A new tone. The last preparatory stage for the conference in Hong Kong was encouraging and useful, despite the confirmation of differences of opinion and uncertainty subsisting about the result of the "Doha Round". Never before has the EU been so frank and open in its affirmation of its concept of trade negotiations on an international scale. Boiling it down to customs duty and other obstacles to trade will not suffice: it could, on the contrary, prove harmful for the poorest countries. I am one of those who have been saying it for a long time; but these ideas now feature in Commission documents. Concepts which were neglected or rejected yesterday are now a part of Europe's stance. At the same time, the EU is finally reacting to accusations of protectionism and the false (and harmful) myth of "Fortress Europe". In these fields, Europe has shed its complexes, it is no longer on the defensive.
For proof, I turn to two documents. The first is the letter from José Manuel Barroso to the President of the European Council, Tony Blair, and to all the Heads of State and Government belonging to it. The President of the Commission affirmed his pride as a European, stressing that the EU is the market which is the most open to poor countries, and has given the world an example in its "Everything but Arms" initiative; it is the main donor of assistance to trade for these countries; support for European agriculture is no longer linked to production (for all except a very small part) and, therefore, can cause no trade distortions; the EU has battled for an agreement, at the WTO, on facilitated access for poor countries to medicines with which to fight pandemics, and over derogations to the rules on intellectual property in favour of the same countries; it has taken initiatives to resolve the problems of African cotton; it has introduced the concept of special and privileged treatment in favour of the poorest countries to the WTO, as well as the principle of negotiating the defence of biodiversity, protection for traditional knowledge and the simplification of rules of origin, under the same framework. All of this is stated in black and white in Mr Barroso's letter. This means that the EU has opened up the way for the Doha Round actually to be a "development round", in favour of the least-favoured countries.
Firm statements. The second document is a series of notes, prefaced by Mr Mandelson, describing the EU's position within the WTO, and laying out a number of fundamental principles which, to the best of my knowledge, had never before been stated with such vigour and force. This is a dossier which should give a lot of food for thought. I would like to quote a few of its significant ideas:
- the liberalisation of trade cannot, on its own, bring about positive results; it must be accompanied by frameworks and rules, or it may start to cause economic and social disturbances alike. The EU is therefore insisting that negotiations within the framework of the WTO focus both on the liberalisation of trade and on the definition of rules creating fair conditions for competition;
- The WTO is not, and must not become, the only body responsible for implementing better global governance, but it must take account of results accumulated by other organisations which concern themselves with social, health care and environmental issues. What has been achieved by the latter must be safeguarded and coherence between various domains ensured;
- The WTO itself must play a specific role for better global governance, by extending its scope of action and by adapting and reinforcing its rules, in order to manage the relationship between trade and other areas, such as the environment and development, by evening out competition conditions. This would make globalisation into something positive for all, the rich countries and the least-favoured countries alike. The European Commission announced that the EU is inclined to share its experience on market integration, joint rules and solidarity mechanisms with other countries, or groups of countries;
- the Commission refers to a few specific principles which must accompany the liberalisation of trade, or take preference over it: a) the principle of precaution, authorising trade measures to protect the health and welfare of the citizens, even before scientific evidence of any possible harm has been given; b) safeguarding cultural diversity; in the field of audiovisuals, trade must be organised in such a way as to protect this diversity; c) a dialogue favouring the comprehension of the relationship between trade and social development and covering not only fundamental standards for employment, but also the ratio between commercial openings, job creation and the fight against poverty.
Next week, I would like to return on the implications of these principles. (F.R.)