Conditions to be met. Alongside the agriculture dossier (which I dealt with in some detail last week in this column), the second essential question the EU has to answer, before it gets the results of the overall reflection on its future, relates to preparations for its position ahead of the next round of multilateral negotiations at the WTO. Fortunately, this is a difficult dossier for public opinion to get its head round, because WTO terminology is so complex and abstruse; and yet, the stance it will prepare will determine Europe's approach in its relationship with the ACP States and with third countries in general, it will be decisive in whether various Union activities stand or fall and has a direct link with the safeguarding of agricultural activity, which our natural environment, biodiversity, landscapes and traditions all depend upon.
Need I reiterate that Europe's general orientation is a liberal one? It always has been and must remain so, by conviction (freedom of trade is at the heart of economic and social progress and development in the world) and by interest alike, as the EU is the largest exporter and importer of goods and services. Support for recent progress in the liberalisation of trade, therefore, is a given. The problem lies with the indispensable conditions. On this point, opinions on the EU are far from uniform. Certain Member States and certain political or economic forces consider the opening up of European borders as an absolute end in itself, with neither reservations nor conditions. Gordon Brown, president and exercise of the Economics/Finance Council, explained to a committee of the European Parliament that globalisation has made a division of the "founding fathers", favourable to an integration dynamic which may lead to a "European economic identity" null and void, explaining: "in the first phase of European construction, it was possible to concentrate on internal rules and on the protection of our market, but there is now no room for protection and we must adapt". At the same time, however, there is a growing tendency, mostly, but not exclusively, in France. This is a tendency towards reassessing the "Community preference": freedom of trade, okay, but without forgetting the difference between intra-Community trade (which is subject to uniform rules, under the watchful eye of the Commission and of the Court of Justice), and extra-Community trade.
Three criteria. In my view, the middle ground is the safest. The Community preference (a logical notion in itself, because no third country is seriously thinking of getting rid of all of its external tariffs or any other protection measures, and it would be absurd for Europe to do so) should not seek to re-establish barriers which have been taken down or to give up the idea of reducing the ones which continue to exist, but world trade must respond to reinforced disciplines. I would like to quote three criteria:
- the side-slipping between the binding nature of WTO norms and the absence of equally binding social and environmental norms has become excessive. The benefit of "erga omnes" trade liberation under the WTO must be conditional upon respect for the fundamental rules of the ILO on such things as bans on child labour and the recognition of the union rights. A similar principle should be applied in the environmental field, even though there is not yet an international competent body to lay down rules;
- any "hierarchy of norms" within the WTO provisions must be rejected. The ban on quantitative restrictions is a rule like any other, just like those banning the use of counterfeiting, or the systematic infringement of intellectual property provisions. We cannot pick and choose: it is all or nothing;
- the agricultural sector should be governed by specific trade rules taking account of the essential requirements of humanity and the fight against famine in the world, the safety and quality of products, the requirements of human health and respect for animals.
The EU's guidelines on discussions already under way and its definition of its negotiation position must be based on these criteria, alongside that of granting specific advantages to the least favoured countries, avoiding the two diametrically opposed excesses of returning to a protectionist conception of the Community preference, or of giving up on the whole idea of a European economic identity.
(F.R.)