Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-165)
WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH 2003
COMMISSIONER PASCAL
LAMY
160. What is being done to deal with the coffee
crisis?
(Commissioner Lamy) That is outside WTO. It is a big
problem and I do not think that there is any simple solution to
it. It is a problem which has been with us for 40 years. It has
ups and downs—quality control, disruption of surpluses,
fair trade, some sort of organisation or insurance, and doing
better things on the futures market for a number of operators.
I think that it is a very complex thing with a totally multidimensional
solution. I do not think that there is any quick fix to that.
Hugh Bayley
161. It seems to me that if you do not come
to some headline agreements at Cancun, the developing world will
begin to feel like it felt at Seattle. I think that it is important
to deliver some milepost agreements. What worries me about this
round is that, if you achieve your goals, there is quite a lot
in it for developing countries but I do not really see much in
it for the EU or other OECD countries. Will there be enough to
make us make the concessions? I agree that it is not a zero-sum
game. You want to look for things where you get benefit on both
sides, but on CAP reform, on reaching agreement with the pharmaceutical
industry—
(Commissioner Lamy) That is a US problem. It is not
a European problem any more.
162. I accept that, but do you understand the
point I am making? What can we expect to see in terms of concrete
agreement at Cancu«n and what will be there to make the EU
want to push the agenda forward for the benefit of developing
countries?
(Commissioner Lamy) On the market access side, we
will have to pay for agriculture; we can win a lot on industry
and services, because we have a low level of protection and there
is a higher level of protection elsewhere. Proportionally reducing
the level of protection elsewhere is all good for us, and this
is true in many areas. On the rules side, we also have a lot to
gain. Let me take one rule-related area linked with agriculture,
geographical indications—which is a big plus for us. It
is the sort of quality versus quantity trade-off which we want
to make on agriculture. If, for instance, we get good news on
the register for wines and spirits or the extension of geographical
indications, that is hugely important for us—and if we have
a system with antidumping which is extremely disciplined, terribly
exporter-nice, and with a lot of controls and guarantees that
it is not used as a protectionist measure. If the overall level
of disciplines in WTO is raised upwards, that is great for us
because we will have fewer problems with India, Egypt or China,
with their antidumping procedures which they are using in a very
state-run way. So there are many areas like this, including on
the rules side, where we will gain. If we get to something which
is meaningful for everybody—and that is the only way it
will succeed—I do not think that I will have a big problem
selling it at home.
Mr Colman
163. Do you see the World Trade Organization
under threat? We have talked about the northern NGOs seeing very
little value in it, and that is the message they give to the South.
With Iraq, we have America potentially feeling less happy being
involved in multilateral negotiations. Do you see a situation
where we need, in a sense, to rescue and give legitimacy to the
WTO being an organisation which can be pro-poor and pro-developing
countries?
(Commissioner Lamy) There is obviously an image problem
but, if you look at NGOs—taking a British-based NGO like
Oxfam, for instance—Oxfam has switched from a vision five
years ago that you had to shrink WTO, to their position today
where they say, "We really need something like that. The
rules are not that good, but we really need something like that".
So the understanding by a number of civil society organisations—and
I spend quite a lot of time with them—is that it is better
to have trade governance than a trade jungle. This old philosophy—that,
if you have rich and poor, strong and weak, it is freedom that
is the problem and legislation that is liberating—in fact
is a reality in trade. I think that a number of them are starting
to realise that. We have to explain. Where on this planet can
Peru have the European Union do what it wants it to do? In WTO
there is the dispute settlement system, and Peru can win a case
against the European Union on the denomination of sardines. There
are not many organisations on this planet where they can do that.
It is much more rules-based and equity-based than most of the
other organisations. On the US theme, I personally do not think
that the US will "unplug" the WTO system. I recognise
that, if you look at the number of organisations they have "unplugged"
in recent years, there are many, and that multilateralism may
not be the important motto of the present American administration.
However, I do not think that they are interested in doing that
with the WTO. I know that in Congress—and I spend quite
a lot of time with them, explaining that they had better comply
with the panels they have lost—
164. We are there next week.
(Commissioner Lamy) They have a compliance problem,
of course, because the average Congressman or woman does not very
much like to be obliged to vote on legislation because somebody
in Geneva has decided that that is to be the case—especially
if the European Union is the winner. They do not like that. On
the whole, however, I think they understand—as well as with
their $500 billion trade deficit—that they had better have
a system where they can use the comparative advantages of their
economy. My own guess—I may be wrong, but I hope that I
am right—is that they will not "unplug", destabilise,
and it might remain for some time the place on this planet
where 140 countries, UN-like, discuss trade.
Chairman
165. Commissioner, thank you very much for giving
us your time, particularly at the end of the day. It is very much
appreciated.
(Commissioner Lamy) I am afraid that it is not exactly
the end of the day! Thank you for coming, and I will read your
findings with great care, as I usually do, because it is always
very good stuff for us.
|
