It is easy to forget. Europeans, easily swayed by discontent and criticism, should sometimes consider the real importance of the project that Europe has been committed to for more than half a century and in that knowledge, meet the challenges of the future with confidence (see this section of yesterday's bulletin). One could take a step back into the past and see that the "founding fathers of Europe" succeeded in achieving exactly what the new generation is striving towards in other parts of the world: reconciliation, peace, freedom and well-being. It is easy to forget that the hatred and bitterness in Europe at the end of the Second World War were as pronounced and deep-rooted as those we see today in the Middle-East, the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya and the area of the Great Lakes in Africa. It is easy to forget that in that era, starving children, deprivation and destroyed cities were realities for us on our own doorstep. But we acknowledge that the youth of today cannot be expected to remember something that happened before they were born. I'll allow myself to recollect events from the past.
I'll also leave aside the arguments that claim that it is absurd to demonstrate against globalisation "in itself", this is not a choice, it is a fact; it is this opposition that is the first to acknowledge that this prefabricated ideological choice is often contradictory. One example alone illustrates this: calling for the suppression of the large multinationals and at the same time claiming that they can make their medicines available to poor countries to fight against AIDS, displays a strange kind of logic, given that without these multinationals these medicines would not exist. If the supposed capacities for perfecting research and financial instruments belong to just a few powerful multinationals then there is only one way of eradicating AIDS: massively extend research, perfect the relevant drugs and change make the conditions such that poor countries would have access to them. This is the path advocated by Europe and the first results are already being seen. The disaster affecting health in Africa, with sick and abandoned children, is the last thing the masked wreckers worry about. Violence for them, is simply a means to give vent to their anger, frustration and ignorance.
I'll deal mainly with the simple facts rather than the major principles and provide some of the examples of what Europe has embarked upon in the field of globalisation that take on board and often go further than the demands of the protesters.
The real Stockholm revolution. In 1974 René Dumont wrote that, "If we want any kind of future for our planet, we have to reverse the direction of economic development". The United Nations Report for 2000 (The Global Environment Outlook) warned that the current situation was not "sustainable" and that action could not be put off any longer. Over the last 25 years or so the world has become more aware of the situation. But this progress has not been followed by decisions at an operational level, despite a number of specific measures protecting tropical rainforests (not applied comprehensively) and against the greenhouse effect. Last June the European Summit in Stockholm gave its approval the EU's "sustainable development strategy", which represents the most radical revolution in the world ever attempted to change the nature and very meaning of economic activity. The EU is now no longer simply committed to the exclusive objective of economic growth, which has often been a fallacious and insufficient criterion. It has approved a series of guidelines that should enable it to put into practice its new strategy. This was in fact the really revolutionary event at Stockholm, even if a hundred or so demonstrators bent on destruction succeeded in relegating it to second place with their stones aimed at the Swedish mounted police (later on they had no choice but to put down a number of police horses injured in the incidents). I have tried to illustrate in this section (in the 21 June edition of the bulletin) the importance and meaning of the new European economic strategy, without attempting to conceal the obstacles that need to be overcome if it is to be implemented. The time for reflection continues which indeed questions the obsession with competitiveness as the supreme objective above all others such as: education, health, employment, air quality, etc,: (see the article of MEP Giorgio Ruffolo in "La Repubblica" 14 August). As for this aspect, Europe will play a pioneering role.
Common approach for social governance throughout the world. Second element: on 18 June the European Commission presented a communication to the Council on the promotion of core labour standards and social governance globally "social governance within a context of globalisation" page 11). In a statement to the press, Pascal Lamy declared that the Commission would push for core guidelines and rules that would enable globalisation to mastered in a way that would favour developing counties and people. This is not just theory or abstract principles, but the "European vision of the social face of globalisation" in the fields of trade and development policy. Political authorities, international institutions, labour organisations, business leaders and shopkeepers should respect this "common approach", which Ms Diamantopoulou defined as, "the EU's growing concern about the social impact of globalisation". The EU will grant a number of additional specific benefits to developing countries respecting these principles and contribute to strengthening their ability to respect the "common approach" by providing the appropriate assistance.
Agriculture, No step backwards for Europe. Third element: the new concept of agriculture, with its numerous functions, is gaining ground throughout the world. This concept is already an accepted reality for Europe and there is no need to examine this point in any great detail. There are currently an increasing number of countries that have understood that agricultural activity is not simply about providing food to its population but is also at the same time to protect natural resources, safeguard bio-diversity, ensuring equilibrium on the land and maintaining traditions and upkeep of the landscape. The multitude of different agricultural tasks is beginning to be recognised. Japan as well as other countries, including the developing countries, have to understand that single-crop farming for exporting is their worst enemy and that they must return to subsistence farming, with a priority on reconquering a minimum of self sufficiency that is crucial for their populations, land and independence. In any case, Europe will not go back to the past no matter if this is a little difficult for some to accept, whether these people work in governments, parliaments or are backward-looking civil servants from the OECD, UNO or powerful bosses from the global agri-business sector.
Saving the Kyoto Protocol. Fourth element: the European Union has taken the lead in the battle for strong international commitments to combat climate change by formally opposing US claims that the Kyoto Protocol was dead. The WWF itself (whilst regretting that concessions were necessary to obtain the support of Canada and Japan for the Europeans' line), described the Bonn Conference last July, with the majority of the western world refusing to accept the position of the USA, as "an earthquake".
What lies behind the thoughts of Pascal lamy. Fifth element: the European Commission is rigorously pursing its efforts to modigy the checks and balances on the world's currency markets. With a new round of international negotiations, the Commission hopes to enable Third World countries to play a role in the global economy. It seeks to provide these countries with a special status, as well as radically change the responsibilities of the WTO and the way it works. The position of Pascal lamy, the high priest of this operation, has not been easy as he has to fight for an agreement with the USA, whilst acknowledging the reticence of countries that would prefer to limit these negotiations on trade liberalisation at a later stage, as well as convincing developing counties of the sincerity of the EU's intentions and surmounting the differnces that exist between member States themselves. It is understandable that such a positions requires huge acrobatic abilities with Mr Lamy creating the impression that he is possibly diluting some proposals. But a simple glance at the postions he has taken at a personal level allows an understanding of what lies behind the thoughts of Padcal Lamy. On 27 July at the Escurial Seminar (Madrid), the European Commissioner did not mince his words. He stated that, "the real raison d'être of the European Union today is to give us the scale and power we need to have our say in the world…to influence the emergent international economic order so that it properly reflects ouyr ideas and values". Mr Lamy used this occasion t to express certain worries with regard to the G8, "a rich man's club and perceived as an illegitimate power..given the gap between its supposed claim to world economic leadership and the feebleness of its contribution to sustainable world development". He also warned South America that an integrated trade agreement with the USA could lead to the formation of a trade block marked by sharp imbalances between advanced and developing counties. He explained that he would counter-pose this with new round of multilateral negotiations, which aims to (read attentively because every word is meticulously chosen) structure free-trade with multilateral rules on the environment, health, consumer rights, workers' rights, cultural diversity and affirm the mission of a universal public service. After such a statement it is difficult to ask ourselves why certain representatives of the "Seattle People" still attempt to get us to believe that Pascal Lamy is in favour of a brutalised form of globalisation. Could this be ignorance or simply bad faith?
Adding up the number of European initiatives could be pursued by demonstrating the internal measures, such as the project for introducing environmental criteria for conditions governing the award of public market (a measure that the WWF ought to appreciate) and the decision of the Finance Ministers to include the "Tobin tax" on financial transactions in the agenda of their meeting for this month. But it is not my intention to draw up a list but rather provide the element to analyse at what point the EU represent the objective ally of those who want to change the world.
(F.R.)