In defence of whom? Neither MEP Harlem Désir (supported by other members of the EP) nor a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) wish to put their trust in Pascal Lamy regarding the "services" chapter of the new WTO round of talks. Whatever assurance Mr Lamy tries to give, whatever pledges he makes, whatever proof he gives for his affirmations, they claim they do not believe him. They behave as if their aim was to pursue their diatribe at all cost against any new international agreement in trade matters, whatever advantages the developing countries might gain. Some NGOs (not all, of course) give the impression they attribute greater importance to their determined stances and to the media advantages that they hope to gain from a quarrel with the European Commission than to the real interests of poor countries. When, for example, in the farm sector, the same NGOs get to the point of reproaching the EU for the Harbinson document (that it fully rejected), it is difficult not to speak of dishonesty.
Over and beyond the farm sector (on which the EU will not give way), it is therefore the services area that raises the most polemic. Pascal Lamy has stepped up his interventions and his attempts to put things straight. He has clarified the fact that there is no relation between WTO negotiations and internal European policies. The Geneva negotiation "is on trade, the WTO has nothing to do with the way we regulate our services". If, in another Member State, education and health come under the public sector, there is not and there will not be any European offer of opening to external competition. If a universal service obligation exists in any sector, it will apply whatever the company, whether national or foreign, that governs it. The European Commissioner insisted on a fundamental element: the principle of reciprocity does not apply to services. If the United States opens up the education sector to competition, then it is free to do so. Every country chooses the sectors it wishes to liberalise. And every country or group of countries remains free to apply its own model to services of general interest, to define "its way of organising society". Furthermore, even if in this dossier the economic aspect does not constitute a priority element, it is nonetheless necessary to take into consideration the fact that the EU is a major services exporter and has much to gain from international liberalisation.
Real interests of developing countries. Alongside the safeguard of the European model and the EU's economic interests, the other essential element that guides the Commission's attitude is that of the interests of developing countries, which must face up to two partly contradictory requirements. Let us take the example of banking activities. Poor countries must protect themselves against competition from major international banks, if they wish to create national networks. However, at the same time, they cannot attract foreign investment if they are not able to provide financial services at a good level. How can these two aspects be reconciled? The answer is simple: it is up to these countries themselves to assess the point of balance and to decide on the sectors and levels of liberalisation. Without forgetting that they are exporters of certain types of services, and hence call for international liberalisation in several fields (the EU has received many requests along these lines from India, Brazil and several African countries).
Taking water as an example. My impression is that much of the polemic and opposition comes from the fact that issues are not well known. Let us take the example of water: the hypothesis of liberalising services in this area has caused much protest, as if the aim were to take the management of water resources away from the countries where resources are sometimes rare, if not dramatically inadequate. If there were anything of this kind in the WTO's intentions, I would be the first to cry out with indignation. But things are not at all like that. In this sector, "services" means the treatment of water, action by experts: and it is obvious that, if a company has effective methods for avoiding wasting water, for protecting against pollution, for distributing water with less loss, to control consumption effectively, then it is in the general interest for it to be able to freely provide its services.
When the debate is open and all these theses may be expressed … The European Parliament has proven that an open and public debate -which allows the possibility for all these theses to be expressed, and allows Pascal Lamy (as well as Viviane Reding for the cultural and audiovisual aspect) to clarify matters (see our bulletin of 12 March, pp.11/12)- results in supporting the Commission's position (see our bulletin of 15 March, p.14 and p.15). The three groups that represent the overwhelming majority of the Parliament (EPP-ED, PES and ELDR) were able to reach a common resolution, which reaffirms intangible principles: - no European offers in the health, education and audiovisual sectors; maintaining universal service obligations in sectors where they contribute to the European model of society; and preservation of cultural identities. Such are the principles defended in the discussion by Mr Lamy and Ms Reding. The fact that Harlem Désir had expressed his disagreement is part of the normal dialectic of any parliament. What counts is that there was an overwhelming majority "in favour".
Reticence on the part of some national parliaments and some NGOs. Some national parliaments still show considerable reticence. The Belgian parliament was even close to asking for Geneva negotiations to be suspended (a motion along these lines was rejected by 17 votes to 15). At the end of the day, he decided that the government must, in the context of EU Council deliberations, call for no offer to be made in Geneva regarding postal services or maritime and air transport or water (or, moreover, on the opening up of the European labour market to temporary workers from third countries - see below for this aspect). It seems to me obvious that some national parliaments also suffer from a lack of information and knowledge, already deplored. The Belgian example regarding water seems to me to be eloquent, and demagogy sometimes prevails over the real interests of developing countries.
As for the attitude adopted by some NGOs, I believe I said enough on this at the beginning. Pascal Lamy has used an understanding and reconciliatory language towards them from the outset (in the document, established in common with Franz Fischler, on the state of work in Geneva: see our bulletin of 20 March, p.10), speaking of the "misunderstandings" with NGOs that pursue their "determined campaigns" without taking explanations or guarantees into account, or the position of the developing countries that are calling for liberalisation.
Yet another misunderstanding. Just a quick word on the offer envisaged by the Commission concerning the admission of temporary workers from third countries. This is a measure that is of great interest to developing countries (24 of them have explicitly called for it), but, on this subject, those defending the interests of poor countries change sides and oppose it. Why? Because some NGOs, some parliamentarians (European or national) and some national administrations have seen that holes are appearing in the European protection against uncontrolled immigration and even "a measure that opens the door to dismantling of the European social model" in sensitive sectors such as construction and the maintenance of buildings and installations. Vigilance and even a certain amount of mistrust could be justified in this case, and it is natural that explanations have been requested of the Commission, which replied that all this has nothing to do with immigration. The aim is to take into the Union, as a temporary measure, certain highly qualified workers (interpreters, IT specialists, etc. - there being 19 sectors in all) originating from the developing countries for temporary and well-defined tasks. Several developing countries attach considerable importance to receiving a positive response from the Union.
Suitable consultation. Commission services may have committed several errors of assessment on any of these offers. It was therefore appropriate that Pascal Lamy should amply consult socio-economic circles, and above all the European Parliament and the Member States. He could have done without the EP (his consultation is not foreseen in the trade area) and without the opinion of national administrations (because it is a matter that comes within the mandate already conferred upon him by the Council). However, he is positive that he wanted to have the opinion of the EP, disregarding a legal anomaly that the Convention should resolve. With the Council, discussions have continued, and the Commission does not rule out the possibility that they will continue until the ministerial session on 14 April (see our bulletin of 27 March, p.11). Commission services have taken stock of many misunderstandings that it was first of all necessary to dissipate, before identifying "pockets of resistance", that is, points on which divergence led one to believe there could be real disagreement. What is clear is that Mr Lamy hopes to obtain the Council's consensus on the offer as a whole, as he knows that his negotiating strength lies in the fact that he has the Council behind him.
A step towards mastering globalisation. It is likely, at the end of the day, that the final text of the Community's offer (that Pascal Lamy has undertaken to make public, in a concern for total transparency) will end up improved after all this consultation and polemic. It will result in a delay of several weeks in the Geneva timetable (the deadline for "services" offers will be 31 March), but it will not be the reason for overall delay, as, at the same time, negotiations are practically blocked on farming and on "special and differentiated" treatment for poor countries; and the dossier on access by these same countries to medicines has not yet been closed. However, delays are not everything. The main thing is that, in all these issues, Europe plays a constructive role. Its efforts are not only aimed at defending European interests but also and above all the introduction of non-trade considerations in the WTO rounds of talks: the concern for the development of poor countries and the ecological and social considerations are predominant. If Europe is listened to, the result would be significant progress towards controlling globalisation, the great challenge of our time. If only everyone could understand this … (F.R.)