The most important change made by Pascal Lamy to the concept and management of the Union's trade policy during the period 1999-2004 was the growing emphasis placed on aspects which, without being directly trade-related or economic in nature, represent society's choices. As he wrote in his last document as Commissioner, "trade liberalisation need not compromise the fundamental choices of the citizens concerning their values and their way of life". The problem is nothing new; what is new, is the importance it has been given.
From culture to the environment. The first thing to cause a stir (as long ago as 1999) concerns respect for cultural diversity. Mr Lamy believes that in spite of a certain amount of residual ambiguity and although the consensus reached between the Member States "hides the cracks", the result is, by and large, positive: "No commitment will be taken (by the EU) which will lead to the autonomy of European cultural policies being harmed". In Geneva, the EU will negotiate the liberalisation of all services with the exception of audiovisuals (including music), education and health, and the European position is also clear for the negotiation of the "international convention for the protection of cultural diversity", within the framework of Unesco.
Mr Lamy's judgement is also positive when it comes to the GATS negotiations (General Agreement on Trade in Services). Mr Lamy rejects the claims of various NGOs that the agreement would be a threat to public services: the Commission has always "refused to negotiate any commitment which could threaten public services in Europe in any way whatsoever". The views of the Member States differ on this in part, but the EU has a free hand to uphold its position, if it so wishes. On the environment, the EU is currently waging a lone war. Its objectives are ambitious: it wants it to be agreed that the multilateral agreements on the environment are considered to be in line with WTO rules. All precautions or restrictions contained within these agreements would become legitimate from a trade point of view. "This is the Union versus the rest of the world", said Mr Lamy, because the developing countries are wary, and accuse the EU of "green protectionism", and the United States has not signed up to most of the environmental agreements. Quite apart from this "multilateral" battle, the Commission has taken initiatives bilaterally (in negotiations with Mercosur and those on forest protection) or unilaterally (for more on the new GSP, see this column yesterday).
Just as difficult is the fight to establish clear links between trade and respect for minimum social standards (the developing countries fear a "hidden protectionism"). The EU is therefore making a huge effort to take action bilaterally or unilaterally (GSP). Mr Lamy stands by the following position: "The EU is not prepared to lower its protection standards to the benefit of international trade, if this does not correspond to its society's choices". The fight against corruption is not on the WTO's agenda, and only "Transparency International" supports the Union's efforts. Mr Lamy is surprised at the radio silence from the NGOs on this "absolute stealth tax on the poor", and recommends a "broad coalition" bringing together the industrialised and developing countries, civil society and the business world.
Beyond trade. Now for the aspect which Pascal Lamy put on the table amid a storm of protest and which had never before been mentioned in trade negotiations: collective preferences, in other words the choices of the collectivity. I devoted two columns (8 September and 21 September) to his views on this and the way in which he opened the debate. For now, therefore, I will just sum up the current presentation of it. His objective is a global reflection on the impact the opening up of trade could have on "the ability of the countries of the WTO to defend their collective preferences, as each of them defines them and enshrines them in law". Mr Lamy believes that "international trade has changed radically in nature (…). Behind classic trade in goods, there are more and more different conceptions of the relationship with risk, nature, food, culture or public services (concepts considered by anthropologists to be equally important cultural markers) which arise". The result of this was trade conflicts. In dealing with them, the "WTO did not disappoint" (which means that it took reasonable account of the collective preferences, the choices of the people), but its action "was often misunderstood and misinterpreted and fuelled controversy on the opening up of trade". This is why Pascal Lamy believes that the management of these preferences "could well do with being re-thought today (…). It is a fundamental condition of the legitimacy of trade opening and international integration". And he calls for a reflection on the various options he presented last September. (F.R.)