Remaining concerns. I am perhaps being a little unfair with president Barroso, the Commissioner for trade Peter Mandelson and the Commissioner for external relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner, but my concerns about the orientations of the new Commission regarding trade (which currently represents the main element in external relations) have not been relieved in any way. Added to which, is the certain nebulousness surrounding the convictions of Mariann Fischer Boel involving agriculture and Günther Verheugen on industrial policy, which because of my own fault, no doubt, I am unable to see a clear picture.
I think that in areas as essential as economic and trade relations with the outside world, continuity and coherence are indispensable. It is obvious that each new president and new Commissioner give their own personal brand to Community action but the main lines cannot be changed every five years, given that a certain stability is required. The rather crazy period under Sir Leon Brittan is over. He proposed free-trade zones (or similar formulas) throughout the world and things have been redressed to a more reasonable level since Pascal Lamy took over in 1999 and who was able to define, with the consensus (sometimes rather forced) of the Council and the European Parliament, the essential orientations of EU trade and trade-related policies. On leaving his job, Pascal Lamy has produced an "assessment" of trade policy for 1999-04. In my opinion, this document should not be considered as a summary of the past that is destined for the archives but rather, a stable basis on which the new Commission erects its policy. The principles are there, the main guidelines too.
Multiple objectives. The starting point for Mr Lamy since September 1999 has been one of "mastered globalisation: that is both effective and fair - globalisation that has to be steered and managed according to the collective interests of European citizens". The opening up of the markets is not an end in itself but an "instrument in the service of progress", guaranteeing that the benefits of globalisation are shared out evenly. Who would take an opposite view? What is important is that the general objective is followed by initiatives and behaviour that allows this goal to be reached but on the basis of the very broad conception of trade policy established by Mr Lamy. This policy does not simply manage bilateral and multilateral trade and negotiations, it also has to take into consideration the development of poor countries, the protection of the environment and certain social choices of society.
Importance of choices and initiatives. The enormous extension of trade policy resulting from these principles cannot be managed by the WTO (World Trade Organisation) alone. Pascal Lamy writes that, "I don't think that the WTO can or should be the only island of governance in an ocean of non-governed globalisation". And if at the moment world governance is only advancing very slowly as a concept and even less so in reality, the EU can and should take the initiatives itself and open the way forward. This is what Pascal Lamy did. Certainly, he had to deal with things as they stood and he was fully aware of the benefits of freeing up trade. How many times was he criticised and opposed, sometimes violently by anti-globalisation fanatics accusing him of being too neo-liberal!. The reality is that he was working for free trade but without ever forgetting, and Ill quote him again, "the system of trade is not purely mercantile and can take charge of public priorities". I know only too well that this opinion is not shared by everyone. One school of thought that is as respectable as any of the others, considers that only a recipe of an integral liberalism can guarantee efficiency by ensuring maximum progress and growth. At the Prodi Commission, Pascal Lamy cohabited with Fritz Bolkestein, and each of them followed their own path, as the president did not always give the impression of having come down on one side or the other. At present, both president Barroso and in principle, Peter Mandelson to a lesser extent have come out for a balanced trade policy that takes into account the vast array of concerns that has characterised the Lamy epoch. But it is not just fine phrases that count because in a speech, with a little dexterity (a quality that Mandelson certainly has) we can please everybody.
The importance of the action taken by Pascal Lamy resides in the choices he made, in the initiatives he took. It was this which was effectively the basis of "mastered globalisation", a basis which in my view has to be imperatively preserved. This is the basis which I will attempt to highlight tomorrow, based on the assessment I quoted made by Pascal Lamy himself.
(F.R.)