THE BUSINESS OF EUROPE

On 28th October 2008, Europe’s biggest association of industries and employers, BusinessEurope, organised a conference on the ‘Global Europe’ trade strategy, at the European Commission’s trade headquarters in Brussels. The ‘Global Europe’ trade strategy was launched by former Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, in late 2006. Linda Kaucher highlights the spin strategies used to advance BusinessEurope’s corporate-driven agendas.

Under the title “Going Global: The Way Forward”, speakers at the conference included representatives from BusinessEurope, various parts of the European Commission, transnational corporations and business associations, and the US Chamber of Commerce. The General Secretary of the European Trade Union Council, which is funded by the Commission, and the Director-General of the European Consumers Organisation took part in parallel panel sessions.

The sponsors were, unsurprisingly, transnational corporations, such as Arcellor Mittal, BASF, Caterpillar, BHP Billiton, Exxon Mobil, Hydro, IBM, Rio Tinto and Solway.

The Doha spin

Hopes for a WTO Doha deal before the end of the year were a high priority. Resuming the Doha Round talks, which collapsed in July 2008, is now presented as the answer to the ‘global financial crisis’. Watchers may remember that it had previously been presented as the ‘answer’ to global terrorism and to climate change.

The deregulation spin

While it was admitted that the financial crisis was due to regulatory deficiency, there was a concerted attempt to isolate this as a ‘sectoral’ problem, while continuing with calls for broad deregulation. The use of ‘liberalisation’ is now discouraged because of its association with financial services – despite the fact that this is the language of the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

Hiding the attack on labour

BusinessEurope’s agenda on labour deregulation, labour flexibility and labour liberalisation could not be clearer. However, references were never explicit or open; only hinted at. For instance, while BusinessEurope’s president Ernest-Antoine Seillière, in his on-screen powerpoint presentation, listed labour flexibility among his aims, he omitted to state this verbally.

As a trade-off for investors’ access to services in countries in the Global South, temporary workers from those countries are being offered entry into the EU in almost all the EU Trade in Services Agreements under negotiation. This has effectively been kept secret within the EU receiving countries, but was reinforced in the covert references at the event. Presenting the movement of labour as a ‘trade issue’, rather than an issue of labour, employment and migration, conveniently quarantines it from public debate.

The ‘competition and cooperation’ spin

It was clear that the twin concepts ‘competition’ and ‘cooperation’ were being used strategically to push through the EU corporate agenda. Competitiveness is the basis for the Global Europe strategy, to the exclusion of social values. The Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) is an example of ‘cooperation’ being used for the same ends, whilst third party perceptions of ‘competition’ and ‘cooperation’ are on the other hand strategically manipulated.

The ‘harmonisation’ spin

Trade agreements, whether multilateral (WTO), bilateral, regional (like NAFTA) or the EU’s Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are the usual vehicles for pursuing deregulation, tying governments irreversibly into legal frameworks, with penalties against backsliding.

Other vehicles are also being used for the same goals. The Transatlantic Economic Council, for example, was the sole focus of a panel session on ‘Regulatory cooperation: Cutting through the red tape’. The TEC is not for ‘negotiation’, but to ‘harmonise’ regulation between the world’s major economic blocs, the EU and the US. Panel representatives were from the US Chamber of Commerce, the Enterprise and Industry Commission and the European Consumers Organisation.

It was admitted, though, that ‘harmonisation’ actually means deregulation. Thus, ‘regulatory variations stemming from the cultural and structural differences between the EU and the US are being used to this end. ‘Harmonising’ regulations means removing ‘trade barriers’ to a US-EU free trade area. The Chair of BusinessEurope’s International Relations Committee called for the completion of the EU single market, a significant step towards a transatlantic free trade area.

‘Risk analysis’ is also being ‘harmonised’. According to the US Chamber of Commerce representative, cost-benefit analysis is the basis of US regulation, whereas the EU often refers to the precautionary principle. It is worth noting that GM foods were introduced without information to the public in the US, but have been met with sustained resistance in Europe, while the requirements for registering lobbying are higher in the US.

Deregulation vs democracy

The corporate deregulation agenda and the ‘trade openness’ message that are being sold, particularly in Trade in Services, hide a direct corporate attack on democracy. Limiting the ability of governments to regulate corporate activities in the interests of people, through so-called trade agreements and related mechanisms, is profoundly anti-democratic.

On that note, the new EU Trade Commissioner, Baroness Catherine Ashton, is apparently pursuing public procurement; that is, investor rights to taxpayers’ money. Did we, the taxpayers, ask her to do that? Of course not. Isn’t the EU Trade Commissioner supposed to represent the interests of all people in the EU and not just the very rich, inside and outside of the EU?