Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.3.1-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, no result is better than a bad result. That is the conclusion which we too believe should be drawn from the unsuccessful negotiations in Seattle. May I thank you, Commissioner Lamy, and the entire Commission Delegation for being so well prepared and for leading the negotiations so skilfully. By taking such a dynamic lead – in close cooperation with the European Parliament Delegation – the Commission showed, with its comprehensive negotiating strategy, that it had set the course for a possible success.
The poor level of preparation on the part of the WTO, but also the tactics of the United States and other countries, did not, however, permit a successful conclusion. It is with satisfaction that we also not only take note of your support – which you have just reiterated – for the WTO parliamentary assembly which we have called for, but also express the hope that you will give us practical support as far as those responsible in the WTO are concerned in our efforts to make this a reality. In this process, cooperation between the European Union, North America, Mercosur, ASEAN and the ACP countries should allow this parliamentary assembly to be organised effectively, with the regional groupings able to play an important role in the interests of greater efficacy. Now, what needs to be done in the months, and perhaps in the year, ahead?
We too believe that we need to keep the global negotiating strategy and consolidate it further in the coming months. We need to open and pursue an active dialogue with those countries, including the newly industrialised and developing countries, whose positions still diverge widely from ours. Our chances of winning over these countries should be all the greater if we remain consistent. The focus here should be on the following core areas of trade in goods and services: further reductions in tariffs and the gradual elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade; investment; competition and services; intellectual property; public procurement and e-commerce.
They are essential components of further trade liberalisation and will benefit most of our negotiating partners. In addition, reform of the WTO is urgent and imperative. Secondly, in this process, European environmental and health policies, minimum social standards and development policy should retain their status. Thirdly, at the forthcoming negotiations on agriculture, emphasis should be placed on the multifunctional reasons for our European model of agriculture – the further development of rural areas, the provision of high-quality agricultural products and the environment – with reference being made also to Article 20 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.
In the negotiations with China, which are now beginning, we should concentrate on our own interests, which are in part also contrary to those of the United States. Reducing the high Chinese peak tariffs, protecting intellectual property and facilitating investment are the most important points here. Increased market access for the least developed countries – and this is something which we need to consider together – should in any case be achieved very soon as part of the negotiations on the new ACP convention, although I do not know whether this will work on a unilateral basis. These countries should be granted waivers of between eight and ten years to allow them to adopt the comprehensive WTO body of legislation slowly and gradually, without neglecting their programme of sustainable development."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples