Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-24-Speech-3-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011024.6.3-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the European Parliament for having organised this debate on the progress of preparations for the forthcoming Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation. There are two weeks to go before the conference opens and some lively discussions are now going on in Geneva and elsewhere on the negotiating programme that will be launched. I would now like to say that, as negotiator for the European Union, it is very important to me that the European Parliament actively participates in this debate. As you know, we fought together, at the previous Intergovernmental Conference – at which the Treaty of Nice, as we call it, was draw up – in order to enhance Parliament’s competences in the area of trade policy. As you also know, the Member States did not adopt our proposals. In these circumstances, the Commission is doing everything in its power, within the framework imposed on us by the Treaty, to inform the European Parliament and to involve it in the Union’s trade policy. You also know that we are in favour of creating a consultative parliamentary body at the WTO, to enhance the role of Members in the multilateral trading system. I am convinced that, if we want the support of public opinion, if we want to improve the WTO’s legitimacy, then enhancing the role of Members in the WTO’s work is not only possible, but also, and above all, it is necessary.
So, what is in the negotiating programme proposed by the European Union? On several occasions over the last two years, since Seattle, we have had the opportunity to come together to discuss the progress of preparations for the forthcoming Ministerial Conference. The exchanges of views that we have had here or in committee have given us food for thought as to which strategy should be applied. The considerations and concerns that you have voiced during these meetings are very similar to those of the Commission. Like us, you want a negotiating programme on the liberalisation of trade and investment, to meet the needs of our exporters and those of developing countries. But, like us, you also want an agenda that focuses on the drafting of new rules, the clarification of current rules and the linking-up of World Trade Organisation rules and those of other international bodies in the areas of society, the environment, health or food safety. It is these rules that will provide greater market efficiency, better social development and sufficient environmental protection. We believe that the key to sustainable development of the planet as a whole hinges on our ability to combine the opening-up of the markets with the application of multilateral rules. This is why there are three subjects on the agenda supported by the European Union since the Seattle meeting. These are market access, regulation and the integration of developing countries; the unity of these three subjects is guaranteed by what is called the single undertaking. Lastly, we want to hold intense negotiations and come to swift conclusions.
Some may be surprised that the tragic events of 11 September have changed neither course nor our schedule. I would like to briefly explain this. Even before 11 September, we believed that an approach based on the principle of well-ordered liberalisation was required. This has become even more necessary since the terrorist attacks took place. The process of opening up markets, regulating trade, integrating developing countries and the concern to ensure environmental and social sustainability – we need these more now than ever before. These are issues of stability and security, both in relations between countries and between generations. Dialogue, negotiation and peaceful resolution to commercial conflicts have made international trade a laboratory for international governance, where each partner participates in decision-making. Faced with the instability caused by the attacks, we must further strengthen the importance of the multilateral dimension, which we believe to be the best way to give today’s de facto globalisation a legal status. Of course, the WTO is only one of the pillars making up a multilateral system, which must meet the challenges of globalisation. A round of World Trade Organisation negotiations is therefore necessary, of course, but it is in no way sufficient. We must also strengthen the other institutions of governance, the environment, social development, development funding and policy support agencies.
Let us now consider the prospects for the Ministerial Conference, which will take place in two weeks’ time. Generally speaking, I think that we are in a better position than we were at this stage before the Seattle conference. The preparatory work is being carried out in a spirit of positive cooperation. The belief that the multilateral system must now, more than ever, be an essential part of growth and prosperity is widely shared. And I think we must also point out that the open, constructive spirit and the efforts made by many partners – such as ourselves, the United States, and an increasing number of developing countries – have already helped to partly reconcile the differing views that prevented Seattle from being a success. This came across very clearly at the last informal select meeting of WTO trade ministers, which was held in Singapore on 13 and 14 October and which I attended. I feel that this was also correctly reflected at the meeting of APEC trade ministers (Pacific-rim countries) that took place last week. I think that we have now reached a point where we can envisage an ambitious, balanced round that meets the primary objectives of the European Union.
Of course, we have not yet achieved this goal. We are now entering the final and crucial stage, in the run-up to Doha. As you know, a draft Ministerial Declaration, which will constitute the framework of negotiations for the new round, was published on 26 September 2001. All the members of the WTO considered this document to be a sound basis for moving forward. Of course, no one was fully satisfied, which, if you are familiar with the culture at the WTO, is more or less a good sign prior to negotiations. Obviously, not everything in this document is acceptable, not even for us, and I shall outline to you the main areas of difficulty, which require further work.
The first difficulty concerns trade and the environment, areas that give us particular cause for concern due to the lack of ambitious proposals. Clearly, we hope to make the framework for negotiation much more substantial. Progress is being made in some areas, but we must admit that most of our partners in developing countries are still hesitant, to say the least, about the idea of accepting negotiations on this subject. We shall do everything we can in the following days to improve this situation. I also made it clear to my colleagues, in Singapore, that a framework on this issue was not only a political necessity for the European Union, but should also be of interest to all the members of the World Trade Organisation and of the multilateral system as a whole. I think that the message concerning the political importance that this question holds for us has got through. We still need to draw operational consequences from this. The second difficulty, after environment, is agriculture, which is still a very sensitive subject. The draft declaration before us seems to pre-empt the outcome of the negotiations in several respects, since it aims, in particular, to phase out subsidy categories, which goes further than the framework that Franz Fischler and myself received…"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples