Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-31-Speech-3-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060531.15.3-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, first of all I would – of course – like to thank most warmly all those who have worked with me on producing my report. I would particularly like to mention Mrs Pribaz; of course I would also like to thank the colleagues on my committee, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and the Committee on Development who have helped enrich this report with very constructive amendments.
These and many other important points are included in the report in front of you. I call upon the Commission and the Council to read the suggestions of this House and to take them into consideration when forming policies.
The report contains initial suggestions as to how trade policies can and should be oriented in order to contribute to solving the problem of poverty. I am pleased that this text establishes very clearly that trade must proceed according to certain rules if it is to become a meaningful and effective instrument for combating poverty and developing prosperity. That is because trade, whether at a regional, national or international level, is not an end or value in itself, but rather a means of ensuring that people are provided with goods in order to satisfy their needs.
In today’s world, provision for all people is not guaranteed, and the opportunities which trade brings are not divided fairly – neither geographically between States or regions, nor between individual actors in the market. One of the results of this unequal distribution is poverty, poverty which reproduces itself. This is a problem which exists above all in developing countries, but not only there. Evidently, the proverbial invisible hand of the market cannot even solve this problem within a developed economic area like the European Union.
The more that politics edges away from organising the economic order and leaves it to liberal market forces to do as they wish, the more the goals of social cohesion move further away – all the more so since at the same time social rights, democratic participation and environmental protection are ignored and regional and local conditions and particularities are not sufficiently taken into account. On a global level, where existing differences in development and distribution are much more fundamental and serious, this situation appears several times more intensified. If the present policy of urgent and speedy liberalisation under pressure continues, then the Millennium Goal of halving the number of starving people by 2015 cannot be achieved.
Politics has the task of creating basic conditions capable of producing social development that is peaceful, that avoids exclusion and that promotes prosperity. A policy that opens borders for the international market can be a part of this. Until now this has proven successful in countries where industrialisation could first of all take place under the protection of state measures, where an institutional framework was in place to regulate the distribution of social and economic wealth, where a sufficiently robust economic sector existed permitting flexible activity, and where the state was independent enough to support particular economic sectors against the opening up of the market.
A high level of foreign debt and dependence on credit considerably restrict this competitiveness. In countries where these conditions did not exist, however, accelerated liberalisation has led to deindustrialisation, destruction of the environment and increasing dependency and has worsened the poverty of the inhabitants.
I can only refer to just a few aspects of the report here. The chance to develop independently and to industrialise must be given to all countries, just as it was once given to today’s industrialised countries. This includes a country’s right to decide for itself when, how much and if at all it wants to open up its markets to goods and services. This is, by the way, already provided for in the rules of the WTO.
Since the signing of the WTO agreements, the profits made by producers on the prices of raw and primary materials have continually sunk so low that in the South as well as the North more and more small and medium-sized firms will have to close. At the same time, the same rules mean that one-crop agriculture is promoted, which may bring enormous profits for agribusiness but which has disastrous consequences for the environment and for employment. This is an agriculture which ultimately destroys its own basis for existence. Instead of this, politics must do its utmost to ensure, through regulation as well as through financial support, that biological diversity is preserved by lasting forms of exploitation.
Furthermore it is highly doubtful whether essential public services can be provided purely on the basis of market-economy structures to a sufficient extent that it could be said that the basic right to a dignified life is fulfilled. Here it is a question of simple but necessary things like access to high-quality drinking water, health, care, education and training. In areas where conditions do permit the liberalisation of market sectors, care should be taken that in doing so, international standards on the protection of social security, jobs and the environment are respected and held to be binding."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples