Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:05:44.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Trade Diplomacy and the Politics of Global Development: Reflections on the EU–China ‘Bra Wars’ Dispute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Tony Heron
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article analyses the so-called ‘bra wars’ trade dispute that took place between the EU and China in 2005. This dispute raised a number of important questions linked, not only to the textiles and clothing (T&C) trade regime, but to the broader conduct of the EU in relation to the developing world. Over the years, the EU has attempted to construct a discourse towards developing countries that has sought to articulate a distinctively ‘European’ approach to issues like preferential trade, equitable growth, poverty reduction and so on. This article thus centres on the broader analytical question raised by ‘bra wars’: namely, the mounting incongruity between the theory and practice of the development policies of the EU.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , 2007 , pp. 190 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The research for this article was facilitated by the financial support of the Nuffield Foundation (Award No. SGS/00907/G). I would to like to thank a number of colleagues from the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield, plus two anonymous referees, for helpful comments, criticisms and suggestions. Any errors that remain are solely my responsibility.Google Scholar

2 M. Holland, The European Union and the Third World, London, Palgrave, 2002.Google Scholar

3 See, for example, Grugel, J., ‘New Regionalism and Modes of Governance – Comparing US and EU Strategies in Latin America’, European Journal of International Relations, 10: 4 (2004), pp. 603–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 V. K. Aggarwal, Liberal Protectionism: The International Politics of Organised Textile Trade, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1985, p. 82.Google Scholar

5 Ibid.Google Scholar

6 This anomaly was due, at least in part, to the delay between the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and the actual establishment of the Custom Union, which was not formally adopted until 1968. For more details, see A. R. Young, Extending European Cooperation: The European Union and the ‘New’ International Trade Agenda, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2002, pp. 21–7.Google Scholar

7 De la Torre, J. and Bacchetta, M., ‘The Uncommon Market: European Policies Towards the Clothing Industry in the 1970s’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 19: 2 (1980), pp. 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Ibid., p. 98.Google Scholar

9 Dolan, M. B., ‘European Restructuring and Import Policies for a Textile Industry in Crisis’, International Organisation, 37: 4 (1983), p. 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 De la Torre and Bacchetta, ‘The Uncommon Market’, p. 98.Google Scholar

11 Dolan, ‘European Restructuring and Import Policies for a Textile Industry in Crisis’, p. 591.Google Scholar

12 Aggarwal, Liberal Protectionism, esp. ch. 6.Google Scholar

13 W. R. Cline, The Future of World Trade in Textiles and Apparel, revised edition, Washington, DC, Institute for International Economics, 1990, p. 156.Google Scholar

14 B. Hoekman and M. Kostecki, The Political Economy of the World Trading System: The WTO and Beyond, 2nd edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 229.Google Scholar

15 Personal interviews: Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), Geneva, Switzerland, October 2004; and the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, September–October 2003 and October 2004.Google Scholar

16 Heron, T., ‘The Ending of the Multifibre Arrangement: A Development Boon for the South?’, European Journal of Development Research, 18: 1 (2006), pp. 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 G. R. D. Underhill, Industrial Crisis and the Open Economy: Politics, Global Trade and the Textiles Industry in the Advanced Economies, London, Macmillan-Palgrave, 1998, ch. 5.Google Scholar

18 Hanson, B., ‘What Happened to Fortress Europe?: External Trade Policy Liberalization in the European Union’, International Organisation, 52: 1 (1998), pp. 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Ugur, M., ‘Explaining Protectionism and Liberalization in the European Union Trade Policy: The Case of Textiles and Clothing’, Journal of European Public Policy, 5: 4 (1998), pp. 652–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 European Commission, ‘The Future of the Textiles and Clothing Sector in the Enlarged European Union’, Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, European Commission, 2003.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., p. 4.Google Scholar

22 ‘Chinese Textile Exports Surge; US, EU to Invoke Textile Safeguard?’, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 9: 11 (2005): available at: http://www.ictsd.org/subscribe/index.htm.Google Scholar

23 G. Dyer and R. Minder, ‘EU and China in Textile Truce’, Financial Times, 10 June 2005.Google Scholar

24 This section is based partly on discussions with Anja Lörcher, trade lawyer, Foreign Trade Association, Brussels, Belgium, 10 November 2005.Google Scholar

25 ‘Textile Trouble’, The Economist, 3 September 2005.Google Scholar

26 See, for example, P. Willets, ‘The Low-Paid are the Victims of Textile Protectionism’, Financial Times, 24 August 2005.Google Scholar

27 International Labour Organization (ILO), Promoting Fair Globalisation in Textiles and Clothing in a Post-MFA Environment, Geneva, ILO, 2005, p. 16.Google Scholar

28 J. François and D. Spinanger, ‘Textile Scramble is a Circus Disguised as a Crisis’, Financial Times, 6 September 2005.Google Scholar

29 The obvious question of why the developing countries were willing to agree to the backloading of the ATC needs to be understood within the overall context of the bargaining dynamics of the Uruguay Round, and in terms of the institutional practices of the GATT/WTO system that have evolved over time. Unfortunately, these issues go well beyond the scope of the present article. For a detailed account of the negotiation of the ATC, see M. Raffaelli and T. Jenkins, The Drafting History of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, Geneva, International Textiles and Clothing Bureau, 1995.Google Scholar

30 Williams, M., Yuk-Choi, K. and Yan, S., ‘Bonanza or Mirage? Textiles and China's Accession to the WTO’, Journal of World Trade, 36: 3 (2002), p. 580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Personal interviews: International Textile and Clothing Bureau (ITCB), Geneva, Switzerland, October 2004.Google Scholar

32 See Oxfam International, Rigged Rules and Double Standards: Trade, Globalisation and the Fight Against Global Poverty, London, Oxfam, 2002.Google Scholar

33 Financial Times, 14 June 2005. This prediction was later proven to be correct, at least in so far as the footwear industry was concerned. In February 2006 the Commission announced that a 20 per cent ‘anti-dumping’ import duty would be applied to leather shoes from China and Vietnam. See Financial Times, 22 February 2006.Google Scholar

34 See World Trade Organization, Accession of the People's Republic of China, Geneva, WTO, WT/L/423, 2001, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

35 Breslin, S., ‘Reforming China's Embedded Socialist Compromise: China and the WTO’, Global Change, Peace & Security, 15: 3 (2003), pp. 213–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Ibid., p. 218.Google Scholar

37 Under Article VI of the ATC, all WTO members are permitted to use the ‘transitional safeguard mechanism’ in order to restrict imports temporarily from any source which may ‘cause serious damage, or actual threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing like and/or directly competitive products’. However, this trade sanction is limited in scope and far more difficult to invoke than either the ‘product-specific’ or the ‘textile-specific’ safeguard measures contained in China's accession agreement.Google Scholar

38 See A. Beattie and E. Alden, ‘Tight Rules are Keeping a Lid on Trade Wars’, Financial Times, 6 June 2005.Google Scholar

39 See, among others, R. Kaplinsky, Globalization, Poverty and Inequality, Cambridge, Polity, 2005.Google Scholar

40 Heron, ‘The Ending of the Multifibre Arrangement’, p. 11.Google Scholar

41 Oxfam International, Stitched Up: How Rich-Country Protectionism in Textiles and Clothing Trade Prevents Poverty Alleviation, Oxfam Briefing Paper, London, Oxfam, 2004, p. 16.Google Scholar

42 See, for example, Wolf, M., ‘Cooperation or Conflict? The European Union in a Liberal Global Economy’, International Affairs, 71 (1995), pp. 327–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Hanson, ‘What Happened to Fortress Europe?’.Google Scholar

44 Indeed, one analyst has gone as far as to suggest that the EU is now the most consistent and important advocate of multilateralism, due to a marked decline in the willingness and ability of the USA to underwrite the international trading system. See S. Woolcock, ‘European Trade Policy’, in H. Wallace and W. Wallace (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, 4th edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 273–399.Google Scholar

45 B. Rosamond, ‘Europe’, in A. J. Payne (ed.), The New Regional Politics of Development, London, Palgrave, 2004, pp. 59–88.Google Scholar

46 Manners, I., ‘Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40: 2 (2002), pp. 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Cf. R. Whitman, From Civilian Power to Superpower? The International Identity of the European Union, London, Macmillan-Palgrave, 1998.Google Scholar

48 Rosamond, ‘Europe’, p. 81.Google Scholar

49 Ibid., p. 79.Google Scholar

50 M. Tempest, ‘EU Reach “Breakthrough” on Aid Budget’, Guardian, 24 May 2005. It is worth adding in parentheses that quite a few European countries have already gone beyond this aim to meet – and in some cases exceed – the UN target of 0.7 per cent that was established in 1970: Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark reached this figure in the 1970s, Luxembourg in 2000, while other member states, including the UK, France, Belgium, Finland and Spain, have pledged to meet it by 2015. By way of contrast, the USA currently spends approximately 0.16 per cent of GNI on development assistance, Japan 0.19 per cent, while the overall OECD average stands at 0.25 per cent. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), ‘Official Development Assistance Increases Further – But 2006 Targets Still a Challenge’, press release, available at: http://www.oecd.org/document/3/0,2340,en_2649_34447_34700611_1_1_1_1,00.html.Google Scholar

51 The EU's preferential trading system is not without its critics. Paul Brenton, for example, has drawn attention to the very stringent ‘rules of origin’ attached to the trade agreements that have the perverse effect of actually discouraging eligible developing countries from taking up preferences in the first place. Likewise, the Lomé Convention and the Cotonou Agreement have been criticized for targeting aid for the most part at developing countries with strong colonial links to Europe at the expense of other, equally poor, states that do not have this historical connection. See, respectively, P. Brenton, ‘Integrating the Least Developed Countries into the World Trading System: The Current Impact of EU Preferences under Everything But Arms’, World Bank Policy Research Paper, No. 3018, 2003; and Holland, The European Union and the Third World.Google Scholar

52 Ibid.Google Scholar

53 P. Mandelson, ‘Rich Nations Must Do More to Help the Poor’, Independent, 27 December 2004.Google Scholar

54 World Trade Organization (WTO), Doha Ministerial Declaration, Geneva, WTO, WT/MIN (01)/DEC/1, 2001, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

55 R. P. Appelbaum, ‘Assessing the Impact of the Phasing-out of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing on Apparel Exports on the Least Developed and Developing Countries’, Center for Global Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, 2004, p. 37.Google Scholar

56 Personal interviews: European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, September–October 2003.Google Scholar

57 See, for example, P. Mandelson, ‘What the EU Can Expect from the WTO’, Le Figaro, 27 November 2005.Google Scholar

58 Oxfam International, Stitched Up, p. 12.Google Scholar

59 See, for example, Heron, T., ‘An Unravelling Development Strategy? Garment Assembly in the Caribbean Basin after the Multifibre Arrangement’, Bulletin of Latin American Research, 25: 2 (2006), pp. 264–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 Rosamond, ‘Europe’.Google Scholar