On the basis of the analysis published yesterday in this column, I do not believe that the Mandelson document on the EU's trade strategy can have any operational follow-up within the planned time frame. It is more a demonstration of intentions rather than a programme; certain evolutions that he announces could even prove dangerous. The intention to take action so that third country markets further open up to Community exports and the indication of a tougher line from the EU being adopted when it comes to the demand for effective reciprocity are obviously positive and the unreserved support for European companies (UNICE), Small and Medium-sized Enterprises and chambers of commerce is logical. Nonetheless:
1. The appeal for concluding free trade zones with Mercosur, Asean, Russia, India, Gulf States, South Korea etc. is completely unrealistic. There are two possible hypotheses. The first is that the Commission effectively subjects the conclusion of negotiations with these countries to conditions indicated in its strategy. It wrote, “To have a positive effect, the Free Trade Agreements have to cover a vast area, including the liberalisation of all trade and going further than the disciplines of the WTO”. These agreements will cover, in particular, investment, public procurement, competition rules etc. Moreover, the most important third countries mentioned are refusing to commit themselves in these fields or reject the principle of reciprocity either at a multilateral level (in the Doha Round) or bilaterally. In several cases, the EU has for years been negotiating with them for years without any result. There is no chance at all that things will change.
The second hypothesis is that some of the demands inserted in the document are there as a matter of form, for the principle, when in fact Mandelson, with McCreevy's support, aims to open up the borders, all of them in Europe and as many as possible elsewhere, and allow dreams of world governance fall by the wayside: respect for environmental and social standards, protection of food self-sufficiency (Europe's and all the other countries able to reach this goal) and so on and so forth. The indication according to which the agreements sought imply “the freeing up of all trade” appears to herald the abandonment of the principle of agriculture being a specific sector linked to food self-sufficiency (already mentioned), protecting nature, the quality of food, respect for animals, territorial balance and traditions. It would therefore be up to Member States and the European Parliament to change tack and bury any unjustified and vague desires, as happened when Sir Leon Brittan launched (under the gaze of too many distracted or passive Commissioners) the project for a free trade zone with the USA.
2. Positive orientations and initiative in the interest of Europe and the world (there are many of them) should be pursued and negotiated with determination. Beyond general policy, in practical terms, something is shifting. In the follow-up to approval of the new strategy, the Commission diffused the list of the countries mainly responsible for counterfeiting and piracy: China, Russia, Mercosur countries, Asean countries (Thailand, Malaysia etc), Ukraine, Turkey, South Korea, Chile (EUROPE 9280). Several other documents have been announced: the first on the specific trade strategy with China, announced for 24 October; the second will outline initiatives that the Commissions aims to use for combating counterfeiting (in cooperation with the countries concerned if possible but without excluding the possibility of taking the matter up at the WTO); the third will launch a new strategy for market access with non-tariff barriers being stressed; the fourth will indicate initiatives aiming to open up public procurement to abroad; the fifth, will proceed to a re-examination of the trade defence instruments, while safeguarding their effectiveness (which will require a certain vigilance). We will just have to wait and see.
The intentions cited above are realistic and reveal a correct defence of European interests, in the understanding that Europe will have to respect international standards and the commitments to which it is a signatory, in the framework of fair reciprocity. Evaluating the new strategy could therefore turn out to be positive, on three conditions: a) the wild imaginings about free trade zones left, right and centre are there, above all, for the form (in the genre of the Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone sought for 2010); b) the Mandelson document will be followed by another taking into account the aspects that have been ignored here, namely environmental and social requirements and the specific interests of poor countries; c) that the initiatives announced involving counterfeiting, reciprocity etc. are effectively implemented.
(F.R.)