If the veto does not fall, Europe will never be able to be able to sign a Trade Treaty".