Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.1.3-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, at the close of the Johannesburg Summit, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, stated that this type of conference cannot be expected to produce miracles. I must add that the results of previous conferences, Rome and Monterrey, to be specific, did not give rise to such expectations either. We agree, however, that it is legitimate to expect more than what was achieved. And, basically, considerably more was needed.
Obviously, we do not wish to play down some of the objectives that were sketched out and also some of the time targets that were adopted, particularly in terms of access to drinking water and to basic sanitation, in terms of the use and production of chemical products or the recovery of fish stocks. Not to mention other objectives which had been previously enshrined and which have now been reaffirmed. However, and at the same time, we cannot ignore or gloss over the clear failures seen in other fields, specifically in the field of renewable energies, to which the European Union has been so committed, but in which the results fell far short of our expectations.
Furthermore, we must bear in mind that the means and even the commitment crucial to realising the objectives adopted remained largely undefined, especially if we take account of the deadlines that were set. Despite the fact that, as has been mentioned, some new objectives were defined, nothing relevant or practical was put forward apart from the insipid Monterrey commitments in the field of financial resources, either in terms of public development aid or of debt cancellation. We are aware that a decision was taken to create a solidarity fund designed to eradicate poverty. We also know, however, that this fund has a purely voluntary basis which is not, therefore, binding. We cannot, therefore, expect great results of it. At the same time, this fund demonstrates the clear failure by the developed countries to provide the public aid to which they committed themselves some decades ago. In other words, given the lack of adequate resources, we might once again be in the field of good intentions, such as many of those declared in Rio and which experience has shown have gone no further. Fundamentally, however, the Johannesburg Summit produced no clear and objective definition of the direction to be taken in order to achieve the realisation of the central objective of the summit, and which it took, incidentally, as its motto: sustainable development. We would really like to see, in this field, a level of commitment, a degree of responsibility and a clarity with regard to targets similar to those that have been adopted at the trade summits. It is clear, however, that neither the will nor the political priorities are the same, especially on the part of those that determine the outcome of these events. And, with regard to this, it is worth pointing out that Secretary of State Colin Powell set the tone by making the very limiting statement that trade is the driving force of development and that Johannesburg is an important step on the path that lies between Doha and the future. Much of what happened in Johannesburg can be understood in the light of these two statements placing the entire emphasis on trade."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples