Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-24-Speech-3-138"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011024.6.3-138"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Our group has not signed the compromise resolution with the larger groups for a number of reasons, but the most important one is this: We believe that fundamental reform of the World Trade Organisation's processes and rules must be a precondition for any new round of trade talks. Reform is not something that can be simply addressed as one issue among many in a new multilateral trade round where it risks being traded off against other interests and demands. In our view, the WTO faces such a crisis of legitimacy in public opinion that reform must come before any further negotiations, and that is the position we have put forward in our joint resolution with the GUE Group.
Now that is not a tactic for putting off indefinitely the start of a new round. In our view, nothing has slowed down the WTO more than the debacle in Seattle which was caused in no small part by the chaotic and exclusive structures, rules and procedures of the WTO. So, for those who believe in multilateral trade rules, as we do, serious reform is not an option but a necessity. The lessons of the failed Seattle Ministerial were that the WTO must become a fully democratic and transparent organisation which genuinely supports sustainable development and which effectively responds to the needs of developing countries. They need to be far bigger players in the WTO. Their marginalisation needs to end and they need to be listened to. In recent weeks, many poorer countries have made it clear that for them addressing concerns about the implementation of Uruguay Round commitments should be a precondition for a new round. Just two days ago, a communication from the G77 reiterated that position.
Our group agrees with developing countries when they oppose new issues on the agenda on the grounds that expanding that agenda would over stretch the capacity of many developing countries which are already struggling to participate effectively in the WTO process. It would distract attention from the unfinished development business and increase the risk that developing countries will end up accepting disadvantageous trade-offs. The possible opt-outs that are on offer are not a realistic or effective way of dealing with these concerns, since developing countries still do not have the capacity now to affect the negotiations of an agreement which they may be later under pressure to sign. Pressing ahead with a new trade round in the face of major opposition from the majority of developing countries is not helpful. Simply calling it a development round without genuinely addressing the demands of developing countries is a sleight of hand that fails to address their real concerns.
Finally, our group agrees that strong international rules are needed to manage trade. We agree very much that internationalism is important, but the current international trade rules favour narrow business interests and not the poor and the environment. Changing those rules is the priority for Doha, not launching a new round."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples