Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-17-Speech-3-200"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991117.6.3-200"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would first like to compliment the European Parliament on its sense of timing. This debate on the Schwaiger report could not have come at a better time because we are right now in the middle of extremely lively discussions on the preparation of the Seattle agenda.
In the area of the environment, there are many concerns focusing on the applicability of environmental measures in relation to WTO rules. The ideal solution is to be found, of course, in multilateral negotiations on a hierarchy of norms. As we well know, it is not within reach. In the meantime, we must work hard to ensure that each of the new standards is linked to the previous ones so that, if needs be, the judges to whom disputes are referred are not given too wide a scope for interpretation. One of our goals is to guarantee mutual compatibility in this context, which would allow environmental or other measures to be implemented in accordance with WTO rules.
The precautionary principle is another subject that concerns many of you. It is obviously up to each member of the WTO to decide if there is a risk or not. The precautionary principle must then allow that country to take the appropriate measures in order to avoid this risk. The most important thing for us therefore is the clarification of the regulations and procedures governing the application of the precautionary principle.
As far as services are concerned, I note the concerns that have been expressed. I would like to reassure you on this point. In no case do I have the mandate to accept, by means of an international negotiation, a threat to the power of the Union’s governments to regulate these areas or to be active in them. We recognise the essential and crucial role that these services play in our society.
With regard to agriculture, until now we have faced a position on the part of the Cairns group which aims to put agricultural products in the same category as other goods. This is not the position we hold. This is not what was agreed in 1994 by all parties involved and which we have respected. We will have to start again from the idea that agriculture has other functions apart from producing goods for the market.
Let us finally examine the question of social standards. In all countries, globalisation makes its effects felt in the social sphere, but it must also be pointed out that in a number of less advanced countries, international labour standards agreed on under the International Labour Organisation are not being sufficiently respected. The mention of social standards arouses reactions in some of our WTO partners, particularly among developing countries, which are, and I can vouch for this, extremely heated. It is crucial that, from now on, we begin by restating our opposition to the imposition of trade sanctions in the social sphere as well as to any use of sanctions for protectionist reasons. To our mind, the very raison d’être of respecting workers’ fundamental rights is the fairer distribution of profits from the growth that liberalisation of trade brings. It is, moreover, bearing this concern in mind, that our plan of widely applied preferences allows us to provide free-standing reductions to countries that effectively apply the main ILO conventions.
The important thing for us in Seattle, and I think that we are all in agreement on this, is to make discussion of the matter possible in the context of cooperation between the ILO and the WTO. By the way, I would also like to confirm our support for the presence of Mr Somavia in Seattle as a positive sign of the importance given to this subject.
I would like to say a word or two about China, Mr President, before I finish. I have not spoken publicly on this matter while I have been waiting for this debate. Is the signing by the Americans and the Chinese of an agreement on access to the WTO, as several of you have asked, good news or not such good news? From the point of view first of those who question the whole WTO, it is not good news. China, a country whose development is crucial for the future of the world, is giving a clear sign that it wishes to adhere to a multilateral trade system.
From the point of view of our multilateral interests as well as of our own interests, everything depends on the contents of the agreement that has been signed, as the American Congress wanted to be the first to hear the contents of this agreement, a procedure to which your Parliament should have been more sympathetic than hostile, even if it makes my life more difficult. I am sorry to say that information about the details only reaches me in dribs and drabs. Now the devil, or perhaps the dragon, in this case, is in the detail. I have no reason today to doubt the good faith of the American negotiators with whom our people have been working hard and to good effect for the last two years on our common interests. Nor do I have any reason to suspect that concessions on multilateral conditions that are important to us have been paid for in bilateral money that is not legal tender for us. Supposing that this were not the case, we should still have to negotiate with the Chinese on matters in which the Union has a particular interest. To sum up, it is probably good news, subject to receiving proper details of the contents, which are being prepared.
I shall conclude my intervention Mr President, by welcoming the members of your institution who are part of our delegation to the Seattle Ministerial Conference. This is part of a tradition that I am happy to uphold. Moreover, tomorrow, I shall be meeting those MEPs that you will be appointing as delegates for Seattle, and I hope that you will have done so by tomorrow, and we will be able to discuss in greater detail the courses of action that we shall carry out once we are there.
Next, as the Union’s negotiator, I would like to express my pleasure at the Schwaiger report. Its adoption will send a clear signal to our partners’, by confirming that the European Union will not be satisfied with a minimalist approach which only aims to improve market access in some sectors. This would not provide a response either to our fellow citizens’ concerns or to the legitimate demands of developing countries. Going by what you have said today, your vote tomorrow will strengthen our hand and thus the Union’s hand in Seattle.
We are all aware that the debate on trade has changed the approach that we are taking, as the Schwaiger report shows. It is, admittedly, true that we want to continue to liberalise trade, which has been and still is a strategic factor in our prosperity. But the next round of negotiations must also address new issues, such as development, the environment, health and food safety, fundamental social standards, competition and its transparency, minimal rules in terms of investment and the promotion of cultural diversity. The addition of all these elements leads us to recommend a broader round of negotiations, and I am delighted to see the broad agreement on this matter between the Commission and Parliament which is shown in your report, Mr Schwaiger.
Some of you do not agree with this approach and propose a kind of moratorium on negotiations. I do not think that this is a valid solution. Firstly because we have commitments that must be respected in the follow-up to the Uruguay Round. Secondly, we must carefully weigh up the risks of a moratorium. If we do not advance further along the route towards multilateral liberalisation, that means leaving the way open for unilateral action by the strongest. Is this really the outcome that those calling for a moratorium want to see?
Thirdly, why should we postpone negotiation on the rules which our society is rightly calling for and that developing countries are expecting in order to integrate the liberalisation of trade and sustainable development into areas such as health, the environment and workers’ fundamental rights?
I am therefore convinced that these negotiations are necessary, but I recognise – and moreover I am delighted that this is the case – that the very conditions of these negotiations have changed in relation to the previous round. Given the concerns expressed by a growing number of our fellow citizens with regard to globalisation, we must have a public debate that is more wide-ranging, more transparent and more interactive. In this respect, I think that the discussions held when the Schwaiger report was being prepared, both within Parliament and between Parliament and the Commission, have been exemplary. This is why I feel I must pay tribute to Mr Schwaiger who has accomplished a Herculean task by drawing up, from your many proposals, a compromise version that I hope you will vote for tomorrow.
In order to respond to the debate, I would like briefly to mention a few issues which have come to light in the preparation of this report. On the subject, first, of developing countries, it has become clear that the countries that have benefited the least from the establishment of the WTO and from the results of the Uruguay Round are also, without exception, those who are the least integrated into the world trade system. We therefore have to encourage their participation with a view to encouraging their integration, instead of delaying. Where integration does not go ahead primarily because of a lack of resources or inadequate expertise, then developing countries must be given technical and financial assistance in order to increase their negotiating ability and to apply the measures decided on within the WTO. On the other hand, when non-integration is a result of domestic policies or of poor development, extending deadlines for implementation or providing more and more preferential measures are not ideal solutions. Special and differentiated treatment is, admittedly, essential for developing countries, but it must encourage these countries to implement strategies for sustainable development and not exempt them from such strategies.
A new approach is necessary with regard to relations with ACP countries, for example, one that must, in particular, achieve convergence towards WTO rules, because the current system must be reviewed, in any case, even if we have to make the necessary transitional changes.
On the issue of intellectual property, we are convinced that the regulations in this field must enable developing countries to themselves benefit from the resources available to them and that the current measures already go a long way towards achieving this. A top-to-toe revision of the agreement would not therefore be a good idea. On the other hand, if we take a coherent view of the link between intellectual property and development, we must, at the same time as extending its guarantees, ensure that we encourage direct investment as the principle means of transferring technology to these countries, as well as developing agreements with them for technological cooperation and perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, thinking about strengthening European investment in fundamental research on living things, in order to share the profits with them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples