Not a lot of surface Doha Round action today (Monday), but Sophie Walker surveys the day's rumors: EU farm struggle casts doubt on WTO Hong Kong meet (Reuters.UK, Oct 24).
Two points from this:
First, officials are looking at alternatives to a Hong Kong ministerial meeting, in case things don't come together:
A U.S. trade official told Reuters that people involved in the negotiations were now looking at alternatives to the Hong Kong meeting, in case Brussels failed to come up with a new offer in time.
"It's certainly a possibility," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "If the EU is not at the table, the round is not going to be successful. So people are trying to look at other alternatives and other contingencies."...
...Trade sources in Washington said they thought it unlikely that the Hong Kong ministerial could be called off at this stage, although memories of bitter failure in Cancun in 2003 remain fresh in people's minds.
"It's too soon to cancel it. They can't call it off before they get all the ministers in a room together. They may be trying to put pressure on the EU," said one industry source.
A former U.S. negotiator added: "I don't think any of the WTO key members want to see another Cancun. I can see Hong Kong becoming downgraded from a big ministerial meeting to one where they agree to finalise a farm deal maybe a month later."
I first saw this idea, that the current deadlock mentioned in stories yesterday. Pascal Lamy, the WTO Director-General, was cited as the source. Remarks like this would certainly increase the pressure on France and the EU.
Second, a toning down of French rhetoric:
France, which recently accused Mandelson of exceeding his mandate, sounded a conciliatory note.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told reporters in Paris he was pleased that the European Commission had agreed to meet regularly with experts to discuss the talks. "Confidence has returned and we will watch and monitor the discussions in the coming days," he said.
President Jacques Chirac told Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, chairman of the Eurogroup of euro zone finance ministers, he was carefully watching the mandate of the European Commission in the talks.
A diplomatic source in Luxembourg told Reuters: "The idea is to take the heat out of things. We've laid out some red lines and the Commission, which is being watched now, should be aware of that."
Other stories indicate that a new E.U. proposal addressing the tariff issue is expected on Thursday; there is a teleconference of key countries scheduled for Friday.
Also a speech by E.U. trade commissioner Peter Mandelson to EU development ministers in Leeds today, on EU trade policy and development.
The text of his speech is here: Agricultural Market Access is the key to a Doha Development Round . Mandelson described the WTO's Hong Kong meeting of trade ministers, and by inference the Doha Round of trade negotiations, as "on a knife-edge."
I don't see anything in the speech that sheds light on what the EU may propose or accept in the next few days. Mandelson defends the EU record on trade and development, and discusses the potential benefits for developing countries in a successful outcome.
The following excerpts deal with the EU's stake in the negotiations, and with its need to address the agricultural tariff issue in order to achieve its own interests. I've put the key text addressing this nexus in bold.
Our approach is to maximise development gains in all key sectors of the negotiations, while at the same time pursuing Europe’s own legitimate interests in wanting to widen market access opportunities for our own providers of top quality goods and services, especially in the growing middle class markets of rapidly emerging countries.
I interpret my negotiating mandate in this broad sense: to be pro-jobs in Europe and to be pro-poor in the world. I see no inconsistency in these responsibilities. In Europe, we need to generate jobs in the knowledge economy sectors where we have a long term comparative advantage. At the same time, developing countries should, through trade, realise the opportunities offered by their own comparative advantages. That is the basis of free, and fair, trade.
Often, growing south-south trade will provide the chief export outlets for developing country exports. Otherwise, our markets will accommodate these new trade flows, involving necessary adjustment.
Agriculture is an inescapable part of this mix, including the reduction in agricultural tariffs. In Europe we cannot deny this reality. We made more than a paper commitment to greater market access in the Geneva Framework of July 2004. We signed up to a "substantial improvement" in market access. We have to make an offer on this basis that can be both prudent and real...
...if we want greater market access in advanced developing countries for our top quality manufactures and services, we have to give increased agricultural market access in return. In effect, we are trading in our presently agreed Common Agricultural Policy reforms for access to others’ markets. Our dramatic reduction in trade distorting subsidies under the current CAP reform will improve the competitiveness of developing countries, as will our conditional pledge to phase out export subsidies. But subsidies are one half of the issue. The other is the lowering of tariffs. If we want the US to reform its own domestic subsidy regime - and if we want the Brazilians to cut industrial tariffs and open up on services - we have to move on agricultural tariffs, there’s no other way...
...- in manufacturing tariffs, the potential is huge. 80% of developing countries’ exports are accounted for by manufactures, and south-south opening of markets can unlock major gains. Today 70% of all tariffs are paid by developing countries to other developing countries. This is why non-agricultural market access (NAMA) is both an EU offensive interest and a key development interest in which the big developing countries can and must help the small ones.
Comments