What Mr. Lamy said. On the approach to Xmas and New Year, attention wanes somewhat. Thus it can happen that important news goes almost unnoticed. This, as far as I see, was the case for a statement by Pascal Lamy on the fringe of the last high level meeting between the EU and Canada. The two sides decided in principle to consolidate and strengthen relations by a new type of bilateral agreement, more based on partnership, investments, co-operation, and on the co-ordination of trading standards, than on the liberalisation of access to their respective markets. This liberalisation, now essentially the issue of negotiations in the framework of the WTO, and the new type of agreement being envisaged can provide much more than a classical agreement on trade. In this context, the European Commissioner gave a general character to his observations, by expressing his puzzlement and doubts over free-trade areas themselves. I shall reproduce his statement published in our bulletin of 21 December (p.12) and did not receive, I believe, either in the press or within public opinion, the repercussions it deserved. The Commissioner said: "I personally believe this kind of traditional free trade area of the 20th century, based on total market liberalisation, to be a formula that is today a little outdated despite its political symbolism. If we want the trade and investment relationship to reach its full potential, then we should tackle the regulatory obstacles and, for the time being, put our ambitions aside with regards to market access, leaving that to the multilateral arena where it belongs. Frankly-speaking, the difficulty that Europe experiences with the idea of a free trade area is that it is not absolutely clear that this is what our trade relations really need".
A breach in the wall. For now, these are only thoughts. But it is easy to understand the repercussions they could have on the EU's relations with third countries or groups of third countries. It's true that, anyhow, the time has gone when Sir Leon Brittan offered free-trade areas to all the world, with the Commission's consent (that in this matter had not shown much discretion), including Russia and, in his intentions, the United States. But important projects officially remain on the table: the Euro-Mediterranean free-trade area (with a deadline already set, if you please), the one even more colossal with Mercosur (which means Brazil and Argentina), not to mention ACP countries. The full and contractual lifting of all obstacles to trade in the industrial sector is extremely dangerous for the weakest part, as it risks destroying its efforts at development and involve almost inextricable complications regarding rules of origin. In the agricultural sector, it is quite simply impracticable, as it neglects, contradicts even, all what humanity today really needs: the fight against hunger in the world, the re-establishment food-producing crops in the poor countries (in the direction of the right of all peoples to their food autonomy), safeguarding nature and biodiversity. There is still a long way to go for countries at times suffering dramatically from a lack of food to become fully aware of these realities and understand that their real enemy is the single crop for export (which makes multinationals and large traders happy, but not the populations). But the few phrases cited by Pascal Lamy finally opens a breach in the wall of traditional discourse, of ready-made opinions and intellectual laziness, which in fact act in interests that are not always transparent.
Waiting for what happens next. The above considerations do not mean that development in trade needs putting on hold. On the contrary! But conditions for opening markets must evolve, according to criteria established internationally. Doha's Development Agenda, that guides WTO negotiations, shows the way (even though it is still not enough). Recently, the Commission defined the conditions and limits for opening up the European agricultural market. Several signs show that ACP countries are beginning to understand that free-trade in agriculture on a world scale would represent the end of their traditional exports of bananas, sugar, rum. The path is still long: the EU must in particular face up to legends as threatening as they are misconstrued, like that of "Fortress Europe", and its institutions must defend themselves against attacks not only external (understandable) but internal too: the enemies of European farming, those who have understood nothing of its meaning or role are many still. However, the phrases quoted by Pascal Lamy are significant of ongoing thought. I'm waiting to see what will happen next.
(F.R.)