A few theoretical bases. Assessing the EU's trade policy over the period 1999-2004, which was established by Pascal Lamy himself (see this column yesterday), is far from a theoretical exercise. It gives us a guided tour of the EU's action, in two areas:
- the positions defended at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), both multilateral negotiations or under the dispute settlement procedure;
- initiatives taken by the Commission autonomously, on the sidelines of the WTO, when the Union's stances were not (or not yet) shared multilaterally.
When it comes to doctrine, Mr Lamy takes his inspiration from the work of Jacques Delors on global governance (proposal for an "Economic Security Council" at world level, of which "they adopted the name, but not the content or the modalities for its application", as Mr Delors himself regretfully wrote), having held reflections and made suggestions about a global project ("World Democracy: For a different global governance", see this column of 8 July). For the concept of the multi-functionality of agriculture, and therefore of the specific trade regime for the sector, Mr Lamy was able to take as his basis years of debates, which this column always followed and encouraged, and which led to reforms of the CAP and the defence of European agriculture. With former European Commissioner for Agriculture, Franz Fischler, he formed an efficient and combative team, which served Europe well (see this column from 3 and 4 September). Institutionally, the support of the Council and the European Parliament were indispensable, despite the odd weakness or excess of populism on the part of the Parliament.
It is not my intention to sum up some fifty closely-written pages here and now. To start with, I would just like to remind you of the principles, positions and initiatives which underlie the EU's doctrine.
1. Development aid to poor countries. Having succeeded in getting the programme of the current round of WTO multilateral negotiations named the "Doha Development Round", the EU must ensure that the reality lives up to the name. The Commission took the lead with the "Everything But Arms" initiative, which allows the poorest countries to export their products to the EU without customs duty or quantitative restrictions. The main beneficiaries of this regime have been Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Nepal, Yemen and the Maldives, followed by the ACP States. The enemy of this targeted support to the poorest countries of the world is populist rhetoric, in which language a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and certain governments, including those of the ACPs, are calling for the total opening-up of European borders. In the textiles sector, the developing countries (and the many NGOs which are working towards the same goals) obtained satisfaction in the previous round (the Uruguay Round), with the result that the EU will remove all quantitative restrictions on imports at the beginning of next year; and then we will see if exports from Bangladesh, and the other countries which have gained a foothold on the European market, will be able to see off competition from China. Mr Lamy has tried to take the edge off the impending disaster for these countries in his new proposal for "generalised preferences" (see point 3).
In the future, the main threats relate to ACP exports of sugar and bananas: these will be swept aside by enormous global competition, if the EU does not get sufficient support for the keeping in place of its preferential regimes and the protection it provides on the agricultural market in general (because the poor countries cannot defend a policy of total market openness… except for the few products of direct interest to them, and they need to boost and protect their traditional rural cultures, which is a cornerstone of their economic, social and environmental development, against the move towards cash crops, whatever the populist of various NGOs think).
2. Intellectual property and access to medicines. It was Pascal Lamy who prompted the European Commission to mobilise the EU's trade, development and research policies to define a strategy to fight Aids and other diseases in the least developed countries. There are two attitudes you can take to this terrible problem: either effective measures to improve the availability of drugs in these poor countries, or populist rhetoric, baying for the blood of the multinationals which produce them. The NGOs, which played a positive role in Seattle by speaking out against the effect of patents on drug prices, went, in part, for the second option, which is all wrong because: a) for the time being, only the multinationals know how to conduct the necessary research and produce the medicines in question; b) State economy countries have never let it worry them,
any more than the USSR did in its time (when it was at the forefront of science and technology, it concentrated its efforts on space, nuclear power and missiles), or North Korea, Pakistan or India, for that matter, whose main concern lies with atomic bombs. We have no idea what the future holds, but for the next twenty years at least, our hopes lie with the skill and talent of the pharmaceutical giants. The attitude of some of the most voluble protesters and some of the NGOs showed that their real objective is their own political visibility, and that the health of millions of Africans, especially women and children, is the least of their worries. After very tricky negotiations, with the support of India and Brazil, and the understanding of the United States, the UN and the EU got relatively positive results, which have already had a "not inconsiderable impact" on the price of drugs. Pending the legal fine-tuning of relaxed rules on intellectual property, the EU has brought in a system of "differentiated prices", which already offers developing countries better access to medicines and vaccines. The strategy based both on imports to Africa and production on the ground is taking shape. Mr Lamy has always stressed that poor countries have their part to play in improving health policies, too, and concludes: "this is one of the challenges of the coming decade for the sustainable development of the planet; the EU has made this issue one of the priorities of its development policy".
3. "Generalised preferences". The proposal presented by My Lamy to the Council and the European Parliament for the new GSP (generalised system of preferences, see this column of 24 July) is "a real step in the direction of sustainable development". Beyond its commercial mechanism, the proposed new regime reinforces the option to withdraw the privilege from countries which systematically violate fundamental societal standards. This is an age-old European request, which has never, to date, been retained in any WTO framework; for this reason, the EU intends to include it in its own GSP. This is why Burma doesn't benefit by it at the moment, and an inquiry on Belarus is underway, by request of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). For the parameters and significance of the Lamy draft, see this column of 26 October. The Barroso Commission must support it in its entirety.
4. Agriculture. Pascal Lamy got the EU to commit to removing export subsidies. This was a major concession, economically and morally justified, as long as the US and other exporting countries agree to it as well, and as long as it allows the other elements of the CAP to be kept in place, particularly external border protection and the funding of the rural development policy. Furthermore, the EU must also reinforce environmental protection and product security, and gain satisfaction from its requests for protection for its traditional products and its geographical indications. The Barroso Commission must not allow the European positions to slip one inch; it must firmly defend them (see this column of 4 September amongst others).
5. Sectorial issues. The EU supports the developing countries' requests on the prices of raw materials (which are unstable, on a downward trend at the moment), a problem which "has been taking a back seat, in an obscure WTO discussion group" on the crisis in coffee. The Commission has proposed a global approach to cotton, involving the EU's development, trade and agricultural policies. For sugar, the Commission has proposed a revision of the Community policy, which is strongly contested by various countries of the Union and by the ACP producers. For bananas, to bring the Community price too close to the world price would, in practice, spell the end of all production in the EU, the overseas territories and the ACP countries. The Lamy document also takes stock of the steel, shipbuilding, aeronautical (with the EU and the US seeing the subsidies to Airbus and Boeing in an entirely different light), and textiles dossiers. For these, Pascal Lamy notes that the impending lifting of EU import quotas, "seen as the greatest victory of the Uruguay Round for the developing countries, has gradually become a source of growing concern for the most vulnerable producers, given the increasing might of Chinese industry" (see point 1).
Social issues. To round off this guided tour, let us turn to the most incisive and controversial point Pascal Lamy places within the constellation of trade policy: the "social and societal issues", those aspects which are neither, strictly speaking, either trade or economic issues, but which depend on the "societal choices" made by the citizens, such as: the defence of public services, the environment, fundamental social rights, food safety, the fight against corruption, cultural diversity and the most controversial plank of them all, that of "collective preferences".
In conclusion, a broader commentary would concern institutional elements, covering requirements for transparency and legitimacy, particular the legal framework of the EU's trade policy, with the parliament's controls and the changes introduced by the Constitution, and its relationship with civil society. (F.R.)