Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-192"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.7.3-192"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should first like to point out that the Commission also believes that our relations with the United States are essential, but that must never stop us from firmly carrying out the actions needed to defend the Union’s interests.
Lastly, I should like to thank you for your unambiguous support for the firm line held by the Commission. We hope that the resolution you are to vote on will strengthen the European Union’s positions on this fundamental issue for us all.
Today’s debate has drifted towards the existing conflicts between the United States and the European Union, particularly the steel dispute, although other matters have also been mentioned. The major problem facing us is what we should do. According to some of you, the best formula is to establish a link between the steel dispute and other trading problems with the Union. Really, though, as our strong point is upholding multilateralism, it is reasonable that we should attack that contradiction by applying multilateral rules. We do not think it is a good solution and it is not the one that best serves the Union’s long-term interests.
Others amongst you have suggested linking this issue to other matters; the Foreign Sales Act has been mentioned, as has the matter of hormones. Again we wonder whether seeking a package solution dependent on a political debate is the formula we should be using.
We believe that the strength of our position with the United States lies in the need to comply with what has been agreed multilaterally. This must be the road we take; we therefore consider that the first decision, without any question, is to use all existing procedures within the World Trade Organisation, and by all procedures we mean not only those that will take a long time to implement but also the necessary retaliatory measures, but all this must be done through the World Trade Organisation. This may, of course, make it necessary for us to implement specific safeguard clauses which, I may say in advance, we intend will affect developing countries as little as possible, since our opinion on safeguard clauses is not to close off our markets but to maintain our traditional trade relations with our suppliers.
Clearly, the possibility some of you have suggested of making restrictive voluntary agreements to reduce exports is not compatible with the World Trade Organisation.
With regard to the clementines case – the President-in-Office of the Council has already referred to this matter – I shall only point out that we are negotiating with the United States in an attempt to find a solution to the problem before the next harvest. Clearly, in this case too, just as in the last one, we are prepared to use all the legal resources established in the World Trade Organisation.
The Commission has been pleased to see the broad consensus among the European institutions regarding the need to make multilateral institutions work and to tackle the challenges of globalisation by seeking the best of solutions with our American counterparts and seeking to ensure that the unilateral option is not the one chosen.
I endorse Pascal Lamy’s comments here this morning that it would be fundamental to seek an agreement, as we have seen here, among all those supporting a new and positive boost to transatlantic relations. However, that must not mean failing to tackle existing problems with all the means or all the facts at our disposal.
As you know, right now we are studying and working on various options, and any new contribution this House might make would be welcome."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples