Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.4.3-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We are all convinced that fighting for multilateralism is a good thing. With multilateralism under threat, we must do all we can to make Cancun a success. But it is a bit like squaring the circle. On the one hand the Americans are defending their interests by every means, while cultivating the myth of total free trade and, on the other, many countries of the South are unable to take their place in the world economy, questioning the present trade rules and demanding positive discrimination.
How can the EU play its part as a bridge-builder and point the US in the right direction? While noting the positive efforts that have been made, I do wonder about a number of points in the policy on Cancun because we, too, are not without contradictions between our interests and our intentions.
Firstly, how can we make a better defence of special and differential treatment? The developing countries are not the only ones at fault; we are not clear on this point either. The scope for such treatment is excessively broad, depriving the concept of differentiation of any real relevance. And the question of the rules is very much a grey area. Can we look at them again for TRIPS and for regional areas, not forgetting the question of technology transfer?
Secondly, I support those who do not want to drop the aim of preparing questions about ‘Singapore’ – I differ from Mrs McNally slightly here – because it involves key aspects of the link between trade and development. But does the EU have to stick to its initial line? I agree with the bottom up approach, but would it not be better to support the restrictions, especially pre-establishment, involved in the claim for a political area? Moreover, there is an urgent need for the Cancun talks to be underpinned by powerful parallel initiatives for the redistribution of direct investments, guaranteeing their sustainability.
Thirdly, so far as agriculture is concerned, we are defending a strong position regarding internal support and the calculation of tariff reductions. But will the most vulnerable countries of the South, which only produce one thing and are net importers, benefit in any way from it? Should we not increase market access and abolish export subsidies on products that are strategic for those countries and adopt a framework initiative in favour of fair trade?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples