Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-03-Speech-3-259"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Developing countries2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030903.10.3-259"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-03-Speech-3-2602
lpv:speaker	lp:Willy C.E.H. De Clercq2
lpv:spokenAs	chair; Delegation for relations with Canada (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Vlaamse liberalen en democraten (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, it is high time that forces were joined to help the developing countries to greater prosperity. The best way of doing this is generalised free trade, which offers the best guarantees for sustainable economic growth in all parts of the world. It is certainly the case that the liberalisation of trade is the key to development, but it also needs an important nuance. I argue for the free market, not the unbridled or unlimited free market. free market does not actually exist any more. Today we talk of a socially corrected market with attention to social standards, the environment, consumer protection, respect for intellectual rights, etc. These constraints must be a permanent factor in the inclusion of less developed countries in the world trade system. In the next WTO round, we from Europe must certainly see the developing countries as our partners rather than as our opponents. I do not share the view of the rapporteur, Mrs Morgantini when she says that there is no evidence of liberalisation stimulating the growth of prosperity. Globalisation offers benefits to all countries that engage in the world economy. Similar countries that have pursued a different trade strategy demonstrate marked differences in the area of per capita income. I am thinking for example of South Korea compared with North Korea, of East Germany compared with West Germany before unification. I am thinking of the Asian tigers compared with the Southern Asian countries. Or even more blatantly, about 20 years ago China and Africa were at the same level of development. Since China has resolutely pursued the path of an open economy and has engaged in the world trade system, the results have been spectacular. On average, the Chinese today earn three times as much as the Africans. The difference is enormous not just where income levels, but also knowledge levels are concerned. The rich may well have grown richer as a result of globalisation, but any question of the poor growing poorer is manifestly untrue. UN figures prove it. The proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty has fallen in 10 years from 29% to 23%. At the end of the nineties, there were 826 million people undernourished, or 40 million fewer than in the early nineties, despite the population explosion. The infant mortality rate fell worldwide from 64 per 1 000 in 1980 to 56 per 1 000 in the nineties. Around 80% of people in the developing countries have access to good water supplies, and illiteracy has fallen to 20%. That is not perfect, but things are moving in the right direction. There is still much to be done, but there is also hope. Proper globalisation is way ..."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The President cut off the speaker)"1 "The"1 "the"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph