Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-30-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030130.1.4-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there is famine upon famine in Africa. We are appalled to see children dying of hunger, but we do not tackle the causes. Famines are the result not only of weather conditions but also of the structural policies, especially agricultural and trade policies, which have led farmers in poorer countries to produce for export rather than for local consumption.
The use of food aid is not a viable solution. Though claiming to be humanitarian, it has often been used by rich countries as a way of disposing of their agricultural surplus and of legitimising their devastating policy of over-production. Thus, the United States is keen to send to Africa its GMOs, which are being boycotted on the European market, not only in the form of food but also as seeds. It then has the audacity to accuse governments which refuse this aid of allowing their populations to die. To use such blackmail on vulnerable people is shameful. It goes against the fundamental right to food, which gives all human beings the freedom to choose what they eat. Who is the more guilty here? Is it the countries affected by famine who refuse to feed their people with potentially harmful products, or is it the countries who supply aid to deprived people only in the form of genetically modified seed, the consequences of which will be disastrous for the environment and for biodiversity?
In some of these countries or regions, the food crisis is not a general crisis. The problem is not necessarily the lack of food, but rather the fact that it is not distributed fairly throughout the world. Only local production and intra-regional trade are sustainable and able to guarantee access to food for everyone. The European Union, however, extols the virtues of free trade at world level and forces the developing countries to open their markets. In return, it promises to open its market to all products from the least developed countries, except arms – and, of course, bananas, and sugar and the rest. Not only has this measure caused competition between developing countries rather than strengthening their market shares, it is also encouraging the production of crops for export, to the detriment of food crops that would enable them to be self-sufficient. In the same way, the current crisis among coffee producers is a reminder that free trade means that small farmers are being ruined while the big multinationals prosper. Free trade is not fair trade. Moreover, there is no reference to fair trade in the new Commission Communication entitled ‘Trade and development’, which Parliament will shortly have occasion to examine. President Lula made the fight against hunger his top priority. He is proposing to create an international fund for this purpose. That is also the objective of the FAO, whose recent summit does not seem to have had any significant impact.
In the opinion of the Greens, the only way of eradicating hunger throughout the world is by the sustainable development of food production which is based on the needs of local populations, and fair trade between North and South – in other words, trade which pays a fair price that reflects the social and environmental costs of production and the resources and workers of poorer countries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples