Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-159"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.7.4-159"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"the debates on the WTO which have just taken place in this Parliament on the occasion of the Schwaiger report have clearly shown that, as far as Europe is concerned, the forthcoming negotiations are concerned with the future of its social model at least as much as its trade. Similarly for the countries of the third world, the question is knowing whether they will still be able to escape the clutches of the mega-multinationals produced by the mega-mergers and stay in control of their own development.
Finally we must defend the principle of the hierarchy of standards. Fundamental human rights and the Universal Declaration of 1948, the conventions of the ILO (International Labour Organisation) or conventions on the environment, are in essence superior to the standards governing trade. It must not be possible to condemn a state for applying the precautionary principle, for protecting its environment, or for rejecting imports proved to be produced by child labour. On the contrary, it must be possible to take an appeal against a WTO decision to the ILO or to the competent bodies of the United Nations. We must reverse the unbalanced situation arising from the fact that having multilateral commercial agreements alone has led to the creation of a legal-style body, whereas this was not the case either for the conventions on the environment or the ILO conventions.
Some of these concerns were taken into account by the rapporteur at the end of the debates within the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. Unfortunately, in the course of the plenary sitting, the rapporteur and the PPE and ELDR groups introduced a number of amendments into the text which tone down the social and environmental requirements. Considering, furthermore, the unfavourable outcome reserved for the amendments proposed by myself and my fellow members of the French Socialist delegation and the GUE/NGL and Greens/ALE Groups, I abstained, Madam President, in the vote on Mr Schwaiger’s report.
But I believe that one of the most significant elements, on the eve of this new round, one which distinguishes it from the previous rounds, is the intrusion of society, of NGOs and international public opinion into the debate. I believe that we should be pleased at this, since it provides the best guarantee that it will not be possible to omit these issues in the course of these negotiations. For their entire duration, they will remain at the centre of the debates of the European Parliament, I am sure.
For the problem is not knowing whether rules are necessary in world trade. Everyone is agreed on that. The question is knowing whether the rules promoted by the WTO ever since its creation permit fair and sustainable development for all the regions of the world.
I shall make two observations:
Firstly, the liberalisation promoted in the previous rounds and the increase in the volume of trade have been associated with an intensification of inequalities in development on a world scale. In theory, the leaps forward achieved by some should drag others along behind, but in fact the opposite has occurred. The African continent’s share in world trade is less than 3%. Liberal globalisation has proved incapable of providing a solution to the problem of development and still less of promoting fair and sustainable development.
This is the reason why an assessment of the social and environmental impact of the previous rounds was essential before engaging in a new wave of all-out liberalisation. If it has been rejected so consistently, it is because the outcome would have been negative. However, for the European Union, the establishment of an analysis shared with the countries of the third world could have been the foundation for the alliance which we are seeking to build with them on the occasion of these negotiations.
Secondly, the DSB (Dispute Settlement Body), created within the WTO, has demanded that the European Union give up its own standards in fields as fundamental as health and food safety or even its policy of cooperation in the case of the bananas from ACP countries and the outermost regions. The question from now on is knowing if it is possible to accept a situation where, if one thing leads to another, decision after decision, ruling on everything on the pretext of settling commercial differences, the DSB may end up establishing itself as a sort of world-wide Supreme Court, imposing its views in all areas on elected governments and parliaments. We would then be witnesses to a real seizure of democratic power.
This is why, in the Millennium Round, Europe must champion another vision of the organisation of commerce and world trade. To do so it must assert three main principles:
The first is that the objective of this round must be the reduction of inequalities in development between north and south. In order to achieve this, the rules of the multilateral trade system must take into account the differences between countries in situations and resources. Free trade without taking anything else into consideration means that the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. This is why we cannot accept challenges to the Lomé Agreements and our policy of cooperation in the form in which we have constructed it in the Lomé Agreements with ACP countries, including 39 of the poorest countries in the world. On the contrary, we must reassert the commitment undertaken towards them during the recent ACP-EU Joint Assembly. Europe must go to Seattle with a vision of globalisation which is opposed to that of a unilateral world dominated by a single power. It must promote a vision based on a multipolar world and encourage the formation of regional associations integrated both economically and politically, as we have been doing ourselves for 40 years. How could we refuse others what we granted ourselves, after the war, in order to rebuild our industry, our agriculture and our economy?
The second principle should be that the WTO must be “confined” to a strictly defined role, and sectors which should only come under the remit of the sovereignty of states and the institutions established by citizens, because they concern the very identity of each society, should be kept out of its area of competence. Public and social services such as education or health, but also those where consumer safety and collective interests are involved, such as public transport or air traffic control, culture and artistic creation, may not be taken into account as part of trade negotiations. We must resist the onward rush towards treating everything in society as saleable commodities. In the agreements on intellectual property, Europe must resist the patenting of living organisms, it must guarantee that derogations to the general trade regulations for medicinal products used to fight AIDS and other serious diseases indicated by the WHO are maintained."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples