Article by Saskia Ozinga, Co-ordinator of Fern

January 2000

The battle of Seattle has been won but ……..

When I opened the paper this morning (26-1) the headline read: "EU trade chief urges new round". The EU's Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, announced bold plans to launch a new round of world trade talks this year, as "the issue is too important to wait until after this year's US presidential elections".  European NGOs should therefore be ready to continue the battle.

At Seattle, amidst the biggest demonstrations in the US since the Vietnam War, the EU was the one who pushed hardest for a comprehensive new trade round which would have included issues like investment, government procurement, environmental standards and labour rights. The EU therefore lost out most when the party ended in tear gas. Almost all of the issues on the EU wish-list could have big, negative, implications for the world's forests. The battle of Seattle was therefore an important victory.

To give the EU some credit, the EU did stick to its promise not to support the US led proposal to eliminate all tariffs on forest products, the ATL proposal[1]. The official 'party line' was that the ATL proposal was 'unbalanced'. Pascal Lamy, however, told MEPs the EU wanted forest products and fisheries excluded from the ATL package. Both major forestry industries as well as NGOs had expressed concern over the ATL agreement. 

Despite their 'good' position on the ATL, a leaked document at Seattle provided more insight into the EU's and Japan's negotiating positions. The document stated clearly the EU's and Japan's wish to eliminate all tariffs and non-tariff measures in all product sectors. No mention was being made about a sustainability impact assessment….That does not provide much hope for future trade negotiations.

Since Seattle the WTO has been in disarray. Despite Pascal Lamy's strong words it might be some time before the WTO can overcome the collapse in global trade talks. The WTO's DG Mike Moore is therefore much more cautious. Moore only wants to concentrate on the 'built-in' agenda (dealing with agriculture and services) as well as easing the concerns of the developing countries and WTO reform. How the WTO will reshape in the aftermath of Seattle remains therefore to be seen.

What is clear, however, is that bilateral trade negotiations are mushrooming. Both the EU and the US are negotiating several 'free trade' agreements with among others Mexico, India and South Africa. Some of these trade agreements go much further than even the EU wanted for the WTO. For the moment the strategy for the EU and the US therefore seems to be to 'get what you want' outside the WTO and outside the public eye.  NGOs should therefore be ready to scrutinise these bilateral trade agreements. One wonders why the US and the EU still need the WTO?