Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-16-Speech-4-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020516.2.4-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Let me start by saying that what Mr Bowis said is something I can agree with from one end to the other. Real starvation, in most cases, relates to conflict situations. These are the low points. But it should also be possible to reach the goal of halving the food problems because those conflicts are man-made. We are now studying the situation very carefully in Zimbabwe. Our analysis is that even if it is true that there is a drought problem in the region, by far most of the problem of access to food in Zimbabwe is man-made. It is a politically created, negative situation. That will not keep us from carrying out our humanitarian mission. We have to be clear what we are facing. Strangely enough there is some optimism to be found in the notion that conflicts are one of the main causes of starvation.
Mr Mulder mentioned the need for a correct pricing policy in the developing countries and the need to concentrate on Africa. I agree. One of the reasons we want to move more towards giving food aid in the form of cash is to stimulate the development of adequate pricing structures and market situations in these countries.
Mr Mulder also mentioned that giving food aid, as such, can be problematic. He mentioned both the European Union and the United States and the agricultural policies here as part of the global problem. Once again, I could not agree more. Let me quote part of the editorial in the
yesterday with the headline "An awful farm bill": "George W. Bush signed a farm bill on Monday that represents a low point in his presidency – a wasteful corporate welfare measure that penalises taxpayers and the world's poorest people in order to bribe a few voters. Bush said he was pleased to do this and delivered a brief statement suggesting that he is either dishonest or utterly ignorant of what he has just done." These are strong words. For Europe complacency is also a real risk. We have some soul-searching and some reforming to do ourselves.
In Monterrey, the World Bank, IMF and WTO top management were in fact the ones pushing and really arguing that the global distortion of agricultural policies in the rich world is a core problem. The figures are the following: we give about USD 50 billion a year for development assistance globally, whereas we are spending more than USD 300 billion on subsidising agriculture in the US, Japan and Europe.
These are figures that are used deliberately by the management of those institutions to inject some realism, seriousness and proportion into the global discussion of North/South relations. This will also be an important theme at the World Food Summit in Rome. Clearly, we in Europe need to draw the right conclusions.
Finally, on the need to move towards food security and long-term development instead of continuing old fashioned food aid, again I could not agree more. Ethiopia, a few years ago, was, hopefully, the last case where we were more or less hijacked into pouring in wheat instead of attacking the roots of the problem. For this reason also I hope that the meeting in Rome will produce real results."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples