Safeguarding what is already acquired. Can the meeting between some 30 trade ministers to be held on Saturday in Davos bring the Doha Round out of deadlock? Of course it can - but only on one condition that seems far from fulfilled: - that the authorities in charge renounce their excessive demands, which are unacceptable to their partners, and take into consideration the extraordinary breakthroughs already made over the years of negotiation within the WTO. It is far more important to save what has already been achieved than to grab a few more concessions, especially when such concessions are advocated by powerful pressure groups that defend their own direct interests to the detriment of the essential interests of less advantaged countries, not to mention those of mankind and nature in general.
Never in the past had global trade talks (within the GATT at first and then the WTO) obtained as many positive results leading towards free trade and covering areas that had not even been tackled before, such as the protection of fishing resources. Given, however, that observers consider the nub of the agreement lies in the agricultural dossier, let's mention it. What is the most important thing for countries that suffer from food shortages, some of whom are threatened by the risk of famine: total opening of the farm markets of the EU, Japan, Switzerland (from which China, Brazil and a few other emerging countries would gain the most advantage), or maintaining their preferential access to the European market? The prospect of re-launching traditional farming, with a view to feeding their populations and gradually acquiring a certain degree of food autonomy again, or monocrops for exports which condemn them to permanent food dependency? What benefit would the least advantaged countries gain in the disappearance of European agriculture and the disappearance of part of American agriculture? The result would be a reduction in the amount of food available in the world, the radical reduction of food aid in the event of disasters, and the ecological deterioration of two continents: - Europe and North America. Without forgetting that the countries that call for fully liberalised farm trade refuse to grant additional concessions in areas where they remain on the defensive, such as access to their public markets and financial services.
Out of reach. The end result is that the aims obstinately pursued by some negotiators are at any rate out of reach. In the United States, the new programme to support domestic farming and the extension of the rapid negotiation procedure available to President Bush - the key to future developments - depend on Congress which now has a Democrat majority. Robert Wexler, Chairman of the Congress sub-committee for European affairs, said he did not believe that a Congress with Democrat majority would be willing to do more when it comes to agriculture. Should one deduce from this that the Democrat Party is more protectionist than the Republican Party? His response given in an interview with Le Monde on 16 January is: “Democrats are more concerned by workers' rights and the protection of the environment”. French writer Erik Orsenna, a former Goncourt prizewinner, went to the United States (as part of a fascinating inquiry on the effects of globalisation in the cotton sector), where he interviewed Charles Stenholm who had led the battle in Congress for 26 long years on the Farm Acts, which periodically determine domestic farm subsidies. Stenholm declared: “America loves its farming, on which all our values are based. When a country gives up its agriculture, it loses its soul”.
In the EU, the French government restated (see our bulletin No 9343), that the EU's negotiating position defined in October 2005 is a “red line” and uses up the Union's negotiating margins in the farm sector since - as Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin stressed - “no new element justifies a change in the European position”.
Safeguarding agricultural activity and rural areas goes beyond the commercial aspects. Those who call for this principle for themselves must, however, also acknowledge it for others. Europe must stop subsidising its farm exports and the Americans must give up aggressive export policies (including on genetically modified products). Total freedom of farm trade will only be possible when there are worldwide rules and standards covering product security, protection of the environment and animal welfare. Until the WTO has competence in such matters, caution is essential - in the interest of the world as a whole.
(F.R.)