Strasbourg, 05/09/2006 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament expresses concern about the suspension of the Doha talks, which came about in July when the G-6 trading powers (EU, USA, Brazil, India, Australia and Japan) were unable to reach a compromise on arrangements for liberalisation of agriculture and industry. Its main concern is that this will cause an upsurge in the number of bilateral trade agreements. Most MEPs speaking on Tuesday morning during the plenary debate in the presence of the European WTO negotiator, Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, strongly regretted the stalled talks in Geneva which, they say, endangers the multilateral system and the stability of the global economy. French Socialist Harlem Désir said suspension of the talks means the failure of a promise, that of rebalancing global trade rules to the benefit of the developing countries. British Liberal Sajjad Karim was of the view that having regional agreements to the advantage of the strongest rather than a multilateral agreement is a threat for global equilibrium. The proliferation of such agreements must be stopped, he said. “If bilateralism wins the day, it will be to the detriment of the most vulnerable countries, which is unacceptable”, British Labour member David Martin put in. Only Panagiotis Beglitis, Greek Socialist, called on the Union “not to be outdone when it comes to the strategic challenge” represented by the development of bilateralism in trade. “Americans develop their bilateral relations and we should too”, he stressed. Although he pointed out that regional talks are underway with Mercosur, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Central America, and announced that Ukraine, India, South Korea and ASEAN are “potential partners” for future bilateral agreements, Mr Mandelson said that “multilateral negotiations remain a priority” for the Union.
The loss of what developing countries have achieved since the Doha Round was launched in 2001 was the other source of concern on the part of MEPs. “Suspension of the cycle will undermine progress made in some areas, especially the step forward for developing countries”, Georgios Papastamkos of Greece (EPP-ED) lamented. If the round of talks is definitively put to rest, “all will be lost, access without customs duties or quotas to the markets of the rich countries for products from the developing countries, the promised end to export subsidies, the reduction in farm aid that distorts trade, improved access to the agricultural market pledged by Europe, the trade aid package, special and differentiated treatment for developing countries and the agreement on access to medicinal products”, Mr Désir warned. “These commitments are in danger”, Maria Martens (EPP-ED) of the Netherlands stressed, while French Socialist Kader Arif called for the achievements of the round underway to be safeguarded.
This idea of safeguarding the main achievements of the round underway, and the development package in particular, had been defended by Peter Mandelson as soon as he returned from Geneva on 24 July. He was immediately reminded by WTO Director General Pascal Lamy that extraction of one or several elements of the overall talks would be tantamount to violation of the “single undertaking” principle, i.e. “nothing is decided until everything is decided”. Wishing to appear optimistic about resumption of the Doha talks in due course, Mr Mandelson did not evoke this idea on Tuesday. He said the suspension of the round should not be final and confirmed that contacts would be maintained with the other WTO negotiators, including his participation in Brazil this weekend at a ministerial meeting of G20 emergent countries as well as a meeting during September in the United States with his American counterpart, Susan Schwab. Mr Mandelson believes “it will be necessary to await the elections mid-term, in November in the United States, before envisaging a new beginning”. He went on to say that, from now on, it is necessary to find a good level of engagement, that they need actions and signs that restore confidence. He deplored the “lack of realistic ambition” on the part of some countries. Mr Mandelson said all parties spewed out their national constraints onto these talks, which is perhaps inevitable, but that this should not be a pretext for failure. He assured that, in agriculture, “positions can be reconciled”. “Our partners must show flexibility as the Union does when it comes to bringing customs duties down”, he stressed, calling on the United States to come to “an equivalent level in reducing domestic subsidies”.
Several MEPs denounced the American blockage. “Do you think that the Americans are really in favour of an agreement at the WTO? I personally do not think they are!” Helmut Markov (GUE) of Germany exclaimed. Belgian Liberal Johann Van Hecke for his part criticised the attitude of the Congress “which congratulated US negotiators for their firmness and intransigence”. “You can criticise Washington but other countries in Latin America are just as sceptical. And China refuses to shoulder its responsibilities”, German Social Democrat Erika Mann hammered out. Vittorio Agnoletto (GUE) was of the view that “it is the G6 that, by defending its agri-business tooth and nail, is responsible for the failed talks”. “According to the FAO, failure is due to the fact that we focused on free trade rather than on fair trade”, he added.
Plenary session of the European Parliament (continuation and end)