Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.1.3-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I should like to make some concluding remarks on our debate on Johannesburg. I sense the frustration in this House, and I think that frustration is probably the black, silent companion of every politician today, especially if you look at the subject of sustainable development. But I hope that frustration also leads to some anger and some determination to actually do something about it. As a result of that frustration, I sense that there is support for our being more ambitious in our follow-up and implementation of all of this. I take that as a strength, and I feel that you are also supporting us in the follow-up work. But we must also address expectations, because expectations were so different and the result must be judged according to the expectations one had.
The tango is perhaps the best metaphor for these negotiations. As you know, in the tango it is one step forward, two steps backwards, and then three sometimes surprisingly quick steps forward. I hope that maybe after this prelude it is now time for the three quick steps forward. We can help in our own plan for implementation and follow up Johannesburg in our own way. We must not let our internal problems and the ways in which the three institutions cooperate get in the way. Let us have a separate debate on that issue, but here let us discuss the substance and see how we can move quickly to implementation.
I have taken note of your views that we should also keep Parliament informed in a more effective way. That is absolutely necessary and we will also plan to do so on the follow-up to the initiatives which, as Mr Nielson said, we presented on water and energy. We will make sure that all the information reaches Parliament. We are learning, and we sometimes make mistakes, but we can also put them right. We should act on the sustainable development political agenda, as we have done on climate change. We must take the lead. We must demonstrate to the world that we are also capable of turning all these fine words into reality.
What kind of yardstick do you use? Do you use it to compare with the reality? In that case, of course, then frustration is the only answer. We know, however, that it is not enough.
Whenever has a UN conference produced something that is really enough to solve all the problems and answer the questions that were put to us when we came to Soweto? How do we get more jobs in Soweto 6? What about shelters for homeless children? People living in those circumstances ask 'how do we get water? When will you come to drill the wells in our area?'.
Do you, on the other hand, compare it with the goals we set ourselves in our various communications and our Council decisions? If so, we maintain our position that we must be satisfied, because remember, nobody's jumping with joy, but we can see that we were actually able to act on the particular objectives that we had set ourselves. We knew that the political situation would be very different compared with ten years ago. We knew that it was not only the United States causing problems, wanting to hold us back, but also the developing countries. In the whole discussion on energy, they took sides with the United States, because the G77 is no longer a homogenous group of countries, but actually includes oil-producing countries, those that are slightly more developed, as well as the poorest of the poor countries in the world.
It meant we got no support, other than from small countries such as Switzerland, Norway and others. But for the rest, we had resistance from the other big negotiating groups. We saw that very early in the negotiations, and understood that it would be difficult. This happened not only in the area of energy, but in other areas as well. This lead us inevitably to the conclusion that there is also something wrong in our own approach to the developing countries, when we introduce the whole concept of sustainable development into our discussions with the poor countries in the world. We will have to be much more consistent, much better at actually integrating sustainable development into our discussions and into our aid and our contacts with developing countries.
The political challenge was much more difficult than it was ten years ago. Should you measure it against whether it was a satisfying result or not? Or should you measure it against the expectations expressed in the agenda, which was as long as my arm?
We had a difficult preparatory process in Bali. Too many things were put on the agenda. We wanted to discuss everything because we could see that they were interdependent, that they are interlinked, but one has to focus. Mr Nielson has already said that. You have to focus because you have to decide and balance the agenda in order not to lose sight of the environmental agenda and the green issues.
We could theoretically have accepted that. We could have made a new round on trade and aid. But then we would have totally lost the concept of sustainable development. It is easy to imagine what kind of debate we would have had. We saw that early on in those discussions, and we said that we understood how important this was for developing countries: we had to find a common line on trade and aid, and not let those two issues take over completely and turn it into a conference not about sustainable development, but about other more detailed trade and aid matters.
The developing countries asked us whether we could help them in identifying how to implement what was agreed in Doha and Monterrey. That is what we have tried to do – and successfully in my opinion. We managed to reach an agreement early on in the negotiations so as to get that dealt with and allow other issues to reach the agenda. If we had lost all the green issues, the whole environmental agenda, the balance would not have been the right one, either on the economy and social issues or on environmental issues. This was very much thanks to skilful negotiators, and again thanks to the European Union being the motor in these negotiations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples