Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-12-Speech-3-214"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050112.11.3-214"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the debt burden is a major problem and is once again receiving extra attention as a possible means of helping with reconstruction following the tsunami. I am glad to see the debt burden high on the agenda. Debt relief is one of the millennium objectives for development. Interest charges often weigh down heavily on the budgets of the developing countries, and, in some cases, cripple further development.
Although we have to look into what can be done about this, the subject is a complex one and does not lend itself to impulsive action. I can imagine that for the countries affected by the tsunami, a freeze will be granted for payment of interest and redemption, but in general, debt relief should not be dependent on incidental tragic events.
There is a difference between cancelling and relieving debt. Our group is not in favour of general cancellation of all debts, which some in this House advocate. We say ‘yes’ to debt relief, but only where it is necessary, only for the poorest countries and always subject to conditions. What we in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats have contributed to a resolution is a statement to which, indeed, the Commissioner has made reference: debt relief is not a panacea against poverty.
We must realise that the amount that will possibly be written off will be deducted from the amounts available for development cooperation. Debt relief alone does not offer a country new sources of income, neither builds schools or hospitals nor reduces poverty in those countries; on its own, it provides no incentive for further development, the funds available for which will be considerably smaller after debt cancellation. Where the development of a country is concerned, an important part of the responsibility lies with the country itself. Debt relief makes sense only if it goes hand in hand with good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, and investment in the country’s own population; in short, if the money actually ends up with the poorest. Debt relief cannot, then, be a goal in itself; it is meaningful only if it is actually an incentive for development. Then we can be generous, but – as is the case in all forms of development aid – that generosity cannot be unconditional."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples