Applying the agreed principles. Europe's "enlarged and refined" concept of trade policy (see the previous edition of this column) contains no new ideas as such, but it is the fruit of a reflection which lasted years. Union organisations and environmental NGOs have been fighting for years to ensure that social and ecological considerations are taken into account in trade. The requirements of development for the poorest countries have been affirmed by the WTO itself. Ttoday's text is to celebrate this, after the letter sent by José Manuel Barroso to the members of the European Council and the detailed stance about the European position with Peter Mandelson's presentation. In these documents, concepts which have developed over a long period of time, concerning the requirement for trade liberalisation to go hand in hand with rules, are developed with brilliance. I have only ever given a partial view of these documents, which are numerous and highly detailed. Amongst other things, they state that whilst the EU accepts that rules about investments, competition and public procurement are not to be negotiated within the framework of the Doha Round, it will "make sure that these are dealt with as they should be in the ordinary programme of the WTO". Furthermore, the EU states that currently, "the legal link between WTO rules and environmental measures is unclear"; therefore it calls "for clarification of what the members of the WTO can and cannot do"; and, to this end, calls for reinforced cooperation between the WTO and the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), and for this latter organisation to have observer status for some of the work carried out by the WTO. It is also worth noting that specific documents deal with dispute settlement procedures, investment, unfair practices, intellectual property rights, services, and so on.
Now that the principles have been clearly defined, it remains to apply them. How, and to what extent, can this be done within the context of the Doha Round? What influence can they have on how the conference in Hong Kong unfolds? They are likely to help to shore up Europe's positions in favour of the poorest countries and to defend essential elements of its civilisation (those to do with maintaining agricultural activity, for example). But many obstacles remain. In his press conference last Thursday, Peter Mandelson pulled no punches when stating that Europe would not be making any further agricultural offers in Hong Kong, but, at the same time, he spoke of his willingness (if the other rich countries and the emerging countries present serious offers concerning industry and services) to flesh out and develop the current offer, to make it more tempting; which justifies a certain amount of confusion. But a few days earlier, speaking to the members of the European Parliament and commenting about the expectations of Brazil and other countries concerning the opening-up of the European agricultural market, he said: "at times it seems as though only an agreement which would spell the end of a considerable proportion of European agriculture, and the end of our preferential agreements with the ACP countries, will please certain of our partners". Mr Mandelson should, therefore, reject the idea that agriculture can be a currency for Europe to obtain concessions on industrial products and services; concessions on the part of others in these sectors should represent a quid pro quo for the agricultural offers already put on the table by the EU, without adding anything to them which would wipe the African countries out of the European market and toll the death knoll for virtually all agricultural activity in Europe.
An increasingly distant United Kingdom? But whilst Mr Mandelson seems to have taken most of it on board, the attitude of his country of origin is most disconcerting. Gordon Brown's document on "his" reform of the agricultural policy of the EU is surreal: removal of all aid and other support, free imports from the entire world with customs duties aligned on the lowest levels of duty in the industrial sector. It can be seen from this that the distance separating the United Kingdom from the rest of the continent is considerably more than a few kilometres of the English Channel: it's an abyss. For its part, Oxfam, a British non-governmental organisation which has done some sterling work in favour of fair trade, continues to defend the interests of big business against those of the poorest countries and European civilisation. Oxfam has lent all of its strength to the fight to demolish the EU's preferences in favour of bananas and sugar from Africa, and there is something quite pathetic about its attempts to give the impression that it is doing this to defend the interests of the poor countries. Nonetheless, despite Gordon Brown, despite certain section of the British press and despite Oxfam, Europe's concept of world trade negotiations has become consolidated; we have seen this happen. In the same time, the global Unionist organisation ICFTU (International Confederation of Free Trade Unions) is fighting tooth and nail against any form of free trade which would neglect the social aspects thereof, and it has turned out in Hong Kong in force. Let us hope... (F.R.)