The "conclusions" of the Council of the EU on trade policy (see this column yesterday) are not the only symptom of an increased awareness of the requirements of this policy. Other elements confirm the fact that the EU no longer considers a massive increase in the volume of trade as an essential of objective per se. It could have been once upon a time, when means of transport were fewer, further between and less efficient, when production capacities were far less, when technology was less widespread, when counterfeiting possibilities were less available to organised crime and, above all, when counterfeit products were less dangerous than they are today. For the time being, the "how" is just as important as the "how much".
Safeguarding the achievements of the Doha Round, a priority requirement. The first positive thing to note refers to the resumption of the Doha Round. I have, on many occasions, written that the results already reaped from the negotiations are highly significant and that it would be madness to render them null and void, in the aim of gaining further concessions, some of which are not justified and are not even possible. Claiming too much would mean heading for failure. For this reason, it gave me great pleasure, earlier this week, to hear Peter Mandelson defending pretty much the same concept, and far better than I could have done it (see our bulletin 9306). In answer to the American Trade Representative Susan Schwab, who feels that what has been achieved by the Doha Round is insufficient, the European Commission has stated that what is on the table now is far more than everything obtained by all the previous WTO Rounds. From now on, the United States will no longer be able to accept further spectacular reductions in their subsidies to agricultural production (were American agriculture to disappear, this would be a disaster for the whole world), Brazil and other emerging countries cannot fully liberate certain branches of their economy (public procurement, financial services, etc), the EU cannot open its agricultural market up any further without condemning its natural environment and territorial balance to death (and the same goes for Japan and various other countries). Mr Mandelson is quite right to state that if we allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers, then the possibilities which exist now would be lost for years to come. Whichever way you look at it, the environmental requirements need to be stepped up; and it is precisely along these lines that Europe is pushing.
A cooperative Chinese minister. My second example relates to the positive clarification of commercial relations with China. When he visited the country recently, Peter Mandelson first of all spoke to students from the University of Beijing, explaining that their country has become the second-largest exporter to the European market (just behind the United States), but that this trade does not take place under fair conditions: tariff and non-tariff barriers, piracy and counterfeiting ("a real plague to European industry"), etc. If Euro-Chinese dialogue is to become a constructive global dialogue, then this needs to change, and China must also start taking its responsibility for the environment. The list of European complaints (which I went into at some length in this column in bulletins 9300 and 9301) was clear for all to see in Mr Mandelson's talks with the Chinese authority; what was new was the reaction of the other party. The Chinese authorities usually respond by accusing the EU of protectionism and by making threats. This time, trade Minister Mr Bo Xilai kept his habitual aggressive tone (see our bulletin 9302), but Deputy Prime Minister Ms Wu Yi was far more balanced and encouraging, opening the door to "negotiations and consultations" on all controversial subjects. Negotiations for a new trade and cooperation agreement will start in January next year; the objective of these will not be free trade (an unthinkable aim), but improving trade conditions. The summary published in our bulletin 9305 speaks volumes. Something really seems to have changed.
At the same time, Dominique de Villepin announced that his country is to propose a "European tax on CO2 from imported products", not hiding the fact that he was largely targeting China, which is in the process of becoming "the world's largest manufacturer under lamentable ecological conditions" (it has far outstripped the EU in CO2 emissions). The French Prime Minister added: "China is overtaking Europe in the field of high technology, and it must also start making a few ecological efforts".
Even the poor countries… I will end by quoting the initiative of the European Parliament aiming to withdraw the special commercial preferences of the EU (SPG+) for the poorest countries unless they improve human rights and working conditions (see our bulletin 9307). Mainly targeted are the countries of the South and Central America, various Asian countries and a few countries of the former USSR.
(F.R.)