The tactics and substance. At the risk of readers tiring of my repetition, I will reaffirm my conviction that there will be no positive conclusions to the Doha Round unless negotiators tone down their ambitions. The results that have in principle been agreed are important; Pascal Lamy has underlined several times that they go further than those in previous rounds. It is understandable that each negotiator denounces the shortcomings and absences compared to the original objectives but the problem is that their demands are contradictory. Each group of industrialised, emerging or developing countries demands what the other is refusing.
We shouldn't allow ourselves to be taken in by any tactical manoeuvring. To avoid being accused of being responsible for any failure, each camp is shoving responsibility onto the shoulders of its neighbour and increasing its demands, even though it knows it won't be totally successful. The EU and US (as well as Japan and Switzerland etc) will not give up their farming and the US Congress has even increased subsidies; Brazil and India believe that protecting their industry and services is indispensable; China is keeping quiet in the knowledge that it will be the biggest winner and automatically benefit from all the results, but the poor countries (particularly in Africa) made the mistake of requesting the opening up of the world's agricultural markets, although they will practically be swept away by competition from the emerging giants.
Oxfam's conversion. Pressure from interest groups (industry and trade etc) is understandable and sometimes justifiable but political leaders have the duty of taking into account the general interest of humanity and the environment. How can we still believe that reducing agricultural production in the US and Europe is appropriate? How can we denounce the trend of US producers developing biofuels if we simultaneously condemn support for food production? How can we not understand that food self-sufficiency represents, in the world as it currently stands, an obligation for all big countries or groups of countries and that it must indeed become an objective for Africa?
In connection with the latter, I have some good news: Oxfam appears to be beginning to understand to what extent its position on agricultural trade was disastrous to poor countries and the fight against shortages and famine. Thierry Kersteloot, one of the Oxfam-Solidarity leaders declared: “In agriculture, free trade is no solution for ensuring the right to food. Countries must support local production and protect regional markets”. If these words, finally, reflect the doctrine of this powerful organisation, I promise that this column will cease criticising its positions and I welcome it into the ranks of the friends of farmers from poor countries.
Industrial trade rules. The situation is different for industry because, in principle, all progress in the freeing up of trade is positive for producers and consumers. But on one condition: that fair trade be with regard for product quality, respect for intellectual property rights, the absence of dumping and subsidies and so forth - demands that require rules and control systems. All of this is mainly on the Doha Round sidelines. Last week, the EU negotiator, Peter Mandelson, reaffirmed that it was not necessary to put a figure on the number of custom duty reductions or designate sectors for their application. Progress is still needed on non-tariff barriers, geographical indications and trade facilitation, as well as in services and environmental obligations (EUROPE 9689). So what?
Eight major industrial and employers' organisations (EU, US, Japan, Canada, Australia and even China, see our newsletter yesterday) have reaffirmed that current negotiations are unsatisfactory and imbalanced and non-tariff barriers also have to be negotiated. It is obvious that such objectives cannot be achieved in just a few weeks either symbolically, in principle, or through vague commitments for the future. All bilateral EU negotiations on trade are also expected to contain an avalanche of provisions on modalities and conditions for trade. In fact, they represent the essential part of the discussions whatever the draft free trade agreement with Korea is or whatever trade relations exist with the US or Russia. We are aware of the tough line Nicolas Sarkozy took when he ruled out any additional concessions on European agriculture.
The conclusion is simple: unless ambition is toned down (it is not necessary to openly declare this, we can even declare a victory if it helps) the Doha Round runs the risk of failure. (F.R./transl.rh)