Reader, beware: the debate underway within the EU on the possibility of revising the anti-dumping rules is highly political in nature. The information published by our bulletin on these rules must be examined carefully, because beneath their technical appearance, they raise a few fundamental questions: to what extent should Europe protect its industrial activity (and its agricultural activity, come to that) against the malpractices of elsewhere? And on the subject, how should it define “Community interest”?
The draft established by Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson (which has yet to be adopted by the College) contains an extended interpretation of the notion of Community interest, to take account not only of the interests of producers and consumers of the EU (as is already the case), but also of the interests of European companies which have delocalised their production to a third country, and those of importers and the distribution sector. One thing must be clear: anti-dumping legislation must not include any obstacles to the imports of goods produced by European companies in a third country, or to the activities of traders and distributors. It will intervene only when imported products do not observe the rules of fair trade, or enjoy competition-distorting State aid, or involve any other illegal practices. In these cases, anti-dumping duty can be brought in if proof of these practices is forthcoming, taking account of Community interest, the scope of which Mr Mandelson hopes to extend, to take account of developments resulting from globalisation.
Split between the member states, conflicts of interest among employers. This business has given rise to a split between the member states, and to another one in the world of business. The differences of opinion between member states are entirely to be expected, there is always a country or group of countries opposing a Commission proposal or various of its component parts, and seeking compromise is a logical and normal practice of Community life. But this time, there is something different about this split: according to the information available, the countries which represent the backbone of industrial production of the Union (Germany, France and Italy) lead the group of opponents to Mr Mandelson's draft, and the countries which are in favour of it are those whose primary activities are represented by trade, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and the Netherlands. This gives you the impression that the very principle of the European economy in which the production of goods represents the essential nature is at stake.
A split in the ranks of the employer organisations is far rarer. Generally speaking, BusinessEurope (which brings together all categories of companies), the Chambers of Commerce and other similar bodies will seek to put forward a united front. In this case, however, the opposition between the various interests is too marked to be hidden and, at first sight, the employer organisations have not even tried to define a common position. Positions have been taken, seminars or other events have been organised, but these are broadly contradictory: depending on who has organised them, they are in favour of the revision, or against it.
Change of tactics? The official debate at the Council has not got under way yet, because the Commission's proposal does not yet exist: its approval, which was earmarked for 20 November, has been postponed until 5 December. Three days ago, our bulletin (9537) reported that Mr Mandelson is believed to have decided against putting a proposal to the Council on the major reform of anti-dumping legislation which he had planned (and which is to be decided on by the Council by qualified majority) and is planning to limit the planned revision to be put to the ministers to improvements and simplifications, which will not be subject to substantial reservations. But the Commission would adopt, in parallel and under its own responsibility, “guidelines” to be applied in the management of anti-dumping procedures (as this management comes under its responsibility, working together with a committee made up of representatives of the member states). These guidelines would cover the clarity of procedures and criteria to be applied in assessing the facts and factors to be taken into account in deciding whether (or not) to bring in trade defence measures: anti-dumping duty, anti-subsidy duty, safeguard measures.
The Commission took a lot of care over the preparation of this dossier, which it started at the end of 2005: preliminary studies carried out by external consultants, a “strategy document” (October 2006); a Green Paper (December 2006); an extremely broad public consultation (which was concluded in spring 2007). Early next week, I would like to present an overview of the theories at issue
(F.R.)