Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-243"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.6.3-243"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, my colleague Mr Franz Fischler will join us and reply to those of you whom I shall not have the opportunity to hear.
Mrs Auroi, I cannot let you say, without reacting, that the European Union supported the American position on cotton. If this is the information at your disposal, I prefer to correct it immediately. I said at a public session, in plenary, at Cancún, what we think of this famous paragraph 27 and I would be obliged if you would please correct your information.
As for the sentiment expressed by several of you to the effect that the Union's positions are not sufficiently known in certain parts of our great planet, I have taken careful note of this observation. I also agree with it. Please just be aware that our resources for improving this situation are not unlimited and that we will doubtless be able to talk about this again when the annual budgetary debate takes shape.
To close, I shall reply to a fairly accurate observation by Mr Martinez. I thank him for his words on parachutes. I recognise that, when it comes to parachuting, he knows what he is talking about. On a more serious note, he reproaches me for having paid in advance on agriculture and for not having been paid in return. Mr Franz Fischler will, if necessary, explain to you that the opposite is true, Mr Martinez: you are on the wrong side of the counter. It is true that we are carrying out our reforms of the common agricultural policy for our own reasons and that, for the same price, in return for good negotiations at the World Trade Organisation, we can obtain commitments from the Americans in sectors equivalent to ours. That is one of the reasons why, for European farmers, the failure of Cancún is not good news either.
I shall finish there in order to allow the debate to continue. As the President mentioned, my colleague, Mr Fischler, will reply to you at the end of the debate.
I have two general comments to make, before moving on to a number of more specific points in response to your observations. My first general comment is this: I would wish, insofar as it is possible, that we could remove a misunderstanding that I sense between us here and there when we talk of the World Trade Organisation. The World Trade Organisation is still an organisation in which concessions representing additional access to certain markets are negotiated, as well as rules intended to ensure that trade is developed for the benefit of the general interest. The harsh reality is that it is a body in which we conduct negotiations. We negotiate interests there, even if we ascribe greater value to them than others, given our highly European idealism. Having said which, we must not forget this realism if the discussion is to progress between us. No naïve optimism, I heard Mr Philippe Herzog say. I do not take that as a lesson, but as a reminder of reality. If it is true for the others, it is therefore true for us.
My second general comment is as follows: many of you insisted on the geopolitical dimension which came to take precedence, in Cancún, over the strictly commercial dimension of the negotiations. I agree with you. Perhaps this dimension did partly escape us at some moment or other during preparations for Cancún. Any suggestions in this connection on your part will be welcome next time.
My third and final general comment: there is, in these commercial affairs, a South-South dimension which is essential and which we should not forget, even if, on this subject too, given our well-known tropisms, what interests us most is the North-South dimension. It is essential for developing countries to open up their markets and accept a number of rules. Everyone knows that this is a
and that the opening of the markets and the acceptance of rules by the North is not enough, not by a long chalk. I wish that this reality were highlighted from time to time by those of you who, rightly, have a particular interest in the position of developing countries.
I would like to make a few more specific comments before allowing the debate to continue. First of all, concerning the reform of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), you are right. We need to rethink a certain number of rules and mechanisms; we need to try and strengthen cooperation between the WTO and the World Health Organisation (WHO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other organisations in the UN family. I agree on this issue, and we are going to think about it. In addition, we need to realise that, on this road, which is without doubt the one that we Europeans intuitively wish to take, we risk finding ourselves very much alone at times, because I cannot see many developing countries taking the same route. As for the United States’ interest in better coherence in terms of what we refer to between ourselves as international governance, we know that that is not necessarily their natural inclination. Therefore, we agree to think about it, but bearing in mind that other partners will have to join us on this road and, for that, we need to recruit.
What are the next stages, you asked several times? I think it is too early to say. First, because we need to take time for an in-depth analysis of what happened. I think that the debate today will have contributed to this and I thank you for that on behalf of the Commission. Then, because we also need to take time for contacts between one side and another, contacts which cannot always be forged publicly in this type of negotiation, especially with our friends from the developing countries. We are therefore going to do all this without haste. Several options will need to be considered. We in the Commission shall do so as a College, and we shall then see whether or not the Commission suggests a change to its mandate, should these negotiations be relaunched.
I heard a great many expressions of support, for which I thank you because, for both Mr Franz Fischler and myself, this support is even more precious in bad times than in good.
I also heard a number of criticisms to which I shall try to respond very quickly. Mrs Lucas reproached me both for not having moved enough on the Singapore issues and for not having moved on export subsidies. On export subsidies, Mrs Lucas, I am embarrassed to tell you that this is completely untrue. When Mr Franz Fischler and I table a proposal which says that we are ready to go down as far as zero for export subsidies for products which interest developing countries, do not tell me that the European Union did not move.
As for the Singapore issues, you maintained that investment and competition were overloading the boat and this is also your opinion on the issues linked to the transparency of commercial transactions, which comes as a surprise to me, because I thought that transparency was one of the principles to which your group was very attached. Concerning, therefore, your argument which consists of saying that we have to get rid of these two issues linked to transparency because the developing countries want nothing of it, I should like you to tell me if that also applies to the environment and to the social clauses which are issues of which the developing countries also want to hear nothing."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples