|
|
Interview with Pascal Lamy, European Commissioner for Trade, Le Figaro newspaper (France), September 2003 Ten
days away from the opening of the ministerial conference in Cancún, the
European negotiator responds to critics. Pascal
Lamy: "the WTO is the UN of trade, but without a Security Council" Le
Figaro.- Since Doha, the political context has changed considerably. Are you not
scared that the war in Iraq will have an influence on the Cancún negotiations? Pascal
Lamy.- In themselves, the consequences of the war on Iraq won't have an
influence on the negotiations. What is more worrying is the current economic
situation. Good news has been scarce in the past eighteen months. That is why
success at Cancún would represent a success for the world economy. The
WTO does not seem to be able to influence public opinion, and demonstrations
rejecting it are getting larger and larger… You
are talking there about a rather franco-french opinion. The countries, and
particularly the developing countries, that are members do not regret joining
and others want to join. It is true that in some sectors of opinion, and
particularly in France, there is heavy criticism. The WTO is the symbol of a
globalisation which generates fear and anxiety, and I understand this to some
degree. Nevertheless, when I watch the evolution of the antiglobalist or
alterglobalist militants, I am pleased to see a change of tone. Before Seattle,
the goal was to sink the WTO. Today, it is solely to change the object of
negotiations. From this point of view, there is progress. We have moved from
attempts to negate the WTO towards a constructive attitude and the assumption of
responsibility. Why is the WTO necessary? Because, I am one of those people who
believe that the capitalist, market-economy system has advantages and
disadvantages. To fight the disadvantages, we need to bring in politics and
develop stronger international organisations. It
is true that within this confusing plethora of specialised international
institutions, the WTO is more visible than, for example, the World Health
Organisation or the FAO. We need common rules, discipline, and
international-level mechanisms to enforce their respect. This is true of social
affairs, agriculture and the environment. You should not blame the WTO for the
failures of other organisations. The landmark feature of European politics is to
have pushed for a stronger WTO and to have made the Americans accept a mechanism
for settling differences in 1995, which, given the United States´ fondness for
unilateralism, represents a real success. The WTO is the UN of trade, but
without a Security Council: all its members have equal rights. The
organisation is criticised because it is not satisfied with regulating trade but
actually moulds a political world… I
do not subscribe to that criticism. I will say again that we need strong
international organisations, and, alongside the WTO, a strong world environment
organisation or labour or health organisation. What's more, I will not let it be
said that the WTO is undemocratic. It is better than the IMF, where the richer
you are, the more powerful you are. The principle of the WTO is one state, one
vote. Two thirds of the WTO´s members are developing countries now, and three
quarters of them are represented in Geneva. Sometimes, we give subsidies to
these countries for judicial purposes, if there is a trial. If the WTO was more
a problem than a solution, all these countries would not be so attached to the
WTO. But
do they really have the choice? Of
course! We didn´t force them to come. They want to be part of the WTO, because
they are aware that they can defend themselves a lot easier within the framework
of the WTO than in bilateral negotiations. Moreover, these countries are
grouping together more and more, like in Mercosur, the Andean Community, or
certain African or Asian countries. From this point of view, Europe was a
forerunner. But
don't the regional developments that you describe threaten to lead to a
breakdown of multilateralism? That
question is a purely academic one. The policy of the European Union is simple.
The number one priority is multilateralism for political, economic and
ideological reasons. Then we add to these agreements with supplementary
agreements, which we have done for example with our neighbours in the
Mediterranean, or South American countries. In a practical sense, there is no
contradiction between regional bilateralism and multilateralism. The political
question is not that of knowing whether or not multilateral institutions are
needed. And we, as Europeans, are against the law of the jungle. To avoid
economic relations turning into power relations we need rules, negotiations and
compromise. Even if for the moment this isn't perfect. What´s
more, relations between the WTO and the ILO are still in checkmate… Absolutely,
and it's a shame. Especially because at Doha, the European Union went out of its
way for that dossier and ran into a brick wall constructed by the United States
and the developing countries. The former for reasons of liberal ideology, the
latter because they see it as a roundabout way of imposing protectionist norms
upon them. On the social question in particular, we others, the Europeans, might
scare people but we are holding course. What
do you imagine to be the outcome of China's entry into the WTO? China
has been a member for two years. It is too early to tell. Let's say that the
Chinese behave to protect Chinese interests. This can sometimes change the
nature of diplomatic relationships. They believe, and rightly so, that they have
paid a high price for membership. China has one foot in the North and one foot
in the South, and it's the second foot we are seeing more of at the moment. Europe
is already divided, particularly with regard to agricultural policy. Might not
enlargement stir up even more divisions? Europe's
cohesion has not been diminished. Nor have we ever posed the question of
European unity less. Of course, from time to time we have to compromise, but, as
always, you have to exchange concessions here and there to gain more influence.
With regard to the agriculture question, it's true that the French and the
English see things differently. But Council decisions are made by the qualified
majority, as the French know. Italy obviously cares about its olive oil, as
France does its grain, but at the end of the day, the European Union Council and
the European Parliament decide. That´s what Europe is all about. How
do you react to criticisms from your socialist allies, who reproach you for
drifting towards neo-liberalism? From
some of my socialist allies… I ask myself the same questions about controlling
globalisation, but the Union's policies correspond with my own beliefs. What's
more, in my current position, I am not at the service of either the Socialist
party or France, but of the general interest of the European Union. The fact
that a social democrat is targeted by the far left and the right is not
historically surprising. Wouldn't
developing countries suffer the most from failure? Obviously.
Of the twenty subjects on the agenda, a lot of them are of great importance to
these countries. If we make progress on services in the technology and
information sector, India will benefit; in the engineering sector, Egypt will
benefit. The agreement arrived at on Saturday regarding access to drugs is
resounding proof- it shows that we at the WTO also know how to put health before
business where necessary, to fight against Aids, malaria and tuberculosis. |