The trap of a soft consensus. Were we to base ourselves on the debates of the Conference organised in Brussels on 27 September by the "European Confrontations Circle", there would be no ground for optimism on the forthcoming re-launch by the WTO of a new world trade negotiations round.. NGOs that spoke out against, or laid down a series of impossible preconditions, were indeed numerous or famous enough, and stated or made it understood that they were speaking on behalf and in the interests of developing countries. The "Green" MEP Caroline Lucas spoke out in the same negative sense. True that backing for a new round was just as convinced and even more in numbers; but the WTO, we know, deliberates by consensus; were it true that the the NGOs in question were speaking for the third world, we would not be close to seeing a new round, despite the development (or rather the revolution) witnesses since Seattle in its concept and preparation. Remains to be seen to what extent certain stances of this or that NGO faithfully reflects the ideas of developing countries, or rather the idea that Westerners at times have of the interests of the third world…. Without forgetting the inevitable tactical part when a deadline is looming and that everyone is trying to secure the best possible starting position.
The "Confrontations" initiative was especially appropriate. We are always speaking of involving civil society in political reflection on major European issues and encouraging the confrontation of ideas in an open debate: the association chaired by Philippe Herzog MEP did just that. They were al there, representatives of industrialists (headed by Unice); workers' trade unions (ETUC), Greenpeace, Oxfam, Solidar, with people like Etienne Davignon,, Jean Gandois, Bruno Rebelle, etc.. and of course Pascal Lamy, who will be the EU's head negotiator if the plan for a new round materialises. The temptation for a soft consensus - worst enemy of of this type of meeting, if each speaker congratulate the former and overlooks the differences to the point of rendering the exercise fastidious and unnecessary- was apparent in the room from the very first hour, to the point that Gerhard Cromme, President of Thyssen Krupp, who was speaking on behalf of the European Round Table (ERT), calmly explained that he agreed with all the speakers that had preceded him, perilous claim as they had at times said opposite things. Fortunately, there followed speeches that led to a real debate, with a few savoury clashes, like when the representative of Greenpeace publicly approved a statement by Viscount Davignon, who then interrupted pretending surprise: "You really agree? I must have been mistaken".
Four conclusions (but the last one does not count). In fact, the stances may, by simplifying a little, be summarised as follows:
- no speaker spoke out in favour of a simple additional liberation of trade, without accompanying measures and new disciplines;
- most speakers took a stance in favour of a new round with a broadened agenda, to as to introduce social, environmental and other dimensions into world trade;
- many NGOs and Caroline Lucas considered that there needed to be a radical reform of the WTO before and world trade negotiations;
- Louise Hilditch, Action Aid's EU Policy Advisor, spoke out in favour of negotiations immediately limited to subjects under discussions in Geneva; agriculture and services.
To my mind, this last option is not to be taken into consideration. It is unacceptable for Europe, which cannot contemplate further opening up its agricultural markets without precautions linked to te multifaceted nature of farming, as well as for numerous NGOs that link the globalisation of trade to disciplines and management arrangements of the liberalised markets.
Dance of preconditions. Critical speeches by Bruno Rebelle for Greenpeace, Giampiaro Alhadeff for Solidar, Gerard Fonteneau for ETC (European Trade Union Confederation) and Caroline Lucas deserve further attention. Despite the different nuances, all four consider that the time to begin a new round has not yet come, as the WTO "is not yet in a position to integrate high standards of society and the environment" (Caroline Lucas). The order of priorities must, therefore, be: firstly, the reform of the WTO, then world negotiations. Solidar considers that this is an abusive simplification to speak out for or against a new round; the problem is "balanced globalisation" by which market opening gores hand in hand with social and health standards; "we must stop stepping on the accelerator of liberalisation". Caroline Lucas, on the other hand is mistrustful of "working standards" imposed by Northern countries and that could be used for protectionist purposes:
the reform of the WTO must, in her opinion, precede working standards. For Greenpeace, Bruno Rebelle set out some preconditions to meet for additional liberalisation of trade to be acceptable: a) introduce the concept of "sustainable development" so as to prevent the obsession to export leading to the definitive destruction of irrecoverable natural resources (recalling that the EU is in the vanguard in this field with its Stockholm programme); b) make a link between trade liberalisation and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to control climate change; c) balance the powers of international bodies that exercise a governing role so that the WTO "is no longer the only organisation with teeth", who decisions are binding.
The trade unions (ETUC), without being against a new round, consider it to be "premature". For the third world, the problem of debt is of a priority. The fundamental social standards of the ILO must be respected by all those wanting additional trade freedom; and Gerard Fontaneau recalled that these standards had nothing to do with the level of wages or other aspects that may further influence the competitive edge of the developing countries, but that they affirm some principles: ban on child labour, gender equality, freedom of association for workers. In addition, transparency and controlling financial transactions (already "globalised") must precede the total freedom of trade, and it is not up to the WTO to define a code of investment. ETUC is in favour of a "central body of human activities" that would ensure a balanced world governance.
Employers spoke out from many facets: two speakers for Unice, Jaean Gandois, Etienne Davignon, etc.. George Jacobs, Unice President, took a stance for a positive decision in Doha next month as "the time is not for rhetorical speech. To do nothing would amount to postponing answers to problems that have been identified. Everyone would lose, especially developing countries", as the new round would have as priority goal a better distribution of the fruits of growth in favour of the least well-off, through special and differentiated treatment. Unice set pout in detail its views on all aspects, and its texts, stressed Jacques Desponts - are all available. He urged dialogue, each having to refrain from imposing their particular view. Viscount Davignon rejected the very principle of preconditions. It is legitimate to say: negotiations will not be concluded if certain objectives are not met, but if we lay down conditions before beginning to negotiate, we will never negotiate. Industry is in favour of environmental rules (like Greenpeace), social rules (like ETUC) and can even contemplate going beyond what will be decided as compulsory, committing itself to codes of conduct. But preconditions mean denying the need and urgency of the process.
Balance according to Philippe Herzog. Other questions were raised, like the representative nature of the different NGOs (Bruno Rebelle) or the issue of investments (Jean Gandois). But, after the different speeches, attention was focused on the conclusions that the Chairman of the "Confrontations", Herzog, and European commissioner were to draw. Philippe Herzog spoke out in favour of the round, calling on them to "play the dynamic to the full" and thus accept a broad agenda, but with some precautions. He calls: a) for an assessment of the real effects of market opening; b) that it be admitted that Southern countries must not necessarily accept the rules that the Northern countries impose on themselves as such (he notably urges caution regarding the EU competition rules which, he believes, raise some problems in Europe itself and cannot be "projected as such at world level).
Moderation as to form, firmness as to substance. And Pascal Lamy? He was moderate as to form but firm as to substance. Let's try to sketch out his stance in a few points:
1. The goal consists in exchanging market access for world rules. What is to be negotiated, is the doses of the two aspects (openness and regulation) and the articulation between them.
2. World governance has not progressed at the same speed as market globalisation. A balance needs re-establishing by enhancing the responsibility and management powers of the ILO, the IMF, the World Bank, and by creating a similar body for the environment, while revising the WTO.
3. It is the round itself, with a broad agenda, that can lead us forward towards the aforementioned goals. The "reform first" stance amounts to deadlock. The decision is up to politicians (meaning: NGOs take stances, warn, raise public awareness, but their role stops there). Certainly, Caroline Lucas is an MEP and thus has political authority, but her position within the EP is a minority one. Obviously, Pascal Lamy added, were her stance to become a majority one, "it would raise a problem for me".
4. Should the round not be launched, trade liberalisation would continue anyway through bilateral and sectoral agreements, without rules as governance would remain aside. "Which would be less good".
Things remain to be said over the agricultural chapter of the round. That will be for the next time.
(F.R.).