Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-24-Speech-3-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011024.6.3-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, international trade is in crisis: according to the forecasts of the
2001 will see growth of 2% compared to the 13% in 2000. I feel it is right to raise the issues of WTO reforms, legitimacy and transparency of decisions so that we do not lose sight of the WTO’s primary, unique mission which is to extend international trade. This is why Doha must not fail: it must not fail because it has to ensure the sustained expansion of international trade over the next few years. The responsibility of the success or failure of Doha lies with Europe and the other more advanced countries.
In general, I feel that we must take note of certain considerations and questions. Firstly, in my opinion, we must stop following the line of reciprocity at all costs. Removing the barriers to trade – even unilaterally – is not an act of surrender. It is a farsighted measure, particularly in economic terms. I commend Commissioner Lamy for taking this approach with the Everything but Arms initiative, although we will have to explain to the European citizens that, under that initiative, which was well-received and rightly so, banana duties will fall definitively in 2009, that is in 10 years time – a geologically important period in many respects – and we will also have to tell them why.
A further problem we must avoid is overloading Doha with an oversized agenda. I would stress that Doha has a specific mission. We must not overload Doha and the WTO by attempting to use them to put right a number of issues which we feel need to be rectified in the world today. Certain positions expressed on the environment, health and employment standards do nothing to defend us against accusations that the advanced countries and Europe are actually using the extension of the agenda for protectionist ends. The developing countries are in a strong position and are not so very far from the truth when they say that all these so very politically correct issues actually serve to slow down the opening up of our markets to goods which have to come, first and foremost, from the least developed countries.
With regard to agriculture, I feel that we must bring to an end this game of hide-and-seek, this game of role plays between Europe and the United States in which, while we are waiting for someone to make the first move and start to reduce agricultural protection, we are all maintaining duty levels and levels of agricultural subsidies which are incompatible with the liberalisation of trade in the agricultural sector, when, as has been pointed out, this is one of the sectors which could most be most beneficial to the developing countries. In Europe, we grant a subsidy of a dollar a day per bovine animal – and these animals are not high quality, they are our own mad cows – when there are one billion, three hundred thousand human beings who have to live on less than one dollar a day.
There you have it: if we genuinely want the WTO and Doha to be successful, these are the issues we must address. We must be bold and, I would stress, abandon the principle of ‘reciprocity at all costs’. Unilateral measures opening up international trade benefit, first and foremost, those who have the courage to implement them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples