International trade under the banner of liberalization, yes; green light to the unstoppable wave of globalization, of course. But not at the expense of just one of the counterparties, specifically the European Union. Which since the first start of integration, more than half a century ago, has held high the flag of free trade policy. It is in this key that it must be read approval (535 yes, 85 no, 24 abstentions), in the final session of this term of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, stricter rules to contain the dumping of third countries, first of all China.
Although started with the aim of updating legislation dating back to 1995, that is, at the dawn of globalization as we know it today, the path to defining the new rules was very bumpy and has not yet finished. A path that once again saw the European Parliament confront each other from different positions, i.e. the institution whose members are elected every five years by universal ballot by all EU citizens, and the European Council, formed by the representatives of the governments of the 28 Member States. Comparison similar to the one that opened in parallel on the subject of the mandatory nature of "made in" labels.
It so happened that the matter remained outstanding. And the Strasbourg Parliament, rather than abandoning a major game at the end of the legislature, has chosen the path of voting. Interlocutory, sure. But which nonetheless establishes certain stakes which cannot be ignored when, in a few months' time, the new Parliament and the Council will be forced by the facts to reopen the dossier. “It was disappointing – he comments the rapporteur, the Swede Christofer Fjellner, Member of the PPE Group – noted the divisions among the Member States which prevented the final adoption of the measure before the end of the legislature. But when the next one opens, the Council will still have to propose a shared solution that guarantees confidence in the tools for controlling dumping and that at the same time does not strangle international trade in an increasingly globalized economy”.
On the merits, and looking forward to an indispensable compromise between the two European institutions, the newly approved rules are inspired by a policy that tends to strengthen the protection of small and medium-sized enterprises (which make up over 90% of the European entrepreneurial fabric). For these companies, the report accompanying the measure underlines, access to EU trade defense instruments is particularly difficult due to the complexity of the procedures and the high level of expenses to be faced. With the consequence, the report adds, that smaller European companies are left without the possibility of defense against the dumping implemented by increasingly stronger third countries.
This is why the approved provision proposes stricter duties on imports of goods favored by dumping or subsidy policies by the countries of origin. Duties that should be even heavier, say the MEPs, when imported goods are destined for sectors in which the presence of SMEs is particularly relevant. The rules licensed by the Strasbourg Assembly also provide for the creation of a public assistance service to help small and medium-sized enterprises to present any complaints, to provide guidance in the investigative services that may become necessary and to collect the first elements of evidence in order to be able to initiate an anti-dumping investigation.
The duties should be heavier, according to the provision approved in Strasbourg, even in cases where the level of environmental protection standards and respect for workers' rights is maintained in the exporting country is considered insufficient in the light of the guarantees established by the international conventions concerning the environment and labour. Conversely, again in the opinion of the MEPs, European duties should be more moderate when the imported goods, despite having been subsidized by the country of production, "come from a less developed state" that intends to pursue legitimate development objectives. Such a vague definition that it could open the door to a distinction between "friendly" and "non-friendly" countries.
Lastly, it is worthy of attention that, when drafting the text of the law, Parliament refused to agree with the original proposal of the European Commission, to avoid imposing the duty on goods coming from third countries and already shipped, give importers and exporters a two-week notice period prior to the imposition of an anti-dumping duty. But in the opinion of the Strasbourg Assembly that exemption, if it had passed, "could have encouraged the storage of goods subject to dumping policies in the country of origin" and therefore jeopardize the collection of any duty.
