Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-12-Speech-3-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051012.15.3-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by responding to the speeches made by Mrs Morgantini and by the last speaker, who both made reference to what is currently taking place at the gates of Europe.
I should still like to address two aspects, beginning with weapons. I should like to qualify what I have heard here. When it is said that Europe might be one of the suppliers of weapons to Africa, I, having full knowledge of the facts, strongly deny that assertion. I do not dispute the fact that there are countries in the European neighbourhood that are selling off the stocks of a former era. I acknowledge the fact that there exists an illegal trade, which we are, moreover, trying hard to combat. Yet, I would remind you that, at European level, there is a code of ethics that the Member States have undertaken to observe. Thus, in principle, when a country in Africa or elsewhere is in conflict, the Member States of the European Union cannot grant licences for exports to that country. That is what I wanted to say, and we are going to continue our work along those lines.
My final remark concerns trade. It is clear that the WTO negotiations must put development at the top of their list of concerns. I assure you that my colleague, Mr Mandelson, does so, and we of course support him. To give you an example: we are the global leaders in terms of trade-related aid. I would remind you of the statement made by Mr Barroso at the G8 Summit: we donate EUR 1 billion per year. I would remind you of another obvious fact: we are the only group of countries in the world that practices the ‘Everything but Arms’ process. As regards agricultural policy, there exists an agreement in principle on the Doha Agenda and there has been a reform of the CAP, which is already a great step forward. Is it enough? Undoubtedly it is not, but neither must we demonstrate naïve optimism. We must be aware of the fact that the interests of Europe and of certain countries are a factor and that it is this that is preventing us from making faster and more far-reaching progress. We need to be aware of that. I do not believe that it is helpful to bury our heads in the sand with regard to what is really taking place in different countries in terms of agricultural policy.
As regards the economic partnership agreements - the EPAs – their goal is development, in particular through aid for regional integration. For example, promoting South-South trade is one of the priorities of the Africans. President Konaré fully explained this to us this morning. Obviously, there will be adjustment costs, and we will help them on this score as well.
All of that is obviously very ideological and I always have great respect for ideological ‘extremes’, because I can understand them. They come from the heart, which commands a great deal of respect on my part and a great deal of understanding. That being said, is the current system helping the developing countries? I would draw your attention to the fact that, despite all our preferences and despite all the systems of preference in place, there has been no end to the decline in the contribution of our ‘preferential’ partners to international trade. We must provide them with the resources really to adapt and to become part of the global economy.
I will conclude by making a final remark, because I believe that it is important: it is not the small ACP countries that will benefit the most from these preferences, but the large exporting countries like Brazil. This demonstrates that subtle distinctions are useful.
Mr President, I have perhaps run over slightly and I apologise for that. However, there were so many good questions that I wanted to attempt to answer as many of them as possible.
I am like you. I am one of those people who believe that the real answer to the desperation or futile hopes of human beings is obviously not to close our doors or to act brutally or inhumanely. The real answer lies in strong development policies, very forceful policies that open up prospects in the countries in which the migratory flows originate. That is the answer, and the strategy I presented to you provides, in my opinion, an ambitious response to the desire to find a sustainable way of resolving these kinds of tragedy, injustice and unfairness. It therefore goes without saying that I share your alertness to these matters.
We discussed these matters a short while ago with Mr Konaré, between the Commission of the African Union and the Commission of the European Union, and we would be somewhat well advised to bear in mind, as you, yourselves, have, that the problem is not limited to Spain or to Morocco: this is a problem affecting the whole of Africa and the whole of the European Union. If we do not have the political capacity to resolve this issue at EU level in the context of a real partnership and a real political dialogue with the African continent, then we will never find a solution. We will constantly live through tragedies of this kind and we will continue – justifiably - to attract scorn, because we will have been incapable of carrying out a crucial task.
Ladies and gentlemen, I must say to you that I cannot fall into the trap that might be set for me – albeit unconsciously, or at any rate involuntarily - in Parliament. I believe that matters must be clear between us with regard to this point: I do not want my plan for Africa to become a kind of Christmas tree to which every MEP, pressure group, NGO or member of civil society comes to hang his or her bauble, at the risk of our losing sight of the main point. What I truly hope to do, thanks to this plan – and I call on you to help me with this – is to define a course, a framework, without setting any priorities or excluding anything. I also hope that people will not be able to obscure the broad outline by adding all sorts of things which, in themselves, are clearly extremely important, but which could overshadow the main point.
Members have spoken about the effectiveness of the strategy. You cannot call on the Commissioner to stand firm on issues that are not entirely within his control. As regards the Commission, you simply have my good will and my commitment. I also call on you to do something: to help me to succeed in convincing the Member States. What is, in fact, perhaps unusual about the proposal I am making is that I am trying to outline a framework, a common strategy between the Commission and the Member States to enable the work on promoting development to be divided up more effectively. Here is my plan: to try to have, and to develop, together a framework, objectives and a strategy and, within that strategy, to try to appeal to groups of Member States that are more specifically interested in such and such a sector or in such and such a region and see to it that we can divide up the work more effectively. That would also enable us to make savings prior to all the processes, projects and procedures for examining files which, otherwise, it must be said, give rise to a great deal of duplication of effort, coinciding tasks and administrative work. All the same, I would point out that, today, we have 26 different sets of regulations. That is what our partners are confronted with.
What I would like this plan to do is to create the momentum and political will needed to reduce all of these sets of regulations, to bring them in line with each other and to simplify them. We would make great gains in efficiency and, above all, our policy would be more effective. Consequently, the Member States will have a crucial role to play.
Someone asked me, rather oddly, why I should focus on infrastructure. We need to know what is desired. I believe, in fact, that we all agree that the principle of appropriation is essential. We all agree that the people of Africa must tell us what their priorities are as far as they are concerned. Well, – and I am addressing the person who questioned me slightly oddly on this issue – the people of Africa have asked us precisely to focus on infrastructure as a priority. I would also say to you that one does not need to be African to understand the importance of that decision. Anyone who goes to Africa or who is well acquainted with the heart of Africa can see that, as long as there are no trans-African networks or trans-African communities, there will be no economic restructuring in Africa; we might as well forget about it. That is therefore the reason why we are focusing on infrastructure.
I would add that this in no way means that we have forgotten about education or health care. I fully agree with the Members who took the floor on this subject and, if there is, in fact, anyone who is alert to it, it is myself. I should like to refer you to page 33 of the document in which it is explained at great length that we will obviously be focusing on education. Moreover, why should I want us to spend a day together debating the priority to be allocated to budgetary aid when this is possible? It is precisely to ensure that the countries, the States, can implement sovereign policies in the area, for instance, of education. It is also to ensure that they can fund their teachers and can pay their teachers, which is often not the case at present. Thus, you can be assured that I am extremely conscious of the priority given to education. I cannot draw up an exhaustive list of all the priorities, but rest assured that I share them. I wanted to make that point clear.
With regard to natural resources, you will see in the document that we plan to include among the conditions attached to budgetary aid for partner countries the requirement that they allocate the income generated from their natural resources to their national budgets. You are entirely justified in emphasising this matter. It is totally unfair that, in a number of potentially wealthy countries possessing natural resources, which are, unfortunately, often misappropriated or sometimes plundered, there is no trace of these resources in their national budgets, when the resources could fund the sovereign policies about which we have spoken."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples