This remains between us. The EU does not expect thanks. If the decision was taken in Doha to open a new round of world trade negotiations based on principals in most part new, the merit especially comes down to the obstinate, patient and at the same time inventive action, of Pascal Lamy. Though how to imagine that this be recognised, to him and Europe?. The trend, one knows, is to consider the EU as ineffective and aged, that it has no influence in world affairs, that on the level of trade it has a strong tendency to fold back on itself (fortress Europe: Oh beautiful slogan!), that it practices a protectionist agricultural policy and that it is rather pathetic in its support to the third world. Let us thus pretend to believe in these common areas, let us not talk of the success and minimise the role of Pascal Lamy and Franz Fischler. Thus, everybody will be pleased and Europe will be comforted in its attitude of humility and contrition, two virtues that open the door to heaven.
However, on condition that this remains between us (I who write and you who read), what Europe has achieve will one day grant it the world's thanks. In the face of the ravages of unbridled globalisation, justly denounced with eloquence and vigour by the most deserved and serious non-governmental organisations, it has been capable of introducing the first concrete elements of a future discipline: that which was wrestled in Doha is no more nor less than the premise and promise of a future global governance. Let us dream a little. A world paints itself in which trade will answer conditions such as: a) respect for environmental standards, in order to avoid the definitive and irreparable deterioration of living conditions on earth; b) a regime favourable towards developing countries, thanks to derogation's to the sacred rule of the most favoured nations; c) maintaining a balanced agriculture throughout the world, while respecting the quality and safety of products, the traditions, the countryside, civilisations; d) the spread of universal principals such as women's and children's rights and a ban on forced labour; e) the possibility for poor countries having access to medicines necessary to fight pandemics (starting with AIDS). Everything is to be renegotiated, but the sketch is there, and the world has - if it is able to act - three years to define it, except for social issues, where the demands of Europe have been in majority rejected. Within some time, even the countries, which today complain over the results of Doha (including those that have refused to discuss equality for women and the protection of children), will understand the scope of what will start.
Beyond the interests of Europe. Certainly, until the last minute, the attempts had multiplied aiming either to deform the meaning and the aims of the European positions, or to challenge the principal itself of a negotiations involving new elements that exceed the notion of trade. Georges Soros explained at length that the WTO should not get bogged down in environmental, social or development issues: it must work with the liberalisation of trade, without looking further. We understand; freedom of transactions (financial, in this case) without restrictions nor discipline did not benefit it in the past. What is surprising, is that there remain prestigious newspapers ready to host his prose. As surprising is the way in which, at a hard time in the Doha negotiation, the press (European included, and including those of Brussels) remained complacent in presenting the EU as responsible of the path outlined, while completely neglecting the meaning and the aims of the difficult battle fought by Mr Lamy and Mr Fischler, alone in pulling the cart down the right track.
It is true that the purity of the European positions is somewhat contaminated by certain preoccupations that are excessively trade related; for example, the link between the multifunctionality of agriculture (sacrosanct) and export subsidies (often a source of fraud and illegal smuggling) is difficult to understand. Though the general direction of the EU positions goes beyond defending its trade interests; it aims to slide into this field the values that form the basis of our civilisation, even if it is not always easy to distinguish this guideline within technical paragraphs dedicated to anti-dumping standards (it is for the LDC that the EU fought on this issue), intellectual property (for medicines) or the competition rules (to avoid abuses by multinationals). Pascal Lamy was able to say, following the effort which had hollowed his cheeks and somewhat dimmed the spark in his crystal blue eyes: We have fought for the aims that where not our own in terms of interests, but which where our own as a political direction and as values. By associating Franz Fischler to the result, he defined him as the amiable rock, always smiling, but impossible to confuse over the principals.
(F.R.)