Bruges, 07/09/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, declared that although they were on the right track they were not yet home and dry. These comments followed an update of the preparations for a new trade round with Trade ministers from Member States meeting for an informal session in Bruges this Friday. During the final press conference the Commissioner was accompanied by the Acting President, the Belgian Minister in charge of European Affairs, Annemie Neyts. The latter described how the majority of delegations were in favour of launching a new trade round at Doha, with the exception of France, which came as no surprise.
Before everyone had expressed their views, France was already tacitly putting forward an alternative strategy in case of deadlock. Mr Lamy was already aware of the up-and-coming developments in the multilateral preparations, particularly those that came to his notice during the "Mini Summit" in Mexico (see EUROPE 3-4 September). "The sky had begun to clear up", declared Ms Neysts, when noticing that a voice was being raised during the Council on the possibility of failure.
"We must work out the possibility of recovery so that we do not squash the idea of a trade round. By precaution", French Secretary of State François Huwart told the press a little later. From Paris' point of view (where everyone is getting their weapons ready for the elections in May 2002), the Union must now prepare a sort of B plan to use in the case of impasse in Doha, in order to prevent a second failure at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), from which it would never recover. "At the stage we are at now, I think we must take the responsibility of foreseeing the possibility" (Ed.: i.e. of such a failure), said Mr Huwart, all the more as, in his view, there is not much new in the stances taken by the 142. The idea that he defends would consist, where necessary, in proposing the suspension of the IVth ministerial conference of the WTO which would resume one year later. The "transition" would allow China to become a member of the "club", and also allow the developing countries to receive concrete responses to some of their claims (mainly access to medicines). His European counterparts are hardly enthusiastic, it is learnt from Community sources, but, according to Mr Huwart, the German minister nonetheless showed a certain "sensitivity".
Mr Huwart did, however, agree that the negotiating brief issued to Mr Lamy for Seattle, in 1999, remains valid. "I do not believe I need a new mandate from the Council, not because the situation and the problems are the same as they were two years ago, but because the balance is right", confirmed Mr Lamy. He explained to the press: "We have managed to show we are flexible, whether it is on TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), implementation (Ed.: of the Marrakech Agreements which pose a problem for developing countries) or the offer of an 'opting-out' on competition and investment, in the context of the mandate. It presents the right level of flexibility that I can use before Doha and in Doha". "The essential part will begin after Doha", he recalled, saying that there is "a European vision of things" geared to "ensuring the correct functioning of the system and compensating for a certain number of inequalities and injustice in a market economy left to its own devices" through a new broad round of negotiations likely to interest all parties present. This vision, reflected in the extent and novelty of the issues under discussion put forward by the Europeans, is nonetheless far from having conquered the 142 members of the World Trade Organisation. "The main differences of opinion concern agriculture, the environment, the 'Singapore issues' (investment, trade, fundamental social norms), regulations (Ed.: mainly anti-dumping) and implementation", said Mr Lamy. Answering questions put by a journalist concerning the virulent attack against the CAP in Punta del Est (see p.10), the Commissioner brought things slightly more up to date: "the real debate today between the EU and the Cairns Group is no longer that of knowing whether one must continue to support agriculture but how we can do so in a way that is compatible with trade". He went on to counter-attack by saying: "If the Unites States pays its farmers what we pay ours and it doesn't do so for multi-functionality, then what is the point?"