PHA-Exchange> Fw: Unfree trade

[Maria Hamlin Zuniga]

María Hamlin Zúniga
International People´s Health Council - IPHC
Apartado · 3267
Managua, Nicaragua

Telefax:  505-2662225
iphc at cablenet.com.ni
iphc at cisas.org.ni
----- Original Message -----
From: "Le Monde diplomatique" <english at monde-diplomatique.fr>
To: "Le Monde diplomatique" <english at monde-diplomatique.fr>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:09 PM
Subject: Unfree trade


>
>    Le Monde diplomatique
>
>    -----------------------------------------------------
>
>    May 2002
>
>                 'GMOS ARE HARMLESS, END OF STORY'
>
>                            Unfree trade
>      _______________________________________________________
>
>    The United States wants the European Union to lift its 1998
>        moratorium on the import of new genetically modified
>     organisms. This is one-sided free trading - as at the same
>     time the US is adopting protectionist measures to help its
>      steel industry. The EC, far from resisting, is doing its
>                 undemocratic best to help the US.
>
>                                               by SUSAN GEORGE *
>      _______________________________________________________
>
>      The United States declaration of unlimited war on
>      terrorism was not the only outcome of the 11 September
>      attacks. Appealing to patriotism also enabled President
>      Bush to squeeze a bill through the House of
>      Representatives, by only 216 votes to 215, giving him
>      trade promotion (formerly called fast track) authority.
>      If the Senate follows suit, the executive will be
>      entitled to negotiate international trade agreements
>      without interference from Congress, which will have no
>      power of amendment. Congress will have to accept or
>      reject the texts as they stand, and outright rejection is
>      unlikely. Without such authority, it is argued, US
>      negotiators lack credibility, as their partners will fear
>      negotiated agreements may be vitiated by Congressional
>      amendments.
>
>      With Congress still to take its final decision, the
>      ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation
>      (WTO), held last November in Doha, Qatar, was another
>      slap in the face for the opponents of neo-liberal
>      globalisation and a success for the business lobby. It
>      launched a new round of comprehensive negotiations,
>      called the Doha Development Round, to take over from the
>      Millennium Round that failed in Seattle in December 1999.
>      Of the areas it covered, the environment is probably the
>      most sensitive in the immediate future.
>
>      Mention of the environment in the final declaration of
>      the Doha conference was mainly due to pressure from the
>      European Union, backed by Japan, Norway and Switzerland.
>      India was strongly opposed to it, followed by most of the
>      developing countries and the US. But the cost of securing
>      a mention of the environment was very high. This was
>      because of the inclusion of an important rider making the
>      results of future negotiations on compatibility between
>      WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements
>      binding only on countries that have already signed MEAs
>      which is reason enough for all countries to follow the
>      example of the US and not sign, or renege. It was also
>      because, totally contradicting the stated aims, there is
>      a risk of the WTO gaining the upper hand over MEAs. And
>      that is just what big businesses, especially biotech
>      firms, hope for.
>
>      Pascal Lamy, the European commissioner for trade, shares
>      this perspective. Before the signing of the Doha
>      declaration, he wrote to his friend Robert Zoellick, the
>      US trade representative: "You have informed me of your
>      government's deep concern that Europe might use the
>      negotiations decided on in Doha to justify illegitimate
>      barriers to trade, particularly trade in biotechnological
>      products and application of the commercial clauses of
>      present or future multilateral agreements on biosecurity.
>      As the European Commission's negotiator, I am writing to
>      assure you that will not be the case. I can also assure
>      you I shall not use the negotiations to change the
>      balance of rights and obligations within the WTO with
>      regard to the precautionary principle" (1).
>
>      The last sentence speaks volumes. It means that there is
>      no question of the EU calling for the precautionary
>      principle to be strengthened, no question of the EU
>      demanding that the burden of proof in biosecurity be
>      reversed. So any country or group of countries not
>      wishing to import a given product (like the EU and
>      hormone-treated beef) will continue to be required to
>      prove that the product is dangerous. And the exporter
>      will still be exempt from any obligation to prove it is
>      harmless. This was no doubt the return demanded by
>      Washington for its agreement to mention the environment
>      in the declaration.
>
>      The EU's capitulation on this issue may soon impact
>      genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Lamy's
>      consideration for the US is not entirely reciprocated.
>      Barely a month after Doha, Zoellick announced that the
>      Bush administration was considering filing a complaint
>      about Europe's alleged delays in authorising imports of
>      new GMOs, and its directives about traceability and
>      labelling.
>
>      The EU has effectively maintained a moratorium on the
>      import of new GMOs since 1998. In fact, the measures on
>      traceability and labelling put to the EU council and the
>      European parliament last July, not yet implemented, are
>      the commission's chosen method of opening the door to new
>      imports. By enabling Europe's consumers to choose between
>      products that do or do not contain GMOs, the EU is
>      attempting to make its policy acceptable. But the US
>      remains adamant: it is not prepared to countenance a
>      moratorium or rules on traceability and labelling. GMOs
>      are harmless. End of story (2).
>
>      At present France is the mainstay of the anti-GMO
>      blocking minority in the EU environment council. It is
>      supported by Denmark (but that country could change its
>      approach with the new rightwing government), Greece,
>      Austria, Italy and Luxembourg. This minority is shaky,
>      and against a powerful opponent. On 6 November, just
>      before the Doha conference, 64 of the most influential
>      American agricultural groups and organisations (including
>      Cargill, Monsanto, the Farm Bureau Federation and the
>      Grocery Manufacturers of America), representing billions
>      of dollars in exports, wrote to the secretaries of
>      commerce and agriculture, and to Ambassador Zoellick.
>      Denouncing the precautionary principle and the
>      "illegitimate measures and other technical barriers to
>      trade" applied by the EU, they demanded the government no
>      longer allow the WTO agreements on sanitary and
>      phytosanitary measures and on technical barriers to trade
>      to be flouted.
>
>                      US patience wearing out
>
>      The American agricultural producers' lobby, backed in
>      Washington by the government machinery, claims the EU
>      moratorium has cost $300m in lost profits on maize alone.
>      It is pushing harder because of the alluring prospect of
>      an American monopoly in all GMO agricultural products.
>      Discouraged by protest movements, the big European
>      biotech firms have abandoned agriculture for
>      pharmaceuticals (3). Speaking in January to a British
>      farming conference in Oxford, US agricultural secretary
>      Ann Veneman claimed that US exports were always based on
>      sound science: "Unfortunately in Europe there is now a
>      competing concept called the precautionary principle,
>      which seems to rest on the premise of the mere existence
>      of theoretical risk. [It] could easily block some of the
>      most promising new agricultural products, especially
>      those based on biotechnology." Her under-secretary of
>      state, Alan Larson, appointed economic adviser to Colin
>      Powell, went further. A week later in Brussels, he warned
>      that America's "patience was wearing out".
>
>      The pressure to take the GMO issue to the WTO is
>      mounting. Invoking the earlier judgment against France
>      for its refusal to import British beef during the mad-cow
>      crisis, Larson has proposed the commission refer France
>      and the other countries in the blocking minority to the
>      Court of Justice in Luxembourg: "We have all our options
>      open. This is an issue that presidents, premiers and
>      chancellors must understand is very important to us.
>      Sometimes, if there's behaviour that's both inappropriate
>      and illegal, you've got to confront it. That's the only
>      way you're going to change it" (4).
>
>      In January Zoellick sent 14 pages of instructions to US
>      ambassadors throughout the world setting out the
>      arguments to be used in the event of shilly-shallying by
>      WTO member governments, especially the Fifteen. The EU's
>      proposed measures on the traceability and labelling of
>      GMOs, he claims, "are not workable or enforceable, would
>      be very expensive to implement, and would not achieve the
>      stated objectives. [They would] unduly impair trade [and
>      apply] to products that have already been approved for
>      use" approved by the American authorities, that is. "How
>      will the EU ensure that the authorisation is based on
>      science and not on politics" (5)? This nightmare scenario
>      which is how the US seems to view democratic
>      decision-making can be avoided if the US plays its cards
>      right. And the European Commission is there to help it to
>      do so.
>
>      On a visit to Washington last October, David Byrne,
>      commissioner for health and consumer protection,
>      anticipated the moratorium would be lifted at the
>      European Council in Barcelona in March. Lamy, on a later
>      trip to the US capital, was more realistic. Swift action
>      on the approval of new GMOs was impossible in the current
>      political climate, he said. The situation would be more
>      propitious "later this year". After the French and German
>      elections?
>
>      Tony Van der Haegen, minister-counsellor for agriculture,
>      fisheries and consumer affairs in the European
>      Commission's delegation to the US, seems also to see
>      himself as counsellor to the Americans. He is certainly
>      prepared to let them know what he thinks of his own
>      employer. Van der Haegen has described the EU procedure
>      for taking decisions on the import of new GMOs as an
>      untenable position. This top EU official added that if
>      the US were to file a complaint with the WTO, we would
>      lose. But it is not enough for Van der Haegen to point
>      out the weaknesses in the position he is supposed to
>      defend: he has also explained that the Americans would be
>      ill-advised to file a complaint on traceability and
>      labelling with the WTO, because, if it lost, "it would
>      further undermine confidence in the WTO among the US
>      Congress and the public, and if it won, the EU would
>      never be able to comply for political reasons. The
>      ensuing dispute would be worse than the beef hormone
>      case"(6).
>
>      The Bush administration is fine-tuning its GMO strategy
>      on the strength of this well-informed advice, bearing in
>      mind elections in France and Germany. It does not want a
>      politically explosive WTO case to become an election
>      issue that could fuel the campaigns of anti-biotech
>      forces within the green parties (7). But it is determined
>      to get its own way in the end
>        ____________________________________________________
>
>      * Vice-President of Attac France. Author of Remettre
>      l'OMC à sa place, Mille et Une Nuits, Paris, 2001, and,
>      with Martin Wolf, Pour ou contre la mondialisation
>      libérale, Grasset, Paris, 2002
>
>      (1) Letter from Lamy to Zoellick, Doha, 14 November 2001,
>      quoted in Inside U.S. Trade, Arlington, vol 19, no 4, 23
>      November 2001.
>
>      (2) The products targeted by these proposals include
>      chicory, maize, soya, tomatoes, soya oil, corn oil and
>      rapeseed oil, corn syrups and starches, additives, and
>      animal feed, but not products derived from animals fed on
>      GMOs.
>
>      (3) See Le Monde, 20-21 January 2002.
>
>      (4) Quoted in Chris Rugaber, "EU leaders summit in March
>      may decide on lifting of GMO moratorium, officials say",
>      International Trade Reporter, Washington, vol 19, no 2,
>      10 January 2002.
>
>      (5) Zoellick's instructions to US ambassadors can be
>      found on the Inside U.S. Trade website under the headline
>      "US criticizes EU biotech rules at WTO", document source
>      USTR, document dated January 2002.
>
>      (6) Quoted in Chris Rugaber, "US to analyze EU biotech
>      rules, plans WTO submission", International Environment
>      Reporter, Washington, vol 24, no 25, 5 December 2001.
>
>      (7) See "US pushes EU to restart biotech approvals,
>      loosen regulations", Inside U.S. Trade, vol 19, no 51, 21
>      December 2001.
>
>
>
>                                     Translated by Barry Smerin
>
>
>        ____________________________________________________
>
>        ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 1997-2002 Le Monde diplomatique
>
>    <http://MondeDiplo.com/2002/05/12trade>