Positive aspects of two summer events. Let's forget about the shock-horror headlines, the exaggeration and spectacular scare-mongering: there was in fact something quite positive about two economic events that shook up the European summer this August. I am referring to the alert regarding products made in China and the turbulence on the financial markets and stock exchanges. To a large extent they both had the salutary effect of alerting the political class and public about the reality of two concepts that are, in principle, positive but which can become dangerous and sometimes a very real affliction if they transform themselves into absolute and untouchable truths, namely: a) free movement of capital and the creation of an unbridled world financial market (or one with very few controls) that leads to the economy losing its balance in places where financial manipulation has become more important than producing goods or free trade that is considered as an absolute value in itself and its neglect of the rules to which it should be subject.
An understandable reaction. Today I will be formulating a number of considerations about the second dossier. This column often tackles this issue and the most recent developments vividly confirm the commentaries with which some loyal readers are familiar. It was inevitable that the unlimited expansion and use of Chinese labour and its know-how by Western firms obsessed with reducing costs and maximising profits would sooner or later lead to the problems encountered by the Mattel company with its “Barbie” dolls and other world famous toys. Children's health was at stake (led based paints!) and the emotion expressed by the public is understandable. During the same period the question of toxic clothes arose. Even more serious dangers had been denounced previously in respect of another aspect of trade with China, that of pirated goods (medicine, toothpaste, spare parts for planes etc.) which give pirated goods a dangerous, indeed, criminal character. The Mattel affair helped create a reaction of rejection among Western consumers to “Made in China” goods that went beyond what is reasonable and justified. But how can we fail to understand this emotive response in Europe and the US?
We have to recognise the fact that the Peking authorities have taken vigorous action for some time now against these scourges and are cooperating with Community authorities (EUROPE 9475, at the end of July) but they are also encountering problems in controlling the situation throughout their huge country, despite their “vigorous” methods, for want of a better word (a senior official was shot and the person responsible for using led-based paint committed suicide). The Chinese authorities are perhaps beginning to realise that the real friends of its admirable thousands of years old culture are those who have since the outset been openly denouncing the abuses and piracy, and certainly not the unscrupulous traffickers and importers of pirated goods who have sometimes amassed staggering profits or those who brandish the sacred principle of freedom of trade and call for tolerance while hampering controls and any rigorous approach to the problem. Peter Mandelson was right to underline that what has happened has nothing to do with protectionism and is not a question about trade but rather a matter concerning the health of Europeans, particularly children.
And now pay attention to agricultural trade. The following stage involves fair international and transparent trade in agricultural produce where China is far from being the only country implicated. EU efforts to define and apply its agricultural production to stringent standards are useless if these standards are not applied in the same way to imported goods as well. Rules on product quality and safety, consumer protection, protecting the environment and animal welfare have to be the same for products from other continents. In this domain, competition over prices and costs cannot represent the only criterion. Every country or group of countries has a right to a reasonable degree of food autonomy and balanced development of its land. Everything would suggest that the world is going to need a broad range of farming to meet the future food requirements of humanity. These aspects should be taken into consideration in the final phase of the Doha Round and, with specific regard to the EU, in the next round of discussions on the future of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Product safety and quality, as well as consumer safety must be guaranteed.
(F.R.)