The “all or nothing” criterion is unreasonable. Is it still possible to save the current cycle of world trade negotiations, the Doha Round? Of course it is but on the condition of abandoning oversimplification of the language being used: success or failure, agreement or rupture. It is understandable that negotiators use this language with the goal of wrenching in extremis, the maximum of concessions to their advantage, but it does not correspond to reality and could have dramatic consequences. The criterion of “all or nothing” is unreasonable when what one party wants, the other finds unacceptable: no-one can claim that they can obtain everything they want. A balance needs to be found between reciprocal concessions, without trying to obtain what is politically and socially impossible. It has to be formally noted that: a) the USA will not stop subsidising their farming; b) emerging countries need to reasonably protect certain industries and services; c) Europe and Japan (and other countries who don't dare say it) have to maintain some restrictions on agricultural imports; d) developing countries cannot do without “preferences” for their exports.
Neither should it be forgotten that all concessions will automatically be extended to China, which could become the big winner in this operation. Its potential is boundless in all fields, industry, agriculture, services and investment, and those who are hoping today, to obtain new export markets, will definitively be able to open them up to the Chinese.
Highlighting excessive terms like failure, rupture, means sending out an off-message to the public throughout the world and provoking the collapse of results which in principle have already been acquired (which are not negligible). Result: frustration, rancour, mutual accusations and economic stagnation. A substantial package needs to be found but which does not compromise any vital interests, and in a way that prevents any of the “red lines”, that each side has outlined and which are broadly quite justified, are not crossed.
The world needs them. In speaking about justified red lines, I am not referring just to the refusal of Europe to sell off its agriculture, the question of which has often been discussed in this section. Why can't the US stop subsidising its farmers¸ because it has to safeguard the quality of life of its farmers as well as meet ecological demands and quality standards, as well as the needs for food in a world that is continuing to grow. The world needs US agriculture, just as it needs European farming. Europe and the US ensure most food aid in the world and the WFP (World Food Programme), UNICEF (UN children's body) and even the “former High Commissioner for human rights” have approached the WTO imploring it to leave food aid alone! There are certainly abuses that need eliminating: some food gifts ruin local production in poor countries, others are just an excuse for obtaining surpluses. But even if surpluses are sometimes useful: in Europe, they help supply the “restaraunts du coeur” (restaurants for the poor) set up under the Coluche initiative and it is the CAP (the Common Agricultural Policy) which funds the food for these restaurants. I consider that for these aspects, the official positions of the EU and the US are ridiculous. The Europeans are calling for the dismantlement of US subsidies, the US condition this with a demand for the EU to open up its borders even more, when, on this point, they should be allied together. Europe is currently strengthening rules protecting animals, whether this is in the domain of chicken rearing or transporting bovines and live goats: it's a compulsory guideline, but the farmers have to pay the costs for it and should be helped to do so. In farming, the principle of competitiveness in its purest form is inadmissible: Europe has already paid quite a pretty price for that, with “mad cow” (provoked by efforts to reduce the cost of rearing and feeding herbivores with animal flour) or with nitrate contamination of water (due to excessive pig rearing).
For mutual respect. We are faced with stakes to our civilisation that involve respect for animals and the safeguarding of nature and we should not cede on these points. But at the same time efforts by emerging countries need to be respected to protect their development and support the attempts of poor countries to achieve food autonomy and free themselves from the scourge of monoculture for export.
Let's stop the anathemas and proclamations and Doha can be rescued.
(F.R.)