Honour at stake? The "message" has gone out. The European Union has made the gesture recommended by Pacal Lamy in favour of the world's poorest countries, by totally opening up its border to their products. The European Commissioner was right to place emphasis on its political, psychological and symbolic importance, as in fact that is how it is perceived by the media, including some newspapers that shy from the rhetorical. Suffice it to look at heading in the Financial Times, presenting the project on the eve of the Council decision: "Test of Honour". And read the first phrase of the article: "The European Union's international credibility and honour will be on trial". Of course, the British newspaper did not miss the opportunity to cast a shadow over France and Spain, reticent regarding one particular aspect of the decision, nor to admonish the Council by writing that the plan should be approved "if the EU is to live up to its own claims to be a defender of enlightened, humane and civilised values". After which, Spain waived its reservation and France let the decision pass without voting against.
The symbol of arms. Everything is essentially symbolic in this initiative, including the genial catch-phrase "everything but arms", as the truth is that nobody really believes that the 48 poorest countries in the world could supply the European Union with arms. It's rather the opposite that should be studied: prohibit the "48" from purchasing arms, given the fact that at times they lie at the origin of some of the most murderous and bloody conflicts in the world.
Fruits to share. Thus, Europe's honour is safe and European civilisation has defended its values. With less exaggeration and gloating rhetoric, Pascal Lamy declared after the decision: "This sends a signal to the rest of the world that we are serous about getting the most disadvantaged to share the fruits of trade liberalisation". Now, it will be difficult for other rich countries not to follow in the EU's footsteps. And especially, Europe's initiative could reduce the reserve and reluctance of developing countries regarding the Commission's, and Mr. Lamy's in particular, fundamental goal which is to launch new international trade negotiations in the framework of the WTO next autumn. The new round would open a new phase in international trade, placing trade liberalisation and non-commercial considerations on the same level. For the first time, safeguarding nature, food safety, the respect of minimum social standards and fair trade would have their place alongside purely trade rules that today govern the workings of the WTO and deliberations on its panels. Certainly, the nature of this place still needs defining, and Mr. Lamy himself is, with his services, in the process of squaring certain circles and moderating certain initial ambitions, so as to iron out differences that remain (see our bulletin of 23 February, page 7); but the first essential step is to gain the confidence of developing countries which considered themselves more as victims than beneficiaries in the previous round. Whence the tactical importance, in addition to its political and moral significance, of the Council's decision.
Precautions for rice and sugar seem reasonable. In this section, dared 12/13 February, we expressed bewilderment regarding one aspect of the Lamy project: the total opening of the European rice and sugar market. We haven't a word to change; the trade decision taken has nothing to do with agricultural policy or the food strategy that the world, especially the third world, needs. But the precautions adopted by the Council are reassuring. Import duties on the aforementioned two products will only be reduced from 2006 and disappear in 2009; quantitative restrictions will remain until the same date, but annually increasing imports from the "48" by 15% (initially, 2,517 tonnes for rice and 74,185 for sugar), measure without danger for European agriculture. In addition, and especially, the rules of origin and nati-fraud measures will be rigorously implemented and monitored, and the Commission will submit an impact-assessment report on these imports in 2005. Meanwhile, if the plan for a new round comes off, new rules for world trade will have been introduced. Which means that if rice farming in Europe is indispensable to safeguard certain natural parks, it will be preserved. And especially, world agricultural and food policy will have progressed in the direction enabling each country or region to feed its population rather than being encouraged towards monoculture for exports, and to develop a subsistence agriculture rather than enrich the multinationals or some local profiteers. In this context, even the problems of European agriculture should find a solution
(F.R.)