Mandelson veut 'lisboniser' la politique commerciale de l'UE[en] 

Faced with considerable competitive pressure from Asia and Latin America, the Commission adopted, on 4 October 2006, a strategy paper, entitled “Global Europe: competing in the world”, which aims to increase European trade policy’s contribution to its Lisbon programme for growth and jobs. 

With external trade in goods and services accounting for 15% of its GDP, a stronger European economy is dependent not only on internal policies – such as completing the internal market, investing in education and skills and helping businesses become more competitive – it also requires focused external policies that guarantee access to foreign markets and ensure that European businesses are treated fairly when they trade abroad. 

The core messages of the Communication are: 

• Reject protectionism at home
• Make consumers feel the benefits of openness:  If citizens fail to see the positive effects of structural change, the case for openness will be undermined. In order to ensure that the benefits of openness reach all citizens rather than being captured purely by “specific interests”, the Commission will put in place systematic monitoring of import and consumption prices. 
• Be active in opening markets abroad: In the face of globalisation, the EU must remain open but it must also ensure that markets abroad are open to its own exports. European businesses often find it difficult to access foreign markets due to high tariff and non-tariff barriers. Removing such restrictions is particularly important in the services sector, which represents 77% of Europe’s jobs and GDP. 

Among the proposed policy options to create more opportunities for its companies abroad, the report favours: 

• Concluding ambitious bilateral trade agreements, particularly with emerging economies: According the the report, the EU's past focus on multilateral negotiations and on free trade deals driven purely by the logic of development or geopolitics, has led the EU to strengthen its presence in countries where demand is static, but not in rapidly growing markets, such as in Asia. It states different criteria should be used to target new FTA partners: market potential, the level of protection against EU export interests and the number of FTAs that the country already has with EU competitors. Based on these criteria, ASEAN, Korea and Mercosur emerge as priority partners for FTAs.  
• Improving the regulatory environment in third countries, particularly in the US and China:  Ensuring third country rules are transparent, non-discriminatory and the least trade-distorting possible is essential to allow European companies to compete on a fair footing.  
• Gaining better access to raw materials, including energy sources  
• Opening up public procurement markets in third countries: This is a “significant untapped potential for EU exporters” because it is an area where EU companies are world leaders (for example in the provision of transport equipment, public works and local services). However, EU businesses are shut out from these markets in most countries because of nationality requirements. The Commission aims to change this situation by demanding reciprocity from its trading partners: EU public procurement markets will remain open only to those countries which are ready to progressively open up their own.  
• Improving the use of trade defence instruments: The Commission will consult with member states and stakeholders to make sure the application of anti-dumping mechanisms is consistent with the whole range of Community interests.  
• Enforcing intellectual property rights:  This is essential to ensure that right-holders can reap the benefits of their investments and to encourage more innovative and creative companies. 

Overall, the new strategy clearly sets the competitiveness of Europe's industry as its primary goal. Although there are a few paragraphs on poverty reduction and climate change in Mandelson's new policy paper, there is hardly any mentioning of the other big EU strategy: the sustainable development or Gothenburg agenda.

Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said: “Europe’s policy needs to be clear: rejection of protectionism at home; activism in opening markets abroad…We cannot argue for openness from others while sheltering behind barriers of our own.” While he stressed that the new trade strategy would not signify a “European retreat from multilateralism”, he added that “Doha first has never meant Doha alone” and that seeking removal of barriers through bilateral negotiations is a top priority. 

The European Business Federation, UNICE, had pushed strongly for Mandelson to adopt a more “aggressive policy to restore European competitiveness and to allow EU companies to play their role in growth generation and job creation”. UNICE President Ernest-Antoine Seillière therefore welcomed the new strategy as “the right approach for growth and jobs in Europe.” 

UEAPME, the European SME employers’ organisation, on the other hand was more worried by the Communication, saying it “fails to mention, let alone address, the impact on European small and medium-sized businesses”. Luc Hendrickx, UEAPME director for enterprise policy stressed that “less than 10% of SMEs in Europe are active internationally [and] the effects of external trade are more often a challenge than an opportunity for small businesses”. 

Jim Murray, Director of the European consumers’ organisation BEUC and Xavier Durieu, EuroCommerce secretary-general, urged the Commission “to put consumers at the heart of trade policy”, saying that “reforming Europe’s defunct trade defence system is long overdue” and that “until proper weight is given to consumers’ welfare, it is unwise to start new antidumping investigations.”

A group of European sectoral federations, including CEFIC and Eurometaux disagree saying: “We do not agree on embarking on possible reforms that would, in fact, twist the operation of [trade defence] instruments towards objectives which they are not meant to pursue,” adding that TDI should primarily address injury caused to European producers from unfair trade practices and already “balance the needs of Community producers and consumers when assessing antidumping measures”.

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) warns the EU that it is "in danger of missing a historic opportunity to use its capacity to promote development and fair international exchange", adding: "This openly mercenary approach is at odds with the pro-multilateral and pro-sustainable development strategy defined in the 2004 Communication on 'The Social Dimension of Globalisation, extending the benefits to all' ."

European activist groups and civil society organisations united in the Seattle to Brussels Network (S2B) expressed their fears that this “damaging new corporate-driven trade strategy” will “dictate domestic reform”, undermining the European social model, by breaking down the regulatory environment. “The EU’s insistence upon the ‘least trade-restrictive’ regulations has the potential to wipe out a wide range of policies, from food safety standards to job security,” said the network. “Good bye European model, here is naked globalisation for all,” it warned. 

Head of Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign Celine Charveriat said that the new strategy poses a serious threat to poor countries: “The EU plan to use free trade deals to force concessions on issues that developing countries have repeatedly rejected at the WTO will undermine multilateralism and increase poverty and inequality," she said, criticising the EU’s hypocrisy at calling on other countries to deal with non-tariff barriers when Europe continues to “pay vast sums in trade-distorting farm subsidies”. 

“The blueprint for the future of EU ‘competitiveness’ will expose industrial and services markets in developing countries to direct competition with the world’s largest multinationals, leading inevitably to bankruptcies and job losses as local firms struggle to survive,” added War on Want. Campaigns and Policy Director John Hilary said: “Mandelson has unashamedly put the interests of European business before the needs of the poorest people. The European Union should reject the Mandelson vision outright and build a trade policy based on justice and fairness, not aggressive self-interest.”