---------------------------------
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: Viewpoints
    on issues in international trade.
    ---------------------------------
 
  * A Seemingly No-Win Strategy To Continue Ban On British Imports
    May Disguise A Plan To Score Points Against EU Later
 
 
    By David Walker, agricultural economist
    Bridge News
    NORWICH, England--What the French game plan is on the beef trade dispute 
with Britain is difficult to figure out.
 
    Developments since the science-based opinion that British beef is safe, 
which the French government is on record as doubting, have not resolved 
anything.
 
    The French seem, from this side of the Channel, to be rapidly plowing 
themselves into a corner. In the field of European agricultural politics, 
however, this is a very improbable scenario.
 
    The public stance of the French government is that they require further 
assurance that British beef is safe before lifting their embargo. They have, 
however, failed to date to specify what they seek beyond further information.
 
    They were not persuaded by the Oct. 29 response of the European 
Commission's Scientific Steering Committee to the new French food agency's 
600-page report on the issue. The committee clearly indicated that French 
concerns were ill founded.
 
    The British government's response to this was to provide further 
information. Again, this information failed to convince the French. Also it 
failed to throw any light on either what their specific concerns are or how 
they can be addressed within the scope of the science of the issue.
 
    The European Commission's Nov. 11 deadline for an acceptable explanation 
from the French has passed and a new deadline of Nov. 18 imposed. The 
commission did, however, make a commitment to initiate legal action if the 
embargo was not lifted or a satisfactory explanation provided.
 
    Understandably nobody wants to take the legal route. It is time-consuming 
and must surely result in ill will between the French and other member states 
of the European Union. In Britain any further increase in ill will is 
difficult to imagine.
 
    The French have given the impression of making all the wrong decisions at 
the wrong times. This suggestion, however, clearly underestimates the French 
when it comes to handling European issues.
 
    The French certainly may have underestimated the nature and direction of 
the British reaction to its initial decision to maintain the embargo. They 
may well have expected that their concern about food safety would have been 
echoed in the British media, which has treated the issue as one of trade. The 
French might not have expected British public opinion on the issue to result 
in retail and consumer boycotts of French food products. Equally well, the 
French may have expected more than nominal public support at home.
 
    The French government continues to use food safety as the sole pretext 
for the ban on British beef imports. At the same time, the scientific 
findings supporting the safety of British beef provide the French with an 
exit, if they are looking for one. The fallout in a worse-case situation -- 
France lifting the ban and British beef being found to be a health hazard -- 
could be deflected from Paris to Brussels.
 
    By French standards, farm protests have been quite muted. While it is 
difficult to overestimate the power of the French farm lobby, it has been 
most effective when mustered against Brussels. British produce, in particular 
lamb, has, however, been on the receiving end in the past. The French 
agricultural lobby may, of course, be mindful of the potential adverse 
reaction of British consumers to imports of French food products, if it takes 
too high a profile.
 
    It would seem, in any case, that the French government is not under any 
great political pressure to lift the ban, either for farm or health reasons. 
At least the British media is not carrying any stories of the Bastille being 
stormed.
 
    The gamble that the European Commission will not embark on the first 
legal action against a member state on this issue also appears to be an 
increasingly risky bet.
 
    A possible scenario is that the French are keeping this pawn on the board 
to be sacrificed for a favorable outcome on some other issue. Deals of this 
nature are usually transacted in the European Council of first ministers. 
While it is the European Commission's job to initiate and follow through on 
any legal proceedings against a member state, the council has influence over 
the commission.
 
    There are two challenges in this for the French. First, because Britain 
has the right after three months to take its grievance directly to the 
European Court of Justice, any such deal would have to be acceptable to 
Britain.
 
    The second challenge is the European Parliament. This is a directly 
elected institution and, therefore, more difficult to manipulate.  It has 
greater responsibilities and is more influential in the area of health and 
consumer protection than in agriculture. And it appears eager to exercise the 
increased powers it has recently been given. This was apparent in March when 
it ousted the European Commissioner, en bloc.
 
    The parliament has, however, a record of being aggressive on food health 
issues, and on occasion not overly influenced by scientific evidence. It may 
yet be influential on this issue.
 
    The French have flair for exploiting half a chance, as they showed in 
their semi-final victory over the Rugby World Cup favorites, New Zealand, 
earlier this month. The French did not appear to have a well-defined game 
plan, but they were able to make the most of their opportunities as they 
arose. They are, however, fallible -- as their loss in the finals to the 
Australians a week later showed.
 
    DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm 
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London 
for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director of 
the Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. His views are not necessarily those 
of Bridge News, whose ventures include the Internet site http://www.bridge.com/.
 
    OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions 
to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, Bridge News, 3 World Financial 
Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. You may also 
call (212) 372-7510, fax (212) 372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com.
 
    EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo Service. 
  End
 
    A COMPLETE SUMMARY of recent opinion articles is available on 
BridgeStation. (Story .5400)
 
[SLUG: BRITISH-FRENCH-BEEF-WAR:BN _ op-ed]