Unanimity on surface but differences in application. Differences with regard to globalisation, protectionism (real or supposed) and Community preference are assuming greater importance in the EU. On the major principles, consensus exists on the surface: Europe rejects protectionism, it remains and will remain open to the world. The consensus, however, is not so strong once we move from theory into practice on issues involving trade policy or international negotiations.
During the most recent debate on the Doha Round, the Council approved, as it usually does, unanimous conclusions (reported on earlier in EUROPE 9618) calling for a global, ambitious and balanced agreement, covering all the different aspects in the Geneva negotiation, including services and geographic indications. Nothing is left out. The preliminary discussion between ministers confirmed that words sometimes don't cover the different positions. The Swedish minister, Ewa Bjorling, appealed, backed up by the United Kingdom, for a united front against protectionist member states, which are, in her opinion, increasing in number. In practice, the disagreement involved the balance between what emerging countries should provide in exchange for the opening up of the European agricultural market and what timetable should be decided on. Should there be a priority on a rapid conclusion to the round, before the US elections, or should negotiations be extended as long as is necessary for concluding a satisfactory agreement (EUROPE 9620)?
Previous divergences had been fully revealed by the Commission's controversial decision to amend European rules on trade defence; the author of the project, Peter Mandelson, in fact definitively discarded these ideas and this column provided a comprehensive report on the matter. Divergent approaches have also been witnessed in specific cases, such as anti-dumping for some Chinese products. Mandelson was in a minority at the Commission. Vice President Verheugen openly called for using trade defence instruments once any irregularities appeared, even for spare parts for European firms. The Commission also highlighted demands to have intellectual property rights respected.
Dual demand. José Manuel Barroso, strove to provide a balanced approach that safeguarded Commission unity. In a speech on the EU's external relations, he made a spirited defence of opening up to the world and he opposed any attempt at protectionism (to the extent of earning public praise from Mr Giles Chichester, leader of the British Conservatives at the European Parliament). However, at almost the same time, during his inauguration of an event on counterfeiting, he underlined the need for Europe to protect itself against this scourge, which had assumed terrifying proportions. He did not hesitate when it came to naming those responsible: China, as a production country; United Arab Emirates, as a transit country, as well as Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and certain South American and South-East Asian countries. Although explaining that the Commission would be stepping up its action and intervention to combat some of the indefensible and dangerous abuses, Mr Barroso recognised that China's attitude is changing, because it is becoming a victim and not just a protagonist, of the counterfeiting and infringements to intellectual property rights.
There was no contradiction between the two speeches of the Commission president: the EU is open to free trade and opposed to any attempt at protectionism, but at the same time it recognises that it has to whole-heartedly fight the increasing and sometimes dramatic effects of counterfeiting and other abuses. This is not only a question of fair competition and economic interest but increasingly one relating to health, safety, child protection and environmental protection.
The dual demand - opening up to the world and protection against abuses - is easy to make but much more difficult to translate into action and behaviour. When the competent authorities have to take decisions, the differences of approach are sometimes startling.
Many of the difficulties are down to what I describe as there being an insufficient parallel: opening up the borders and reducing customs is easily put into practice once this has been decided upon, but controls and measures against bogus products, dumping and other illegal behaviour are slow, very slow and are generally only partial. This disparity sometimes assumes disturbing dimensions. I'll come back to this tomorrow.
(F.R.)