All to play for

Date: 05/03/1998

TRADE Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan's call for a far more comprehensive trade deal between the EU and US is, on the face of it, laudable. Assuming that we are all in favour of a free-trading world - and that, of course, is a big assumption - it makes manifest sense for the transatlantic partners to lead the way.

Brittan's aides declare, for example, that if they can agree an ambitious services deal with Washington, the rest of the world will feel compelled to follow suit, paving the way for considerably more ambitious multilateral rules. But, as so often in EU affairs, their logic hits a brick wall when it comes to agriculture. Brittan says that since farm liberalisation will be discussed in the Millennium Round of World Trade Organisation talks, it would be out of place to debate agricultural tariff reductions in negotiations on an EU-US deal.

The inconsistency is manifest: services will also be discussed in the next WTO round, but the Union sees no problem in sewing up a bilateral deal in that sector with the US first. When pressed on this, European Commission officials admit that it is not so much logic as political realities which are determining their stance. Given concerns in Paris over the proposals even as they stand, it would be inconceivable for France and other farming countries to agree to a move which their powerful agricultural lobbies claim could ravage rural communities. Their dilemma is understandable.

However, if the Commission is as pragmatic as it claims to be, it must surely realise that it will be next to impossible to talk about a comprehensive trade deal with the US unless agriculture is included. True, business leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are keen to dismantle regulatory barriers and create a more harmonious transatlantic trading space. Agriculture, they argue, is a separate issue and there is no reason why stalemate on this should hamper progress in other areas.

But the great mass of people, and the politicians who represent them, think differently. Unless the US Congress can convince its voters that they stand to gain substantially from a transatlantic trade deal, it will find it extremely difficult to back proposals which could threaten jobs - and many Americans see agriculture as the biggest prize.

The irony is that, despite all of this, both sides have so much to gain from a wide-ranging trade deal, even without farm liberalisation. Thus, the eternal political dilemma is raised: how can administrators convince the masses to suspend their short-term misgivings in return for long-term gain?

If recent trends in the US are anything to go by, doing so will be far from easy - and that is a problem which the EU cannot ignore.