Pathetic attempts. Every day that passes, or near enough, brings with it confirmation that free trade cannot be considered in itself as a panacea which will cure all the economic ills of the world, if the conditions of fair competition are not met. Have you taken a look at the results of the recent Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata (Argentina)? The USA's project to create the biggest free trade area in the world between the two Americas, stretching from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, is not even mentioned in the final press release. Launched 11 years ago by Bill Clinton, it was supported at the time by almost all the heads of State, with the objective of achieving it…in 2005. George Bush's efforts to relaunch it, or at least to ensure its survival, came up against radical opposition (Venezuela) and polite disinterest (Brazil, Argentina) and the final press release falls back on the same old banal formulae: consolidating democracy, creating employment, combating poverty. The attempts by a section of the American press to give the impression that the American FTA project is alive and kicking have been almost pathetic.
A suggestion for Brazil. Certainly, in the context of WTO negotiations, the Brazilian authorities (and others) maintain the pressure on Europe in favour of global free trade… in agriculture. At the same time, they remain restrictive when it comes to opening up the borders in the services and industry sectors. What could be more normal and legitimate? Brazil is simply defending its interests. All we want is simply for the EU authorities to do the same for European interests. In my recent comments on the prospects for a joint energy policy, I alluded to the enormous potential of Brazil in the production of fuels from agricultural sources (see this column in the Bulletin 9064). So here is a simple suggestion: why doesn't Europe offer the Brazilians, either in WTO or as part of the relaunch of EU/Mercosur negotiations, some firm commitments on the purchase of Brazilian bio fuels, whatever happens with the price of oil? This would be advantageous for both parties: Brazil could concretise, or even expand, its projects for the production of energy crops and the EU could reduce its dependency on oil. The two parties could thus soften the reciprocal demands which they consider unacceptable with regard to agricultural food products on the one hand and services and industrial products on the other.
Thus each would be respecting, as they should, the other's vital interests. Europe cannot open its borders in agriculture because it has to safeguard its vital agricultural activities and keep its promises to ACP countries and others on the UN list of less favoured countries, and Brazil wants to protect certain activities which it deems strategic. Let us take the example of the banking and financial sector, which is so sensitive that even within the EU we can see protectionist reflexes between Member States. The issue is not a simple one. I remember the controversies which accompanied the issue in the negotiations of the Euro-Mediterranean agreements. If we liberalise the banking sector, some of the North African governments said, our already fragile banks will be will be eaten from within. If you want to attract European investors, replied the European negotiators, you will have to guarantee them efficient financial services. I think that each country should evaluate its own national circumstances and make its choices in the light of its political convictions.
The rumble of thunder. In general terms, I have held the same conviction for some time, and I have expressed it on several occasions: it is not a matter of abandoning the EU/Mercosur agreement or the “Doha round” at the WTO, but rather of toning down certain ambitions. The objective of free trade should be replaced by a liberalising movement which takes account of everyone's interests. The recent slowdown in the Geneva negotiations goes in this direction (see this column in the bulletin 9066), and it was accompanied last week by a real rumble of thunder: the presentation by two European Commissioners of the results of the anti-counterfeiting operation carried out by Member State customs authorities and coordinated by OLAF (the European Anti-Fraud Office). What Laszlo Kovacs and Siim Kallas revealed to the press is astonishing: the summary published in our bulletin 9064 must have bowled over quite a number of people. It is not so much the figures relating to the counterfeit articles seized which are so striking, but the considerations which accompany the figures. I will come back to this point tomorrow.
(F.R.)