Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.1.2-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for the words he has addressed to us, which open up more interesting perspectives for the future of relations between the European Union and Latin America. Perhaps for this very reason it may be interesting to relate a brief history of this relationship over recent years.
We are talking about countries with difficulties, with levels of poverty which are so high that that poverty may come to threaten internal peace, but which, at the same time, have extraordinary potential, which are culturally close to us and which see us as a model of opportunity.
Finally, Mr President, given that the texts of the agreements cannot be modified, this debate should at least serve to ensure that Parliament's opinion is taken into account if it is finally decided to take a more committed step and, as has been done with the southern Mediterranean countries, to make progress on association with the Andean countries, the Central American countries and – we should not forget – the countries of Mercosur.
Since being all but absent from the agenda during the seventies, it was enhanced during the following decade, coinciding with the disappearance of the dictatorships and the spread of democracy. Thus the first generation agreements were born and the economic contributions which improved cooperation were increased. In the following decade – the nineties – the third generation agreements were born with the inclusion of conditionality clauses and support and promotion for peace processes.
These more committed policies gave the European Union great visibility, ending the century with the negotiation of an association agreement with Mexico, which was a milestone in the European Union's policy.
All of this led to the expectation that we would continue along this path. Nevertheless, during the first half of this decade association has only been extended to Chile. The ambition for a new strategy appears to be paralysed and strangely this coincides with the enlargement of the Union.
Meanwhile, the United States is extending and continuing bilateral negotiations aimed at consolidating its position in the region – which, furthermore, is nothing new – with the same countries from which the European Union is demanding the signature of a hypothetical association agreement as a prior condition for regional integration. Two very different approaches.
In a few months’ time, the Heads of State or Government of the subcontinent and the European Union will meet in Mexico. This summit will be a great opportunity as the Commissioner has stated. The idea of this meeting is magnificent, provided that it produces more than a list of good intentions. Perhaps the Commissioner could give us more details so that we are better aware of the agenda.
As has already been said, the city of Puebla has recently been the venue for the meeting between European Members of Parliament and the Parliaments of Latin American political integration. The debate gave rise to a series of agreements and objectives which are expressed in the final document and which can be summed up as greater bi-regional cooperation, greater integration, strengthening of parliamentary dialogue and the agenda for association.
The agreements we are analysing today are undoubtedly more ambitious than those signed in 1993. Let us trust that they enter into force within more reasonable timescales. I would personally like to be optimistic and for these agreements to be a valid instrument for moving forward with association. It is the case that current commercial exchanges are very modest – and this is reflected in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy’s text – even with the facilities provided by the system of generalised preferences and, furthermore, these exports, which are not sufficiently diversified, are constantly subjected to reductions in international market prices.
An association, however, is rather more than a commercial agreement, the implementation of an economic policy or a development cooperation project: at times like this, the era we are living in, in which nothing is immune to globalisation – including terrorism – association agreements must also be seen as instruments for collective security."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples