Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-05-Speech-2-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991005.4.2-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, everyone remembers the alarm cry which went out from the eleventh international AIDS conference in Lusaka less than a month ago. HIV has become the principal cause of death in Africa. In some countries, it affects a quarter of the population. We may speak of a risk of humanitarian catastrophe.
In requesting, therefore, a debate in the European Parliament, I was hoping that we would show that Europe had heard this alarm cry. Since then, I have met some of the main NGOs involved in the fight against AIDS in the field. Arising from these discussions, there are three essential proposals which I would like to mention now.
The first, naturally, is to do with the budgetary resources which Europe assigns to the fight against AIDS in developing countries. I am not the first to remind you that the draft budget for the year 2000 anticipates a spectacular fall in the level of our aid, a two thirds reduction of the commitment appropriations from EUR 16.5 to 5.5 million, at the very time when, quite the opposite, it is the strengthening of international mobilisation which is needed. Consequently, we Members of Parliament shall soon have to face up to our responsibilities in this matter.
The second area where we can and must improve our intervention involves, in my opinion, the selection of our priorities in the field. The Commission favours prevention, which is indispensable, but it underestimates the possible inconsistency of access to treatment. For, indeed, how can people be persuaded to go in for screening if they know full well that they will not receive any treatment? It is a situation which promotes fatalism. We should therefore, in my opinion, see prevention, access to treatment and research as indivisible components.
In the third place, there is the necessary question of the cost of medicines and how to enable the countries of the South to have access to these. Commissioner Nielson mentioned this problem and, for my part, I would put forward two proposals. Firstly, the European Union can and should enter into negotiations with laboratories in order to obtain different prices for North and South. Secondly, Europe could in fact play a decisive role at the negotiations in Seattle on world trade. In fact, agreements on intellectual property signed within the framework of the WTO allow for States to authorise the local production and distribution at reduced cost of medicines, which are otherwise protected by patent, in “emergency situations”. So far this exists only in principle, but surely this is such a case. This is the matter of the compulsory licences which have been mentioned. In actual fact, implementing this clause exposes the countries concerned to the threat of sanctions by the most powerful groups and States. This must cease. Then, the European Union could take pride at Seattle by firmly defending the principle of a sort of exception for health, in other words, by demanding that the major imperatives of public health are not threatened by international trade agreements. The European Union could, furthermore, assist the countries of the South in preparing their legislation in this spirit in order to counter ultra-liberal pressure.
Madam President, by adopting these proposals, Europe can affirm its own identity on the international stage while contributing towards giving new hope to millions of human beings."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples