The collapse of the most recent round of trade talks was a blow for Peter Mandelson, who now knows that much of his four years as European trade commissioner have been wasted. But at least he won the battle of spin. When the talks collapsed in acrimony after nine days of ministerial chatter in Geneva, the main culprits looked to be the US and India—countries where elections are looming.
Avoiding being the fall guy is an achievement for the EU, which has shouldered much of the blame in previous failed rounds. This time, Mandelson used his famed media skills to avoid the elephant trap. On the first day of the talks, he announced a "new" EU offer that was really an update of an old one. Alone among the trade ministers, Mandelson wrote a daily blog, the final entry of which made news by criticising the US.
Predictably, Mandelson's most dangerous enemy came from his own side. France has been the biggest opponent in the EU of the Doha deal, fearing that concessions on agricultural support will lose it billions of euros. It holds the rotating EU presidency and convened regular meetings of EU ministers in Geneva to keep an eye on Mandy. Nine countries that backed the French held a dinner at the Italian embassy in Geneva, forming what they described as the "coalition of the willing."
On the final weekend of the talks, Nicolas Sarkozy rang the European commission president, José Manuel Barroso, demanding that Mandelson travel to Paris to see him. The official version is that Mandy rejected this out of hand, saying that it would be absurd to leave the talks. In fact, there was a more protracted negotiation. Mandelson agreed to go on the Sunday afternoon, providing Sarkozy sent a jet to fly him from Geneva to Paris and back. Then Sarko said he was only free in the evening. Since Mandelson was due back in the talks at 7pm, negotiations with the Élysée finally broke down, providing an omen for the ill-fated Doha round.
Bulgaria smacked down
As a press officer in the European commission's co-ordination and planning unit, Mark Gray is hardly a household name in his native Britain. But in Bulgaria, he is front-page news. Gray has the task of speaking about Bulgaria and Romania's progress—of which there has been very little—in combating fraud, corruption and organised crime since accession.
At the end of July, the commission froze nearly €500m in pre-accession aid to Bulgaria in what was probably its most scathing report ever compiled about a member state. But none of the commissioners who took this decision was anxious to present the findings, leaving the task to their spokesmen. Because Gray's profile is becoming uncomfortably high in Bulgaria—where organised crime and contract-killing are alarmingly common—he took a back seat in the announcement, and the commission's chief spokesman, Johannes Laitenberger, took all but the most technical questions.
The Bulgarians, who have hired a PR agency to manage their image, had lobbied furiously to water down the report. Some of the language was more muted than in earlier versions, and the commission did remove an explicit warning that Bulgaria risked delaying its inclusion in the Schengen free-travel zone. Yet the state of law and order in Bulgaria means it is nowhere near joining Schengen anyway, so this made little difference.
Other safeguards, such as excluding Bulgaria from justice and interior measures, were not used, largely because the EU feared they would damage it more than Sofia. But the commission has been tougher than expected—it didn't threaten freezing aid last year. Romania, meanwhile, received much better press, but still saw €391m of its agricultural funds suspended.
So was it a mistake to admit Romania and Bulgaria in 2007? The EU messed up by offering the two countries an accession date in advance. When key reforms were not in place by 2005-06, EU leaders only had one option: to postpone membership by a year. This might have reduced the incentive to reform. Commission officials acknowledge that, in the run-up to accession, they were probably too indulgent. But the EU saw only a narrow window of opportunity for both countries to join, fearing that otherwise, Bulgaria in particular would fall into Russia's sphere of influence.
Can Europe say no to Obama?
As Obamamania sweeps the EU, European policymakers are starting to have doubts. Obama has been less than clear on some policy issues; his commitment to free trade, for example, might be tested if protectionism starts to increase. Another anxiety is over foreign policy. For the EU, the idea of a closer partnership with Washington is seductive. But that will come with a price—most likely a call for more European troops to be deployed in Afghanistan. John McCain would probably make a similar request. But as one US official puts it, "if it's McCain, the Europeans can just say, 'you're a new George Bush—go away.'" It will be much harder to say no to the man who can draw hundreds of thousands of Europeans on to the streets.
