Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-248"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.12.2-248"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
These two questions refer to the publication by certain non-governmental organisations and newspapers of the European Union’s draft wish lists concerning the WTO services negotiations. These leaks, because that is what they are, are regrettable, as they are disrupting our own internal preparation for the negotiations; the consultation process within the Community is not yet complete; we are merely at the initial discussion stage and we have by no means reached a final position at European Union level with regard to the drafts. In fact, in line with the procedures, we are in the process of consulting the Member States so that they can examine these initial requests, carry out their own internal consultations and submit their comments to us. This whole process will, at some point in the future, result in these draft wish lists being sent to Geneva.
One question remains, to which Mr van den Berg has drawn our attention: the issue of water in developing countries. This is indeed a complex matter. We, the Commission, are convinced that, in the case of water, we have good reason to address requests to third countries with regard to water supply. I must specify ‘water supply’, to distinguish it clearly from the problem of access to water resources, which is outside the scope of the WTO agreement on services. We consider, following a number of international works, that, if the billion or billion and a half people on Earth who have no access to water are to have access to it in the next ten years, we will need private funding. The volume of capital which needs to be invested in this type of infrastructure currently stands at around USD 200 billion. Current investments stand at around USD 70 to 80 billion. The difference cannot be remedied solely with public funds. We therefore consider that the GATS negotiations, if properly directed, could provide a useful contribution to an international effort that has been undertaken to achieve the WTO millennium objectives in the field of water.
One last point, which was raised by Mr van den Berg. That is the question of the relationship between the requirements, or conditions, formulated by the IMF with regard to the LDCs and the WTO negotiations. On this point, the response is as follows: the services negotiations and the IMF structural adjustment programmes are not related. This being so, the developing countries that have or are said to have made commitments under the structural adjustment programmes should, if I may say so, use this to their advantage in the international negotiations.
Until these conditions are consolidated by the WTO, they are not considered obligatory from the point of view of the WTO and, consequently, countries which, for one reason or another, have been obliged to accept or have accepted conditions of this type from the IMF may use this advantage in the WTO negotiations. As far as we are concerned, in any case, we are prepared to consider this very favourably.
The leaks are also regrettable in that they are damaging to our own negotiating position. By making this type of draft negotiation wish list public, we are clearly putting the third countries to which they are addressed under pressure, and they in turn have had to confront a number of questions on wish lists which, from our point of view, were still in draft form. Clearly, none of these things make negotiations any easier.
Lastly, they are regrettable because, for once, the European Parliament has not been informed before the other institutions, and has been informed just after the Council, in any event, which is counter to the rules we established together. I would remind you that, within the constraints of the Treaty, which clearly gives priority to the Council, we have together adopted informal information and consultation procedures that have worked well so far. Moreover, I have no reason to doubt that they will continue to work well in future.
The final reason why these leaks are regrettable is that they give a kind of strange signal, as if a scoop had been made, as if this were a detective story and interesting discoveries had been made. This, however, is not the case, as the broad lines of these proposals are public, having been posted on our web site at the end of the year 2000, and there have been no changes to the political principles since then.
All negotiations comprise an initial stage for reflection, a second stage for transparency and a third stage for negotiation, out of the spotlight. For now, we are at the reflection stage. We have carefully consulted one another before sending our initial drafts to the Member States. I can assure you that, with regard to Parliament’s positions on the services negotiations, in which it has repeatedly emphasised the need to ensure that public services are respected, a concern, what is more, which is also shared by the Commission and which we have incorporated into our proposals, these positions are exactly the same as those initially indicated. We have indeed consulted and taken account of the points of view of a number of professional sectors and the points of view of a number of non-governmental organisations. None of these organisations have been given special treatment.
To summarise, these leaks are indeed thoroughly regrettable. Regrettable though they may be, however, they still have a positive side, since now that these secret documents have been made public, anyone who is interested will now be able to look at them closely and will see that these so-called secret proposals are entirely in line with the objectives that we stated publicly and that there is no hidden agenda, contrary to various accusations. In particular, they will see that we have no intention of either promoting or requiring the privatisation or dismantling of public services in any sector or in any country.
So far, in fact, there has been only one victim of the publication of these wish lists, and that is the myth of the hidden agenda, which has been so completely discredited that I am now sometimes even suspected of having organised this leak myself in order to show how greatly what we were doing in secret tallied with what we announced publicly. Naturally, I refute any statements of this nature.
To get to the bottom of this, let us recall briefly that the WTO services agreement is the most flexible agreement imaginable, that it allows each country to draw up a list of activities for which it is willing to offer access to its market and treat foreign providers as nationals, that any country may exclude activities it considers to be politically sensitive from its commitments and that, as a result, the problems of differing economic and social situations in the participating countries are taken into consideration.
What is more, the members of the WTO have the sovereign right to regulate trading and other activities in their territory according to specific public objectives. This is the general principle. On the draft wish lists in question, in line with both the negotiation proposals we previously submitted and the objectives we have already stated, our requests concern a number of sectors, which I shall list briefly: the professions, business services, shipping, postal services, telecommunications, construction and engineering, distribution, environmental services, financial services, tourism, travel, transport and energy. Neither healthcare nor education, as you have just heard, are on this list, and we have not addressed any requests to third countries in either the healthcare or education sectors, and, I must add, we ourselves have no intention, at least at this stage, of making offers in this field."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples