| Publications | France A-Z | France/U.S. Relations | France in the U.S. | News | Aller aux Etats-Unis | Just for Kids | Going to France | Contact |
|
WTO/Doha Round negotiations
Interview given by Catherine Colonna, Minister Delegate for European Affairs,
to the "BFM" radio station, (excerpts)
Paris, October 20, 2005
WTO/AGRICULTURE/FRANCE (...) Q. – (…) This morning's "Echos” newspaper has an article by Nicolas Sarkozy in which he says "WTO, agriculture, no to the fool's bargain”. France has reprimanded the European commissioner Peter Mandelson. What's happening between the European Commission and France?
THE MINISTER – We haven't got any problems with the Commission in general, but we have a problem on a specific matter. Q. – A specific matter and a specific man, in this instance the European commissioner Peter Mandelson, a fairly free-market Briton?
THE MINISTER – Who isn't thinking about his nationality, since he is the European commissioner working for Europe's general interest. The problem is this: last week, the commissioner negotiating on the European Union's behalf made proposals in the international trade negotiations. New proposals, but without any consultation with member States. That isn't normal. The system is this: the Commission negotiates on the European Union's behalf within the framework of a mandate given to it by the Council. There has, of course, to be some negotiating room within the mandate, but the mandate is the limit. If the negotiator is exceeding the mandate, it isn't normal. The question we have to consider is whether the new offer made by Commissioner Mandelson is within the limits of his negotiating mandate or goes too far, and is outside them. Q. – The "problem” was on the cut in farm subsidies.
THE MINISTER – On the agriculture issue, the cut in subsidies and perhaps market access. In any case, he made his proposal without talking to member States about it beforehand and the paradox is that the third countries knew about it before the States he is representing and whose interests he is defending. In the Commission's view he has respected his negotiating mandate, our own appraisals make us doubt this. And on a number of specific matters, the mandate has in fact been exceeded. At any rate, the experts are working, and so long as the Commission hasn't provided the proof that it has clearly respected its mandate and that its offer is within it, it isn't possible to go further in the Geneva negotiations. This is what the government has reaffirmed today. Q. – You are saying "stop, we have to look at the details”. The European Commissioner is saying "some countries are supporting me, major countries like Germany consider that I've managed to end the deadlock on the agriculture issue”. Does France have Germany's support?
THE MINISTER – For the moment, he's offering more than he's got in return – which justifies our vigilance. Yesterday, in Geneva, there were 14 countries, like us, thinking that the Commission's explanations were vague, insufficient, and so the Commission hadn't demonstrated that it had respected its mandate. We want it to do so. If this proof is provided, so much the better, if it isn't, we have to say it isn't. (…) EU CONSTITUTION/FRENCH "NO”/FRANCE/EU Q. – You were appointed Minister Delegate for European Affairs on 2 June in the wake of the European Constitution referendum, the "no” to the Constitution. Isn't France in the end paying for this "no”? Isn't France becoming weaker within the European Commission, within the European Union?
THE MINISTER – I don't think so. On the other hand, there is, admittedly, a problem in Europe, Europeans are having difficulty in identifying the general interest, member States in making agreements. It's moreover at such moments that we'd like the Commission to play a role and tell the States the path to follow. If everyone plays their role in Europe, Europe can function. If we stray from the rules, things will no longer work. To an extent, this is what we're drawing attention to. Q. – Don't you get the feeling that the word "Europe” has disappeared from the political discourse in France, that the government, Jacques Chirac, whom you know well since for a long time you were Elysée spokesperson, has completely erased the word "Europe” from his speeches.
THE MINISTER – You may be surprised, but this isn't so. As soon as next week, the 25 heads of State and government are meeting near London. It's the first top-level meeting for the 25 since the June European Council. The President will make a number of proposals. France wants to be active and constructive in the European debate. We have a lot to do to get Europe working again. France has made proposals to the British presidency on matters of concern to our fellow citizens: economic development, reconciling a far greater dynamism which is necessary for employment with, and at the same time consolidating, a social dimension of Europe; energy – what do we do about the rising oil price?; the security issues which are also of concern to our fellow citizens. On all these issues, we shall be making proposals. (…) EU BUDGET/UK EU PRESIDENCY Q. – There's another unresolved issue, (…) which is very important for the operation and ambition of the European Commission: the budget. We know that the 2007-2013 budget ought normally to have been adopted at the end of the Luxembourg presidency, it still hasn't been today. Will there be progress soon?
THE MINISTER – Indeed we'd like the British Presidency to hurry and succeed. There's a European Union budget today, we're in 2005. There's even one for next year, 2006. But we mustn't delay in deciding the following one, which covers several years. Q. – For you, Catherine Colonna, let's be frank, the deadline is before the end of the year?
THE MINISTER – That's desirable. There are first of all technical delays during which legal agreements have to be drawn up and then the States need to know where they stand. Q. – What amount, 1%…, 1.14%, there are several estimates?
THE MINISTER – The right budget would be one around the one proposed by the Luxembourg presidency. What amount? €871 billion over the period from 2007 to 2013; with some adjustments. That allowed, and the future budget must do so, the funding of the existing common policies, development of new policies, the research which we talk so much about, it's necessary, the safety of Europeans, the Common Foreign and Security Policy – this was possible, the budget allowed for it, and then the financing of the enlargement, the money we need to enable these countries to catch us up. Q. – For the moment, it has to be said, it's not really the case. The European Commission's budget is struggling to cope with financing the enlargement.
THE MINISTER – It had scheduled the necessary funds up to and including 2006. It will be the first time that a full budget will have to take account of the enlargement to 25… Q. – It's precisely the British who are holding things up?
THE MINISTER – Out of 25 countries, 20 had accepted the Luxembourg proposal. A few countries, led by Britain, had refused. The negotiating parameters are known. There's no magic in the figures. There will be contributing States and recipient States and in particular, yes, Britain will have to agree to put back on the table the calculation of the "rebate” which it was agreed to give her 20 years ago and is no longer justified. Q. – Since we're talking about the British presidency, we can already make an initial progress report on Tony Blair's presidency. He began it in somewhat stentorian tones, people said he was going to change, shake up the European Union, the European Commission. We get the impression that in fine he hasn't done much.
THE MINISTER – If the British presidency manages, by the time it ends in December, to ensure a budget for Europe, it will have worked well. We're only half way through and admittedly now, we need to hurry up. (…)./.
Embassy of France in the United States - October 27, 2005
|
