A number of subjects dealt with recently in this column - for example, the invitation to tone down the ambitions of the Doha Round, or the impression that links between the EU and Africa have evolved in a radical manner - come within what now seems generally acknowledged, a more mature and critical view of globalisation. Globalisation is a reality, but there is an increasing demand for it to contain some discipline.
From the European point of view, two essential elements must not be ignored:
1. The way the EU operates, and its history, give daily confirmation that free trade needs rules and discipline. This was known from the outset, but practice has reinforced what the economic theory had foreseen. There cannot be free trade without compliance of norms agreed and adopted by all participants; even the existence of supranational bodies and institutions appears increasingly inescapable In the past, Europe had gone in for an exaggerated number of sometimes over-detailed technical paradigms but this failing of its early youth has now been overcome. At the same time, however, it has developed, and will continue to develop, requirements regarding product safety, environmental protection, animal welfare, and the protection of intellectual property. In these areas, as well as in others, the EU should become increasingly demanding - rather than drop its guard - not only for itself but also towards third countries.
2. True protectionism is national protectionism which, in Europe, has of course disappeared thanks to Community rules and institutions. The EU has continued and will continue to enlarge, and it negotiates free trade agreements or similar arrangements with countries that accept the essential rules. I am not referring here to the indecisive or fanciful free trade areas (FTAs) with groups that keep up the barriers between them (whether this be the so-called Euro-Mediterranean FTA or the EU-Mercosur FTA), but rather to the emerging agreements with South Korea or those contemplated with Canada, without forgetting the customs Union that exists with Turkey and the arrangements sought with other individual Mediterranean countries, such as Morocco and Tunisia.
The case of the United States is a good illustration. Trade relations between the EU and the United States are by far the most important in the world, and both parties are permanently engaged in a process of mutual consultation and fine-tuning. When there are differences, as is currently the case over the conservation of poultry and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), there is discussion, negotiation and reference to international rules. Even between countries open to free trade with a comparable degree of development, rules are essential. In the case of infringement, the trade of products concerned is blocked. The same principle should be valid for all trade relations.
Reflection moves on. In fact, no European country intends to be protectionist, but the need for uniform rules is being felt more and more. Analysis of such aspects is moving forward, and must not be considered as opposition to free trade. The inordinate amount of polemic based on intellectual hatred (of the Attac kind) or quite simply violence is, thankfully, for the most part now over. Public opinion has condemned extremism in the best way possible - by eliminating such extremism through voting during elections nearly everywhere in the member states, thus denying it all real legitimacy. At the same time, reflection is moving forward. Let me give two recent examples. The first is the essay by Hervé de Carmoy, analysed by Michel Theys in European Library last week, in annex to our bulletin No 9656, which introduces the difference between globality (awareness of the fact that we are all on board the same fragile spaceship) and globalisation defined as an immaterial entity that cannot be located and that has neither form nor legal entity but which, however, governs humanity, an empire without an emperor. The author uses the European edifice as a model of what one should try to do.
The second text is the book by Giulio Tremonti, “Fear and Hope”, that I cite not only as a commercial success (which is most unusual for this kind of work) but also because the author is the new Italian minister for the economy and finance, with the influence that this post gives him within the Eurogroup and the Ecofin Council. He also innovates with terminology using the word mercatismo to indicate absolute market dominance as king of the economy, a trap that could, in his view, destroy the sweet and gentle Europe. A minister is necessarily more moderate and open to compromise than a polemicist. But the radical conception of globalisation is, in this case also, well and truly brought into question. (F.R.)