< http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/speeches_articles/spla69_en.htm > EU Trade policy after 11 September 2001
Comments by Pascal Lamy, EU Trade Commissioner, to the European Parliament's Committee for Industry, Trade, Research and Energy, 17 September 2001 Let me begin by expressing my deeply felt sadness and anger at the death of five thousand victims in these inexcusable and horrible attacks. Terrorism must be condemned without reserve, and those responsible for this act of barbarism and their accomplices must be punished. We also express solidarity with the American people, and the EU will provide all the assistance which the United States needs to ensure justice is done. But for each one of us, after the shock and the emotion comes the moment for consideration, for seriousness, without which responsibility cannot be exercised with the necessary determination. Without doubt it is still too early to size up fully the likely extent of change in the world and in Europe after 11 September. Without doubt, our economic and trade relations are only part of a complex picture with geopolitical, diplomatic and - from now on - military dimensions (and others in the Commission and the EU are in charge of these aspects). Without doubt, this is not the time for a purely economic discussion. But the trade relations of the EU with the rest of the world reflect both the same values which support our external policy, and our common interests. And trade policy has a greater Community dimension than some of the others. That is why I believe it is useful to set out some thoughts to stimulate debate, to enable us to progress with an understanding of what this tragedy means in our area of policy. So we need to step back from the usual subjects which we tackle in our regular exchanges (but to which we can of course come back in discussion). The two key points (at the risk of over-simplicity), it seems to me, are - firstly - that the massive attacks which struck the Americans last week have flung us into a riskier world, as was probably the objective of the terrorists. Secondly, in the domain of trade policy, our response must consist of reducing these risks, using the tools available to us. That there are economic risks is obvious: new worries, new fears are being added, weighing ever more heavily on already depressed world economic prospects. Moreover we will have to factor in the consequences for trade of the unavoidable tightening of controls on movement of people, goods and capital. Next, the political risks. This is obvious for modern democracies, of which one has just paid an appalling price in terms of innocent victims. But also for many countries who have started down the road of democracy, reform and development (even if they have done so unevenly), whether in the Arab world near to us or indeed more generally in those countries where the Islamic faith is predominant. The real objective of the terrorists is to de-stabilise and to divide the governments of these countries in order to provoke a split between the two worlds that they are bent on opposing. All of these risks were present before 11 September. We have often discussed them over the course of two years, in the context of globalisation and the necessity to manage the ill-effects and to make use of the opportunities. But the risks today are stronger and more visible, and as is even clearer today, insecurity is global, it spares no people, no country, no region. Our world is in fact just as global in adversity. On 11 September, the political, economic and social security of our world - and indeed therefore our very own - has been damaged. And it is there that we have to find responses, beyond military action against terrorism, however much or however long it takes. Faced with this obvious determination to destabilise, we have to reply with stability and with an injection of security, whether political and economic, whether social and cultural. Is it not clear to us, we Europeans, that this is the right response to the carnage ? And that this response can only be a collective one ? If these are the key points, what contribution can the EU trade policy make ? What impact is there on the objectives of trade policy ? On the priorities ? On the timetable ? Should we reconsider our objectives ? I do not believe so. The process of rules-based trade liberalisation, and of the integration of developing countries, the concern to ensure environmental and social sustainability, are no less necessary today than yesterday. These are issues of stability and security, both between countries and between generations. The negotiation and peaceful resolution of commercial conflicts has made Europe a laboratory for international governance, where each partner participates in decisions. We should remember, a year ago, our debates which we called "Everything But Arms" to open our markets completely to exports from least developed countries. Together, we were right to take this approach. Should we revise our priorities ? We should certainly not reconsider the priority we attach to the multilateral dimension. This has always been our way of doing things, but recently it has become a shared priority throughout the world, including for the US. Consider the fact that the long process of China's entry into the WTO was concluded one week after 11 September: a positive sign. Our US partners have pushed all the way to the finishing line with an enthusiasm which deserves recognition here, because it says much about the state of US morale. Faced with the menace of destabilisation, the multilateral network is solid and, if further work is necessary, only to strengthen it further: from a globalisation based solely on economic forces to a globalisation based on rules. Beyond this, what about our bilateral relations with developing countries ? I see no other response other than to re-emphasize our readiness and our openness. In the first place because what was fair and necessary before 11 September is fair and necessary today. Inequality in the world was there before, and is still there afterwards. In the second place, because the greater the military and security pressures - and they will be great - the greater the risk that resentment will be strong - and it will be - and the more we will have to push for generous market opening of our economies to developing countries. As for geographic priorities, I ask myself if the recent efforts of the EU to give even more real substance to our relations with those countries sharing the Mediterranean region with us should not be re-emphasized in order to face up to the risks of destabilisation that I mentioned a few moments ago. And perhaps it is in this sense that we should consider all the negotiations which we pursue in this region: managed trade liberalisation, married to political, economic and social modernisation, and the process of tying countries into the multilateral process via WTO membership. All of these elements are key to further stability and security. Of course, our partners have responsibilities themselves to fulfill their part of the contract. Finally, do we need to re-think our timetable ? In terms of bilateral relations, perhaps we do have to do so, if the EU institutions share my feeling on the urgency of the situation that I have just set out. And on the multilateral side ? The seven weeks until the Doha Ministerial are waymarked with preparatory meetings: mini Ministerial meeting in Mexico, the meetings in Hanoi the week after between Europeans and Asians, Nairobi in a fortnight between Europeans and Africans, a further mini Ministerial meeting in Singapore after that, and the APEC meetings in Shanghai. My response on this point is clear: we have to work to maintain the November multilateral meeting. Not because of obstinacy, not because nothing has changed, but for political reasons: because the dialogue and the negotiation between states or regional bodies sharing the benefit of common legal rules is of vital importance. This feeling is also that of the Director General of the WTO to whom I have spoken in the last few days, and it is also that of my American counterpart who has spoken publicly along these lines last Friday. There remains, of course, the need to gather together the positions of many other WTO members who will take part in this collective decision. I plan to work on this in the days to come. To conclude, ladies and gentlemen of the European Parliament, let me take up a line used by Chancellor H Schmidt several weeks ago: "Europe", he said, "will become a community tasked with managing the emergencies of this era". Let us manage those with consequences in our area of responsibility which the day of 11 September has placed in front of us. Because trade is one of the tools of development, it is one of the weapons of peace. And it must find its role, make its contribution to a much larger collective enterprise, the outline of which is only just starting to take shape.
