Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.3.1-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"taken at this time, given that the European Union was the only delegation which was pushing an ambitious agenda on the subject of the environment. I remain convinced that a biotechnology group focussed on factual analysis and not on negotiation would have been a small price to pay in order to get a considerable raft of environmental proposals through.
There is a third scenario, one I would call an interim scenario. If we do not wish to wait for 18 months before resuming negotiations, let us try as of now to move things forward step by step. An interim package might make it possible to restore confidence in the system and to create conditions favourable to the launch of a new round as soon as possible. It would therefore be necessary to continue the preparations in progress at Geneva, particularly our process of alliance moving towards broader negotiations.
In this context, the following steps could be envisaged. Firstly, institutional reform of the WTO. Well before Seattle, we had submitted detailed proposals on the transparency of WTO activities. We must go further and determine precisely the causes of the practical problems which slowed down the process in Seattle, and then propose some practical solutions which are centred on the efficiency-transparency axis.
As regards transparency, it is clear that decision making and negotiations must be legitimised in the clearest and most consistent manner. As regards efficiency, the organisation of work, the procedures, the bodies, and the ministerial conferences must be reviewed with a view to obtaining practical results.
One of the suggestions put forward by the Members of the European Parliament present at Seattle and reiterated last week by a number of Member States was to convene a parliamentary assembly. This idea appeals to me, since it would make it possible to strengthen democratic control over work within the WTO.
The third crucial element is developing countries. These are among the countries most disappointed and most affected by the lack of results. Restarting the process leading to a new round must by necessity represent substantial progress for them, if we wish to obtain their support. One of the ways to obtain this support would be to maintain our offer to the least advanced countries and to examine together the coordination between the action of the WTO and that of other international institutions in order to ensure that trade liberalisation results in sustainable development for all developing countries, beginning with the very poorest peoples.
These interim steps which I have just outlined would enable us to keep the process alive and to be ready, when the time comes, to resume work for a complete round. We must therefore combine two approaches. Firstly, regarding the content, in striving to form alliances and to retain support in favour of a broad approach to the round, and secondly, on the form, the institutional plan and the procedures, in order to set in place all we shall need throughout future negotiations.
This is the direction we will work in, if the Council and Parliament are in agreement.
We also made a major effort as regards information and participation in order to put into practice the intentions I expressed before this House during the parliamentary hearings in September. A delegation of representatives of the European Parliament was part of our Community delegation. We kept in contact on an on-going basis, enabling an exchange of views and information, which proved to be extremely useful to me in my capacity as a negotiator. This positive experience strengthens my conviction that we should continue to involve the European Parliament more closely in framing our common trade policy.
In the interests of increased transparency, we also, for the first time, brought in a group of consultants representing management and unions, the Economic and Social Committee and NGOs. Through them, we maintained contact with society and economic and social interest groups. Daily briefings were organised for the economic organisations and the NGOs accredited by the WTO.
On the whole, we return from Seattle with the feeling that we did much to make this conference a success. Now we have to continue the work which has been started. What direction should we be going in and what do we have to do now?
The Commission considers that initiating a new round on the basis of a broad agenda remains our priority. We must now, however, proceed with caution. A second failed attempt would, of course, be disastrous.
It is not clear at present at what time we will be able to recommence the round of negotiations. You have to realise that there is a real feeling of discontent in developing countries, and that any attempt to restart the process must necessarily involve repairing the damage caused in this area, which may take some time.
What are our options? I can see three possibilities. The first scenario is to convene another ministerial conference quickly. The people in favour of this scenario claim that there was, after all, substantial progress in Seattle, for example, concerning questions of market access, the promotion of trade or services. From this point of view, the subjects which were not successfully concluded in Seattle, such as agriculture, anti-dumping and fundamental social standards, should now be tackled quickly.
The President of the United States has just declared that the round may be quickly recommenced. The bilateral Summit at which we are to meet this week will afford us the opportunity to check whether this is a sign of flexibility or just a repetition of the well-known American positions which favour a round limited to market access.
The second scenario is rather more gloomy. It takes account of the hypothesis which says that the United States will not, in any event, make any moves during an election campaign. If that should prove true, there would be no progress before the year 2001. The implications of this scenario are worrying ones. Not only would we lose precious time, but that would also mean that the inability of a single partner to move would be enough to paralyse the entire multilateral system."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples