Pascal Lamy: "I am not an advocate of happy globalization"

On the sidelines of a given consulate New York transatlantic conference on the treaty, Pascal Lamy, former Director of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) gives his diagnosis on the progress of negotiations, but also on fears about this Treaty. A half of the mandate of François Hollande, said he is worried about the state of the French economy and urged the government to reform the education system.

France-America: Are you optimistic about the outcome of negotiations on the transatlantic treaty?

Pascal Lamy: The idea of concluding a trade agreement between Europe and the United States is good. But I see that little bargaining advances and raises many objections to both sides in the civil society. In the present state of things, I'm not optimistic. However, there is a window of opportunity to revive this process with the new European Commission begins its mandate.

European citizens seem worried about the negotiations on the transatlantic treaty. Do you understand their fears?

Of course. I think proponents of negotiation are partly responsible fantasies that surround it. Not to make public early the negotiating mandate was a huge mistake. We left thinking that the Treaty would abolish the standards that Europeans value - food standards, health, environmental - as he must be to minimize the differences between the European and American standards, aligning up . Explaining evil and giving the impression that the discussions took place away from the public, we created a hint of dumbing down the standards. This is a very sensitive subject that has hitherto sorely missed pedagogy.

One sometimes hears the fear of Europe colander, "the global village idiot" who is unable to hold his position against the United States ...

All the numbers say otherwise. Politicians who maintain this idea manipulate public opinion.

Is it really possible to find an agreement on various standards such as food (chicken with chlorine GMOs) or environmental issues (operation and import of shale gas) without that standards are leveled to the bottom?

It depends on the field of standards that we consider. Must wring the neck of a first idea: the European standards are not always more protective than US standards. It depends on the fields. Then, the issues of harmonization of standards are not limited to chicken chlorine, or GMOs or for the protection of private data. The spectrum is much broader than that. However, I see well that there may be tensions on this category of standards that ideological and cultural point of view, are very different between Europe and the United States. My suggestion is that if both parties are unable to agree on certain issues, they should be put aside and give to align collective preferences. He must know how to compromise.

What arguments would you make to convince a citizen, European or American, the merits of this transatlantic treaty?

I would say that if the Europeans and Americans who care standards the highest in the world agree, these standards will become the de facto global standard, which would be good news. Then, if we succeed in this agreement, the alignment of standards will allow companies to produce cheaper. This decrease in production costs will be reflected in prices, and the consumer will gain in terms of purchasing power. Ultimately, this virtuous cycle promote employment.

Overall, there is a growing distrust vis-à-vis international institutions (WTO, IMF) and multilateralism that populist call "free trade" doctrine. How do you analyze this fear of globalization?

The case of transatlantic treaty exceeds, in my opinion, this feeling: the proof is that the German public, which is not hostile to globalization, is mobilized on this transatlantic negotiation. As for fears about open trade, they are very unevenly distributed. Developing countries are not afraid of globalization. But it is true that in some European countries it is frowned upon and misunderstood. In France, our culture is particularly suspicious vis-à-vis the notion of free trade. Let me be clearly understood: the globalization raises difficulties, I've never denied it. I am not an advocate of globalization happy. But globalization also brings benefits. As I tried to explain in a recent book (When France wakes, Editions Odile Jacob, 2014), you must master it.

The euro fell below 1.26 dollars. Since March, the European currency has lost 10% of its value against the greenback. Is this good news for the euro zone, likely to boost growth?

I never thought that the euro zone was a problem monetary competitiveness in the long-term average. Although in the short term, a stronger dollar may give a slight advantage to the euro zone.

A study conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in France and the consulting firm Bain & Company shows that the rating of France to the American companies continues to decline: only 12% of respondents believe that the perception of France as a destination investment is positive. Is France still attractive for foreign companies?

It is true that in recent years, negative signals, such as the 75% tax on high incomes were sent and do not encourage investors to launch in France. However, I do not think it is irreversible: the poor figures, some of which date back a year ago, also seem to be one of the reasons for the shift in the economic policy of the French government.

The European Commission has revised down growth forecasts French, with a projected GDP of only 0.7% in 2015. The deficit increase, it will continue to slip until 2016, according to Brussels. The economic situation in France does worry you?

Yes. It will take the France eventually return to the nails by reducing its deficit. I understand the argument that excessive reduction of public expenditure would be bad for growth. I am not convinced by this argument, for the following reason: a domestic or foreign investor, a country that puts its finances in order is a solid secure, predictable, while a country where the deficit goes wrong no incentive not to take risks and invest. Reduced spending and the deficit therefore has a positive effect: it will restore trust.

In an interview with the Obs, Manuel Valls denounced a "backward-looking" left, has called for a large gathering of progressive forces and reached out to Bayrou. You know social democratic reformist assumed. You pat yourself on these statements by the Prime Minister?

It is yet a posture. I agree with him: the left must remain critical of the capitalist system, but it needs to develop its criticism, and its responses to current economic challenges. The left needs to modernize.

We are in the middle of the mandate of François Hollande. The absence of striking results: unemployment does not fall, growth is sluggish, the deficit is widening again and debt explodes. Can we speak of a failure for the executive on the first half of term?

It is a response that will be realized voters. For now, it must be noted that the ambitions of the program François Hollande has not been reached. The circumstances have not been used. But it's not just the circumstances.

Do you still believe in his chances for 2017?

Question premature. What I believe is that to put France in economic and social performance of comparable countries, it will take time, probably between 5 and 10 years.

What are your two or three areas on which the government must concentrate to restore confidence and prepare for the future?

Education, education, education. The major issue for France, like all countries. This is the main site and there is much to do. The world is moving towards a knowledge economy: today, the countries that are most successful in globalization are those that have the highest performing education systems. We must act from nursery to higher education, through learning and training. This is what will make economic success, and therefore social tomorrow.