Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-230"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Outcome of the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference (Cancún, 10-14 September 2003)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030924.6.3-230"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-24-Speech-3-2312
lpv:speaker	lp:Paul A.A.J.G. Lannoye2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Ecolo (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-17--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
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the failure that was Cancún imposes a duty on us, a duty to think clearly. I believe that, despite the differences of opinion that exist in this House on who was responsible, and I must confess that I do not agree with those who blame the NGOs or the southern countries, we must clearly state that the structure is no longer the same as it was at Marrakech. The players involved are no longer the same. At the time, there were two blocs, which to some extent imposed their own timetables, set their own game rules and in any event were the dominant players. We now have several players and Commissioner Lamy is right to say that there is no longer a North and a South. There were two southern blocs at Cancún. On the one side there was the group of the 21 and the group of the ACP and least developed countries and on the other, the United States and Europe: that already makes four major players and perhaps next time there will be even more. We have clearly, therefore, moved beyond the time when two players dominated the game. We must be aware of this fact and bear it in mind. The second observation I wish to make is that, as several speakers have already said, the WTO is an institution that does not live up to our expectations of a multilateral trade body. We do need multilateralism and I do not believe that anyone here is calling this concept into question, but it must be organised equitably, which cannot be said of the WTO. We need a new framework and I believe that a UN-style framework would be more appropriate. We need new ground rules, which are more democratic, more transparent and, above all, fairer. Genuinely equitable trade rules must be implemented, in which trade is put at the service of human rights, social rights and environmental protection and not the other way around. World trade rules must stop hampering States’ action to achieve sustainable development, which last year’s Johannesburg Summit considered to be the absolute number one priority. Instead, the WTO’s action should help States achieve this aim."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph