Brussels, 08/11/2007
It is an honour for me to present the concluding remarks of this seminar on the European Union's Trade Defence Instruments.
For the European Trade Union Confederation, representing Europe’s workforce, the stakes are crucial.
Before going into details, I would like to stress the fact that this seminar is a joint initiative of European industry and unions. Joint initiatives of this kind are infrequent, so the fact that we are here together is a good illustration of the strength of our common conviction: the European Union must maintain and improve its Trade Defence Instruments.
They are a critical element of the European Union strategy for growth and employment. They do not safeguard Community interest only, but social progress worldwide.
The Lisbon Strategy proclaims, in its 10th guideline, that "Europe needs a solid industrial fabric throughout its territory". Pursuing that aim means "strengthening the competitive advantages of the industrial base, including by contributing to attractive framework conditions for both manufacturing and services". To the best of my knowledge, this is the Union's first-ever unanimous recognition of the need to promote its industry and its location in Europe.
It is clear from this morning's discussions that the Commission's guidelines for reform of the Union's Trade Defence Instruments set out in last year’s Green Paper, give rise to both incomprehension and concerns.
Let me explain.
Incomprehension, because many of these proposals run counter to the apparent objective, which is to make European industry more competitive and create more jobs in industry. I have in mind, of course, the proposal to grant European producer status, in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy procedures, to European companies that have relocated their production abroad.
This is tantamount to awarding a bonus to European firms that move their production outside the Union, to the detriment of those staying at home. This is a clear encouragement to relocation, just at a time when the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is being put in place. Robbing Peter to pay Paul…
I see a number of risks in such a policy:
The first is that is can provide an incentive for relocations to countries where competition rules are more lenient than in Europe, with the hope of easing sanctions against unfair practices.
The second is the danger of creating a race to be the world's lowest bidder in terms of competition. The developing countries that reject the dumping logic would be at a disadvantage compared to those that promote it. In short, Europe would thus clearly be telling the developing countries that are trying to play the game of globalisation with rules and solidarity that they were wrong. The European trade union movement is internationalist and cannot accept this absence of solidarity with unions in developing countries.
The third risk is more pernicious, namely the compatibility of such a measure with WTO rules. It would be based on de facto discrimination between companies on the basis of the country where their registered office is located. Is that acceptable from the standpoint of the principle of non-discrimination guaranteed by the WTO? This isn’t clear, and clarity is essential. I would not like the Commission to put itself in a situation where it would end up telling us in a few years' time: "Sorry, the WTO has ruled against us, so now we have to withdraw all our anti-dumping legislation", thus making a reality of the old dream of those opposed to this legislation. I wouldn’t accuse the Commission of being so Machiavellian.
So much for incomprehension.
The Commission's proposals also create concern. If they are adopted, some would undermine one of the important foundations of European integration, that is the Internal Market.
The Internal Market means free and fair competition between the Member States and the rejection of social and environmental dumping. The horizontal social clause in the new Lisbon Treaty will reinforce this point. The European Union must defend these values at home and beyond its borders. If it fails to do so, it will serve as an intermediary for an unfair and brutal globalisation, and workers worldwide will end up paying the price. We do not want that kind of globalisation.
The Commission say that the changing global economy requires a redefinition of our trade defence instruments. They also claim that it is increasingly difficult for the Member States to come to consensus.
This morning, however, we heard the experts say that the current system of trade defence instruments is sufficiently flexible to take account of changes in the global economy. And the responses to the Green Paper show that the instruments in place have worked correctly until now and do not need any fundamental overhaul. There is a saying that goes “give a dog a bad name, and hang him”...
I do not wish to give the impression that all the Commission's proposals should be simply thrown out the window. We know that it is receptive to greater participation by workers and unions in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy procedures. But on this point, we want no half-measures: European workers must have the right to defend themselves by being authorised to lodge complaints and to participate fully in all stages of investigations. That is an opportunity offered to workers in the United States. We want nothing less.
To conclude, this morning's debates have demonstrated that the Trade Defence Instruments will remain indispensable until a global competition law equivalent to European law has been put in place, with an authority in charge of enforcing it.
I would also note that this question, which was part of the Doha Round negotiations under the heading of the "Singapore issues", disappeared from the talks in Cancun in 2003. Throughout the debate on TDI, we must keep in mind that we are not discussing protection instruments, but ways of restoring conditions for fair, healthy and non-distorted competition, when these principles are violated by a non-EU country.
At a time when we are seeking support from citizens for a new European treaty, it is crucial that the European Union continues to play its role as a force for social progress.
We have been carrying this message consistently to the Commission and the other Institutions and will continue to do so in the coming weeks including the TDI issue.
The realisation of our social Europe will be the key, and the test, for those like us who want to give new impetus to European integration.
Thank you for your participation.