Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-24-Speech-3-248"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011024.12.3-248"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, after fifteen years of negotiations, we are now in the final stage of China and Taiwan’s accession to the WTO. The Commission submitted the accession conditions to you for your opinion. I would like to thank the House, in particular, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the rapporteur, Mr Gahrton, for your willingness to treat this subject as a priority. If you accept the recommendation of your rapporteur, the Union will be in a position to give the green light to China’s accession at the next Ministerial Conference of the WTO, which, as you know, will take place in Doha on 9-13 November.
We cannot claim that the WTO has a global vocation if it excludes a country which represents more than 20% of the world’s population. The issue was not, therefore
China should join the WTO, but rather
. Well, after fifteen long years of negotiations, the different parties involved, China and its trading partners, have reached the conclusion that that time has arrived. One of the Union’s main objectives was that these negotiations should lead to a strengthening of the multilateral system. It was therefore necessary for China to accept what we could describe as the multilateral
and I will not make any controversial parallel here either, in other words, the advances made within the framework of GATT and then the WTO over the last half a century. We have ensured that the level of Chinese commitments offers this guarantee. But this accession to the WTO is also a victory for China, since we believe it to be an essential condition if she is to continue her exceptional economic development. Chinese external trade has increased by an average of 15% per year over the last twenty years. It is, therefore, literally an explosion. And accession to the WTO ensures China a stable framework for her commercial policy by guaranteeing the outlets which are crucial to her. Her status as a member will also allow her to defend her commercial interests by participating fully in the round of negotiations. At the end of the day it is clear that accession to the WTO is only one element, perhaps an essential one, but, nevertheless, only one element in the reform process launched by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 and continued by his successors. More than an end in itself, accession is a consequence of these past reforms and a springboard for new reforms to come. The justification for these reforms does not lie in accession to the WTO, and I feel that it would probably be presumptuous to try to distinguish between, what would result from accession itself, and, what is connected to the reform process taking place in China. This close connection between the timetable for internal reforms and accession to the WTO has been recognised by China’s trading partners, the Union, in particular, by means of the acceptance of transitional periods for the implementation of certain obligations. In fact, our objective was more the eventual result rather than the speed with which that result comes about. Mr Gahrton, you referred to two works which stress the dangers which may arise in China as a result of accession to the WTO in terms of regional tensions or social problems. I do not believe that these problems are being underestimated by the Chinese authorities, whose fundamental political objective seems to me, to be to guarantee the stability and integrity of their country. From the conversations I have had with them, I understand that China sees accession to the WTO as an essential element in the continuation of these twenty years of reforms, and, therefore, a continuation of this growth which has allowed internal tensions to be kept under control, here or there. China’s per capita GDP has multiplied by four over these twenty years. This is therefore a classic, if specific, case of the relationship between commerce and development. We all know, and I have often said to you, that commercial liberalisation is a good thing, as long as it is accompanied by the means to translate growth into sustainable development, that is to say, internal social and environmental policies, without which the beneficial effects of commercial liberalisation are not enjoyed. From this point or view, we believe that China’s accession promotes that type of better internal policy. I believe that this accession will strengthen the rule of law in China. The fundamental principles of transparency, non-discrimination, efficient administration and independent judicial control, which are included in the
of the WTO, will contribute, we believe, to the positive evolution of China’s economic, legal and social systems. In any event, for our part, we have been concerned, throughout the process of negotiations, to propose progressive measures which will prevent any particular section of the Chinese economy from being exposed to foreign competition overnight.
In conclusion, I would like to insist on the fact that the result of these negotiations is balanced. It is true that we have defended European interests, and our document to Council and Parliament reflects that strategy. No, we have not ignored the consequences for China and for the WTO. Yes, accession will have a positive impact in terms of the quest for economic development in China, and therefore on the quest for internal reforms. In any event, it is the Chinese themselves who have chosen to integrate themselves into the international economy, and so much the better. At the same time we can only rejoice at the fact that, for the first time, Taiwan is becoming a full member of an international organisation, in a way which reflects its economic development and its status as an industrialised country.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will end by saying to the House that these two results are due to the wisdom of my predecessor, Sir Leon Brittan, who had made these two accessions one of the priorities of the Union’s commercial policy. All I have done is finish the work which he had largely and judiciously started.
The documents you have been issued with, will have informed you of all the technical elements of the negotiation. I will not return to them today, but I would like to share with you some thoughts of a more political nature, at the same time giving my reaction to Mr Gahrton’s document and speech; they both warrant it.
I would, firstly, like to stress the special nature of negotiations for accession to the WTO and try to correct the impression – created by your report, Mr Gahrton – that it is something which we have handled in an excessively unilateral fashion.
An accession to the WTO is not negotiated within a traditional multilateral framework, where concessions are made on the basis of the principle of reciprocity. On the contrary, in an accession negotiation, at least to the WTO (I say that prudently, since this seat was occupied by Günter Verheugen less than an hour ago), a country puts itself forward as a candidate to join a club whose members have already negotiated commitments amongst themselves.
The candidate country must therefore pay for entry into that club by offering commitments in terms of access to markets which reflect what the members have already accepted amongst themselves.
On several occasions your report points out, and with a degree of reproach which has not escaped me, the positive tone taken by the Commission to describe the results we have achieved after fifteen years of negotiations.
Even if, contrary to what the report says, the Commission’s report is not jubilant, I nevertheless believe that we can be satisfied with these results as a job well done.
Our task was primarily to defend the interests of the Union in these negotiations, and that is what we have done.
It is also the case, however, that this agreement is not some kind of unilateral victory for the Union, which is something, if I have understood correctly, that you rather reproach us for. If there has been any victory, I am tempted to say that it is a multilateral one, since it is the multilateral system as a whole which has been strengthened as a result."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples