Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-018"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Outcome of World Summit on Sustainable Development2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020925.1.3-018"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-25-Speech-3-0192
lpv:speaker	lp:Ulla Margrethe Sandbæk2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2003-03-24)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; JuniBevægelsen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, what we are left with after Johannesburg is little concrete progress and a muddy outlook for future global work on sustainable development. What should have been the climax of the Johannesburg summit – the political declaration – ended up being a weak mish-mash of the special interests of various countries which does not dare mention human rights directly, which leaves it up to the corporations themselves to check whether they are meeting their responsibilities and which erased all mention of the promises made at Rio not having been met. A declaration that never managed to grasp the nettle and change the circumstances that could really make a difference to the poor people of the world. Neither the EU nor the USA had the will to make concessions to the developing countries in the area of aid and trade. Both Mr Lange and Mr Turmes have mentioned the EU’s agricultural subsidies, which are quite fundamental. Consequently it was also difficult to achieve improvements in the areas of the environment and human rights. So that was the outcome of hours of negotiations behind closed doors – in sharp contrast to several sections of the declaration, which talk about the broad involvement of partners. The Johannesburg Summit provided confirmation of ten years’ experience of the USA as a player in global environmental and development policy. First they water down the agreements, then they still do not sign up to them anyway. Unfortunately, the EU does not have much to boast about either. 'Let us enter into an agreement capable of replacing darkness and despair with light and hope for hundreds of millions of people,' said Mr Rasmussen in his speech at the summit. Sadly, I find it difficult to see where these fine words are reflected in the final outcome. Water and sanitation – yes, those are positive things, but if we look at the promises made at Cairo, for example, and at how few of them have been met, I would like to see things implemented before I dare to trust in these promises. Do global summits still have a role? Yes and no. As long as the rich leaders of the world have no real intention of bringing about improvements for the poor people of the world, the money can be spent on better things than expensive conferences and summits. It will take more than pipe dreams to feed the poor properly."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph