A most welcome clarification. Recent developments in international trade negotiations under the WTO come as absolutely no surprise to me at all; in fact, I am a long way from seeing them as negative. They had the great merit of clarifying the reality of economic and commercial relations in the world, by going beyond the rigidly doctrinaire position of those who believe that free trade is the only valid criterion and the only desirable objective. It is true that a high degree of trade freedom is a positive thing, but under certain conditions. In agriculture, it is unreasonable to seek maximum competitiveness via full and free competition, because the safety of the products, the safeguarding of nature and respect for animal welfare must take priority over this obsession with conquering markets; what happened a few years ago with "mad cow" disease was heartbreaking (and caused by efforts to bring down costs by feeding herbivores with animal meal, which goes against the very laws of nature), and, with the risks entailed today by cruel and unnatural forms of raising chickens, it is clear that we have learned nothing from it. Furthermore, the emerging countries which want to adopt solid national economic structures have no intention of fully opening up their services markets (financial and others). That is their decision. In any case, free trade must, first and foremost, take second place to respect for intellectual property and the fight against counterfeiting (a plague which has devastating consequences for safety, health and nature). And "first and foremost" means that the legality and fairness of this field must precede any opening up of borders, rather than be sought a posteriori.
Enough hypocrisy towards the poor countries. Above and beyond the preceding general considerations, the current round of negotiations should include an ad hoc package of measures in favour of the poorest countries. If all the members of the WTO actually (rather than just in their Sunday speeches) subscribe to the objectives of helping these countries to take their place in world trade, all must agree to grant them preferential market access, getting rid of the hypocritical attitude of claiming that they can benefit from customs reductions applied erga omnes. All objective observers are aware that the opening up of borders in the agricultural sector is of benefit to the larger producing countries, wiping the ACP States and other LDC (least developed countries) on the UN's list out of the European market altogether.
A positive failure. I am not unaware that in the EU itself, various Member States do not subscribe to what I have just written, and that is also partly the case for Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson and, unsurprisingly, for major commercial, financial and even industrial interests, which are prepared to wipe out any trace of agricultural activity in Europe, as they are incapable of understanding that this would mean an end to the traditions, landscape, lifestyles and, ultimately, the very civilisation of Europe. However, I see as very positive the failure of the tactic of using agriculture as a currency to be traded in exchange for concessions elsewhere. Within the limit of my resources, I have already spoken out against this practice (see this column in bulletin 9053) and I hope that its failure will be for good. What I would like to stress today is the absurd and inept way in which whole swathes of the European press present any defence of agricultural activity in Europe as a purely French position. "Le Monde", which is more inspired and, more importantly, usually better informed, defended this hypothesis under the peremptory title "La France isolée" (France out on a limb), coming back a few days later to ask France to abandon its position of firmness. And why did "Libération", a newspaper which fancies itself progressive, makes so much of an article by Esther Duflo, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, entitled " OMC, honte de la France" (WTO, shame of France), which calmly announced that Europe must specialise in services and the developing countries in agriculture? Would her country do the same?
I could give many more examples. Happily, reality is entirely different. It is true that several governments of the EU are hiding behind France instead of taking a clear stance at the General Affairs Council, but in substance, their positions are very similar, as we can see from the debates of the Agriculture Council, and once the new German minister gets into the job, Germany will take a very similar line to France on the opening up of the European market. Meanwhile, at world level, within the WTO itself, the need to safeguard national agriculture is appreciated by many countries: Switzerland, Japan, Indonesia, Korea and, gradually, India, to say nothing of the United States. If they were not bound by the interests of certain multinationals and, occasionally, their own corrupt elites, the poor countries, Africa in particular, would understand that their interest lies in returning to growing subsistence crops rather than ruining themselves with cash crops for export. (F.R.)