What does Europe think? I understand why Pascal Lamy is calling on Member States to confirm the very basis of EU trade policy. The failure at Cancun has begun new discussion at a global level: multilateralism, how the WTO functions (indeed its very existence), agricultural subsidies and so forth. At the very time when talks are starting up with third countries that have specific trade links with the Union and cautious moves are being mace for a new round of world multilateral negotiations, the European Union must clarify and explain what its doctrine stands for. As negotiator, the Commission needs to know what are the principles underpinning its conduct. In particular, negotiator, Pascal Lamy has to have some “shoulder pads”: his interlocutors have to know whether he's speaking with a Council mandate, whether the positions he's defending are those of the fifteen. This is indispensable not only for relaunching the work of the WTO but also for new negotiations with, for example, Brazil and other Mercosur countries.
I don't think that Pascal Lamy is thinking about political an major upsets to traditional European policy, especially not the abandonment of multilateralism in favour of bilateralism. What he is seeking, is that the Council and European Parliament say what they think in order for Europe's position is clear, following the so abrupt and partly surprising interruption to the work at Cancun (see our bulletin of 27 September).
The four questions of Pascal Lamy. Mr Lamy presented these very clearly to the European Parliament on 24 September in Strasbourg before submitting them to Ministers in Brussels a few days later with the opening of the debate at the relevant parliamentary committees. They are as follows:
Does the EU intend to preserve the dynamic balance between opening up of the markets and definition of what rules need respecting? Without rules, free trade, “is not genuine and does not comply with our values”. Mr Lamy referred explicitly to environmental standards as, “the appetite for opening up the markets is becoming, around the WTO table, dangerously selective” (everyone thinking of their own exports and nothing else).
Does the EU remain committed to the principle of multilateralism through which opening the market is negotiated at an international level and concessions are extended to those countries of the organisation? This direction is still shared by EU partners (including the USA, which Mr Lamy has not named)? Or is there now going to be a preference for bilateral or regional agreements?
Does the EU intend to maintain preferential trade agreements with some developing countries or groups of developing countries by focusing benefits on countries that most need them?
Is the organisation of the WTO and its principles still suitable to the world of today? Is the basic principle of equal rights and responsibilities of members being affected by special and differentiated treatment for poor countries and should it be kept?
Ignorance and positions taken against Europe. I think that Pascal Lamy supports a positive response to the first three questions. What he needs to do is to “check whether the basis underpinning the international trade policy of the Union over several decades remains unchanged”. This verification is even more indispensable given that ignorance and demagogy that in part led to the EU being criticised at Cancun has often been criticised (see this section of 18 September); and even by some MEPs who have been happy with attacks on Europe, either through their own ignorance or because it suits them. Take Mr Della Vedova, for example; every time he speaks on trade issues its to harass Europe's position and to call on it to completely open up its borders to agricultural produce from the outside world under the pretext (fallacious) that this would benefit poor countries. This time he spoke of a failure, “that affects to EU far more than the USA”; he denounced the criticism Europe's refusal to totally eliminate export subsidies and the intention to set a ceiling for the suppression of import duties , which had been postponed till 2010 for rice, bananas and sugar. The brave defender of both European agriculture and poor countries, especially African, associated with the Union! He doesn't' even ask for consultation on Europe being able to protect its quality products, given that geographical denominations are pirated with impunity (and not by the poor countries, I assure you) and that these good souls find it inopportune to raise this problem at the WTO Ms Vachetta says what? Beyond the phrase mongering assertation that the European Union and USA are, “imperial powers that have tried to impose their cynical will”. She also did not hesitate to affirm that, “the suicide of the leader of the Korean peasants symbolised tragically the despair of millions of women and men ruined by the market of fraudsters”. The tragic hara-kiri of the Korean peasant was a hopeless protests against the opening up of the rice market of his country, which resulted in misery for this victim and other producers in his country of agricultural free trade.
Awareness gradually dawns at European Parliament. Fortunately, beyond the demagogic and laughable positions displayed by several MEPs during the debate, reality did gradually dawn on what really was at stake. Philippe Herzog “observed the convergence between free trade positions and those of the large agricultural exporters of the South” (Brazil, china, India) and suggested “targeting the agenda of the WTO on certain key issues which are not global free trade in farming but: export subsidies, cotton, textiles and special and differentiated treatment for poor countries. He also added questions of legitimate protection: public health, environment and the social clause.
Some reactions to Mr Lamy's questions could obtain some constructive responses at the EP and justify the hope that the same will occur at the Council. The probable “Yes” (even though this is a rather “unrealistic” doctrine, according to Pascal Lamy himself) on the parallelism of open markets and rules to respect; less obvious on the principle of multilateralism (bilateral approach could be more effective in some cases and more beneficial to poor countries), almost in the bag for maintaining European preferences for countries associated to it. How the WT works is still pending.
The constructive character of the parliamentary debate led Pascal Lamy to go beyond diplomatic reservations in his answers and get straight to the point. On introducing rules and mechanisms into world trade to push forward social demands, especially environmental, he considered that Europe risked being on its own, “as I do not see many developing countries following this route and the USA does not naturally tend towards coherency in international governance”. In confronting the rampant demagogy, Mr Lamy observed, “It is essential for developing countries to open their markets and agree to some rules. The North agreeing to opening up markets and certain rules is not enough by any means”. Ms Lucas called on the WTO to get rid of subjects that poor countries don't want from the WTO agenda, such as competition and investment. Mr Lamy asked if this good intention was also valid for the environment and social clauses which poor countries did not want either.
For a more open Europe. Overall, I'd say that it's a good start, with real questions finally being asked. Certainly I would like Europe to go further and for example, Commissioners Lamy and Fischler assert in the framework of official debates what they've said in the press or to professionals, as in the following sentences, for example, “with low income countries, we share the worry of not opening up agriculture to the strong winds of liberalism. This would be to the detriment of poor countries. Maintaining border protection for those who want it, is not only legitimate but also necessary”…if developing countries think that all farming subsidies have to go, we don't agree. We risk losing agriculture in Europe. It's a question of European sovereignty”.
An attentive and meticulous reader would point out that these sentences had already been produced in this section. It's true and I apologies for the repetition. But I consider them as fundamental and think that that what they represent should be clearly indicated to third countries during both multilateral negotiations and bilateral (like those with Mercosur). But in recompense to the reader who had missed out on this repetition, I'll just add that “Via Campesina” the association regrouping numerous organisations from farmers in the world in developing and developed countries. After paying the obligatory tributes to demagogy and welcoming the failure of Cancun (forgetting that poor countries will be the first victims) and placing the EU and USA in the same opprobrium (“their arrogance and inflexibility demonstrated their inability to understand the legitimate interests of people”), when in fact the EU wants what the USA rejects. Via Campesina asserts its disagreement with the free trade demand of the “Group of 22”, explaining, “increasing liberalisation and market access does not resolve the problems of poverty and exclusion for millions of people in the world. On the contrary it would aggravate the situation”.
I place these sentences alongside those of Lamy and Fischler in my gospel on globalisation, ell understood and mastered in the agricultural sector.
(F.R.)