Flu blurs foreign and trade policy

Date: 02/03/06

THE spread of avian influenza may have one positive benefit, quite early on. It could expose as fiction the notion that foreign policy is a completely separate area of international - and therefore EU - activity. Put another way, it may very well show that in the global world, the distinctions between trade and foreign policy, for example, are exceedingly nebulous, not to mention the distinctions between aid or competition and foreign policy.

There is an emerging global panic about bird flu which has thus far yielded little in terms of a clear international strategy. Instead, there has been recourse to known preventative measures: trade blocks and culling or vaccinating flocks. Japan and Hong Kong announced a temporary ban on importing French poultry, with Thailand hinting they may follow suit; this may also apply to Dutch fowl.

In response, Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson urged these states to respond proportionately, that is, to reconsider a blanket ban. These are wise words, which highlight precisely the issue: within the context of a global problem, can his statement be seen as purely a trade issue? What if Japan and Hong Kong and possibly others extend the ban over the long term and the EU decides to respond by a counter ban on goods from these countries? Is that purely a trade decision or one to use the tools at the disposal of the EU to secure its trade interests vis-�is these states? Taking a more extreme possibility, if some people were to die of bird flu in Hong Kong or Japan and the EU decided it would not allow visitors from these states, at least not without a health certificate of some kind, would that be a purely health policy decision or a broader one reflecting the interaction between these states and the EU?

In truth, it is very difficult to answer these questions with absolute clarity, if only because the definition of foreign policy in a technologically and economically linked world has changed. States may still have foreign ministries, but in reality ambassadors have to work hard to carve out roles for themselves.

With instant communications, politicians and policy officers across all portfolios can communicate directly and immediately with their counterparts in other states and/or international organisations, while the media and the internet are so developed as to provide much of the exclusive information that emissaries used to send in code cables.

What is left to embassies and therefore foreign ministries is to establish exclusive relationships with leaders and decision-makers, and to handle these in a discreet manner that would best serve the interests of their states or ministers.

The actual purpose of what we tend to call foreign policy has also changed greatly: in our minds it is mostly about the issues of war and peace, but in the more humdrum but distinctly utilitarian world of governments, foreign relations are an important tool of economic, and especially trade, activity. Good foreign relations mean good markets or source materials. A national leader or foreign minister is as likely to travel with businessmen in his entourage as diplomats when going overseas and is more than likely to have economic, trade and competition advisors.

So where does that leave the EU? In a good place, actually. Wonks may continue to disparage it for not having a �foreign policy�, but in fact it has all the tools of modern foreign relations and it often uses them well in specific cases - as Mandelson�s statement reflects. What it fails to do well is to use these tools, and therefore this power, consistently. This is partly because its designated �foreign ministry�, DG RELEX, is as outdated as most national foreign ministries; and partly because it hesitates to admit to itself that it has this power. But the moment of truth may be upon us: avian influenza knows no national borders...

• Ilana Bet-El is an academic, author and policy adviser based in Brussels.

Major commentary feature in which the author argues that traditional notions of foreign policy have to be revised in order to take on board the full spectrum of external relations including trade and other economic interests.