Peter Mandelson is not alone. Although the new trade strategy announced by Peter Mandelson essentially aims at preparing the EU for the possible failure of the Doha Round multilateral talks, from the tactical point of view such a strategy is understandable. Although its aim is to revise the Union's traditional policy regarding relations with third countries, one should see things clearly and move forward with caution. Several declarations from the European Trade Commissioner give the impression that the turning point he recommends is essentially geared to: a) bilateral agreements with large groups in Asia and Latin America; b) the creation of free trade areas with these groups and with certain individual countries (Korea, then Russia and I don't know how many others); and c) fresh impetus for free trade.
These guidelines generally go beyond trade policy and involve EU external relations as a whole. They must therefore be placed in this context. Were they defined in liaison with Benita Ferrero-Waldner, responsible for external relations? Or with Louis Michel, responsible for relations with developing countries, or Mariann Fischer Boel, in charge of agriculture policy? Or maybe with the Commissioners for industry, Günther Verheugen, or for energy, Andris Piebalgs? The track the Commissioner takes on trade corresponds to that of a number of Member States, in particular Great Britain and several northern countries. Nonetheless, not so long ago, Peter Mandelson showed he was aware of the need to take into account elements other than just the opening up of borders and to make free trade subject to rules and general conditions - something I had stressed in this column. Could he now be back-pedalling?
The true priorities. I shall never manage to convince myself that the key to a better global balance lies in unlimited intensification of trade. Today, the top priorities are to fight against hunger in the world, strike a better balance in sharing out well-being, and safeguard nature and biodiversity. This implies: - returning to subsistence farming in poor countries in the aim of making them gradually able to nourish their populations; - respecting the fundamental natural balances which involves an effective fight against global warming; - and protecting the existing range of animal and plant species. Even within the trade sector, it is not the obsessive opening up of all the borders that is a priority but the fight against scourges such as the destruction of ecosystems and forests, which are the life-lungs of the earth, as well as against the ravages of counterfeiting which, for example in the case of medicines, can cause wholesale slaughter: - 200,000 dead in Africa due to flawed medicines against malaria! Such medicines are produced by criminal networks, mainly in China and Russia it would seem, and flood into Africa where “people get into debt for something that will in time kill their children”.
It is moreover an acquired fact that the erga omnes opening up of international agricultural markets eliminates the products of poor countries from the European market (the first examples of this, for bananas and sugar, are already obvious). Also, in Europe, Japan and elsewhere, this entails the collapse of nature, of traditional ways of life and of territorial balance. When I read that the European Parliament has adopted the report by Nikolaos Sifunakis on protecting cultural heritage in rural areas by quite rightly fighting against desertification, the rural exodus and job losses (see our bulletin No.9262), I can't help but wonder how the Parliament can insist on aid and subsidies, forgetting to cite protection and the rekindling of agricultural activity in rural areas, the only effective policy for saving territorial balance in our countries and the dignity of our populations (which reject an assisted future). Oh, so many crimes committed in the name of demagogy!
Synthesis is up to politics. Global trade and multinationals definitely have the right to make their views felt and to defend their interests, but it is up to those in politics to make a synthesis of what they are saying on behalf of the general interest. Were Mr Mandelson's options the subject of an indepth debate within the Commission? Will the Commission ensure that the next bilateral talks with Mercosur and other entities and countries do not bring back free trade without rules or precautions, so wisely rejected in the Doha Round negotiations?
(F.R.)