The conclusion of the Doha Round on the foundations to be used by the negotiators is becoming harder and harder, if not impossible. The ministerial meeting planned for this month has been postponed to June, or even July, which is the last-chance month: if it takes any longer, the American elections will be too close at hand to conclude anything at all. There is nothing surprising about this scenario, in my view: the EU, Japan and Switzerland, and a few other countries besides, cannot think about any additional concessions on agriculture, and the emerging countries (especially India, South Africa and Argentina, but let us not forget Brazil and China) are refusing to open up their industrial and services market any more.
Making do with what has been achieved so far. I have long been saying that the only way to reach an agreement is to stick with what has been achieved up to this point and give up on any additional ambitions, all round. The vicissitudes of the agricultural markets and fears of food crises have already reinforced this conviction of mine, because within the EU, the rejection of any new major concessions on the agriculture plank has become stronger. Whatever anyone says, France is by no means isolated on this subject: other Member States support it, particularly Ireland, and even Germany is more reluctant than it was. The concept of self-sufficiency in food matters has re-emerged in the language of negotiations; it is no longer considered as shameful to raise the principle of Community preferences, and the inclusion of the protection of geographical indications among the subjects to be discussed has raised its head. For the details, I refer you to our bulletin 9652, in which Emmanuel Hagry summed up the state of play with the work at Geneva. It must also be borne in mind that the main candidates for the Presidency of the United States have announced more restrictive trade policies than under the current situation; and over there, decisions are taken very quickly!
Businesses imposing conditions. In the EU, it is true, pressure from the industrial and commercial circles for the eventual opening-up of the market remains strong, but I have the impression that even they feel that the time for "unbridled globalisation" has been and gone: increasingly, they are insisting on conditions and on a certain balance in conditions. Ernest-Antoine Seillière, president of BusinessEurope, spoke along these lines to the press, specifying the conditions required for the results of the Round to be acceptable: a) countries such as China, India and Brazil must effectively open up their markets to motor vehicles, chemical products, machines and textiles. Why should China be allowed 14 years to reduce its tariffs, when Europe has to get rid of its altogether within five? b) sectorial agreements should be considered in certain sectors: pharmaceutical products, paper and others; c) the liberalisation of services, including bank services and transport, should be part of the overall agreement; d) non-tariff obstacles (taxes, export restrictions, and the customs formalities, etc) should be taken into consideration; e) dumping and subsidies should be tackled in an effective way. Conclusion: the support of business for the Doha Round is subject to a fair liberalisation of trade between the largest trading nations.
For their part, the European agricultural organisations (with the involvement of those of Japan) take the view that if the EU definitively subscribes to the concessions on the table, Europe will become dependent on imports of meat (beef, pork, sheep and poultry), butter, sugar, eggs and fruit and vegetables. They may be exaggerating, but this is worth taking a closer look at.
Free trade with no rules is no longer in fashion. In its recent communication on the new EU strategy for the Customs union (see our bulletin 9635), the European Commission asked for the approval of the Member States to concepts such as: the protection of the safety of the European citizens; hunting out illegal goods; detection of fraud and abuse; encouraging legitimate trade by improving controls systems and granting facilities to operators which abide by the rules; the reinforcement of controls at the most appropriate points of the commercial chain. And we must not forget the pressure brought by the union, scientific, sanitary and other authorities, which call for additional market opening to be subordinate to a range of conditions which are now inevitable, concerning social protection, fair work conditions, respect for intellectual property and product safety.
Free trade without rules has lost its allure. The EU is an example of an open but regulated space, with supernatural authorities. The problem is transferring this model (in a simplified form, obviously) to international level.
(F.R)