What is the most reasonable and beneficial formula for relations between the EU and Latin America? In principle, it is simple: a network of association and cooperation agreements that reinforce or establish close ties, adapted to the different countries or groups of countries and which takes into account their different characteristics and different degrees of development. And for the most delicate chapter, that of trade, the application of WTO rules bolstered by the relaunch of the Doha Round, together with preferences and other advantages in favour of the least developed countries.
Unblocking the Doha round is possible, if…So I am told: but the Doha Round is blocked. Well, it would be relatively easy to unblock it if unreasonable and extravagant demands were renounced and if we placed more importance on the interests of the least developed countries and humanity in general than on the interests of big business and multinationals. Because we have what is essential within our reach, and all we need to is gather it up. WTO Director, Pascal Lamy has in this respect summed up what had already been chalked up in negotiations: “achievements supersede by far the result of previous rounds. The reduction of agricultural subsidies that undermine trade could be twice that agreed during the Uruguay Round. It is possible to put an end to export subsidies that have been so damaging to African, Asian and Latin American farmers. Reductions in customs duties on products, both industrial and agricultural could have a greater effect than in the past. The major world economies are prepared to create new outlets for foreign suppliers in numerous sectors: telecommunications, banks etc. Fishing subsidies that harm the environment and which have contributed to the exhaustion of world fish stocks, could for the first time, be significantly reduced. New rules could be implemented to rationalise customs procedures and reduce bureaucracy and corruption”. This is what is at stake, the consolidation of the multilateral trade system and its reconfiguration in favour of developing countries”.
It is true that Pascal Lamy is calling on the USA, Europe, Japan, India, China and Brazil to make additional efforts to relaunch and conclude negotiations. Something that goes in this direction is still undoubtedly possible. But is it reasonable to launch a relentless fight to, in extremis, obtain concessions that are practically out of reach with regard to internal subsidies for farmers in the USA, further openings up of the EU and Japan's agricultural markets and advances in the Brazilian public procurement and financial markets? If we demand too much, we'll get nothing at all, when in fact there's a rich harvest. Those who are prepared to destroy negotiations in order to snatch a few more advantages are defending, in my opinion, specific interests which have nothing to do with the general interest of their country and even less so with that of poor countries and humanity as a whole.
A vanishing dogma. We should also consider that the dogma of free trade with a minimum of rules and conditions as representing a universal panacea, is actually disappearing. Quite a few years ago I expressed doubts about this dogma at the ULB (Free University of Brussels) for the first time and was met with stony silence. A few days ago, a researcher at the very same ULB wrote, “The European Union should provide itself with a coherent trade policy. While favouring internal competition, it must prevent access to its territory of products and services created in conditions that are banned within the Union. The EU must create an internal free trade zone while protecting itself against unfair external competition” (Olivier Hubert Le Soir¸ 29 November). I am well aware that there are still many supporters of the opposing view but the demand for a greater balance between getting rid of the borders and a certain level of common rules is gaining ground. Certain striking cases (China!) are leaving their traces and less developed countries are increasingly aware of their real interests.
It is true that the European Commission is currently requesting a mandate from the Council to negotiate free trade agreements with South Korea, India, ASEAN and also Central America and the Andes. These are, in fact, “new generation” agreements and subject to many conditions. At the same time, Peter Mandelson, appears increasingly aware what fair and reasonably regulated trade actually means. In any case, we all know that the Commission has sometimes gone down the wrong way in this area in the past and some safeguards never do any harm.
(F.R.)