Who is defending whose interests? I hope for his sake that Peter Mandelson was not too overwhelmed by the reactions to his initiative making clear the criteria which could lead the European Commission to open proceedings linked to the deluge of imported textiles from China. From these reactions he will have learnt from some that he is a terrible protectionist, and from others that he is a soft-touch, incapable of defending Europe's trade interests (see our bulletin 8925). It is not easy to maintain the balance in those conditions! Fortunately, those protesting are not hiding their colours: on one side, la FTA, the Foreign Trade Association, accuses him of protectionism, on the other, the industry and the European textile trade unions (Euratex) reproach him for not defending European products sufficiently. Their positions are understandable and legitimate: traders preach free trade while manufacturers and workers call for precautions.
But a third party has stepped in as a defender of developing countries: Oxfam. But its paper in favour of opening up the market without precaution to Chinese products so ignores the interests of the truly destitute countries that it becomes justifiable to wonder what interests the organisation is really representing. My impression is a clear one: everything points towards Oxfam defending the interests of big business, and I think that it is time to blow away the smoke-screen which shrouds the positions it takes and which has given it a certain unwarranted aura in public opinion of being the defender of the poor. Its latest paper destroys this image. All observers know that the first to lose out in the face of excessive Chinese production power are poor countries which have eked themselves out a niche on the European textile market: Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mauritius, Jamaica, not to mention Mexico, Turkey and the special cases of Tunisia and Morocco. Without precautions, all of these suppliers will be swept out of the European market owing to the unlimited production capacities of China. In the case of Tunisia and Morocco the effects can already be seen because their exports are based on work agreements with European manufacturers, and everything is scheduled. 40% of industrial jobs in Morocco and one third of the country's total exports depend on it. There is not one word of this in Oxfam's briefing paper, which points out that Europe had ten years to prepare itself (which is true) and that “China and India's development should not be blocked by Italy and France because Europe has been negligent”. Oxfam pities the “millions of [Chinese] women employed in this sector”, but spares not one word (other than for India, because it too could be subject to certain export limitations) on the effects of the invasion of Chinese products on those who have no resources other than their rather modest share of the European market.
The only effective measure. That said, I do not believe too much in the inquiries which Peter Mandelson could open next week. While these inquiries are ongoing, China will probably be capable of taking several limiting measures and making some gestures in favour of other exporter countries. The important thing for them is to avoid the EU and the USA adopting autonomous restrictions. Even if they have to slightly slow down their complete conquest of the European and American markets, so what? The Chinese are never in too much of a hurry, they think it terms of centuries. The only effective medium-term measure would be for the EU to establish rigorous parallelism in all sectors between opening up the market and establishing fair conditions for competition: an effective and controlled end to counterfeiting and piracy, respect for workers' rights etc. And once again, this would only be a brief respite. With its millennium civilisation, its population's learning capacities, its glorious manufacturing traditions (it was there that Europeans first encountered porcelain and silk), China could very rapidly repeat what twenty years ago we in Europe called the “Japanese miracle”, but multiplied by fifteen, and in all areas: sophisticated steel, cars, audiovisual equipment, space, hi-tech industries… We need to prepare ourselves to negotiate in general terms, not just on trade, but also on currency, the environment, energy, satellites.
Only a united Europe… They seem to be very naïve, all these European industrialists who think that they will be selling their steel, their cars and their consumer goods to China for some time to come. Soon the Chinese will be able to do everything, and at lower costs. Textiles today is just the prelude. And only a united Europe will have the power and enough weight to negotiate on equal terms. (FR)