Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-10-Speech-2-451"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070710.60.2-451"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, let me say straight away in response to Mr Markov that I am grateful to him for acknowledging the increased flow of information that comes from the Commission to his committee and the stronger cooperation that he has seen. As far as China is concerned, the EU side has as its objective in the prospective Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to lay the foundation for enhanced cooperation, including enforcement and, where possible, the upgrading of environmental – including climate change mitigation – social, labour and safety standards, so we are on the same wavelength on that.
So let me repeat: openness to China is in Europe’s interests, but it is sustainable only if we can show that EU products and services are just as welcome in China as Chinese goods are in Europe. That is why China needs to reciprocate by strengthening its commitment to economic openness and market reform behind its own borders.
I have made this case openly and frankly to the Chinese authorities, most recently with Commerce Minister Bo Xilai in our recent EU-China Joint Committee meeting in Brussels on 12 June. At that meeting, the Chinese leadership recognised for the first time that the current trend of the trade imbalance between China and the EU is simply not sustainable. I was able to agree with Bo Xilai to set up a high-level group that will explore ways to address this issue. I am looking forward to the initial report of this group at the next EU-China summit in November, and I expect it to identify some first tangible and practical steps to address this shared challenge, notably in ensuring higher Chinese imports from the EU.
I agreed with Minister Bo Xilai on 12 specific points that address EU companies’ concerns regarding their access to the Chinese market. One of these was the agreement on terms of reference for the upgrading of our 1985 trade pact. This was an important step forward, as I had withheld our commitment until I felt the terms of reference were right from our point of view.
It is important to stress that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of which our trade discussions are forming part will encompass the full scope of the EU-China bilateral relationship, including enhanced cooperation in political matters. The PCA will contain a standard clause on human rights. The clause will cover all issues related to democratic principles and fundamental human rights. As I have already said, one of our objectives in the PCA is to lay the foundation for enhanced cooperation on matters to do with environment, social, labour and safety standards.
On the trade side, the agreement will cover important issues for both sides such as IPR, investment, non-tariff trade barriers, capital movements, sustainable trade, and natural resources and competition. These negotiations are an important tool to try to rebalance our trade relations and create opportunities for EU business operators. However, this is not a preferential agreement, and tariffs will, therefore, not be discussed.
In parallel, the European Commission will continue to monitor closely China’s implementation of its WTO accession obligations. This will remain a central priority for the Commission in the years to come. China’s non-accession to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement leaves important Chinese markets closed, and China needs to honour its commitment to open negotiations on accession to this agreement in 2008.
The Commission will also launch a comprehensive review of market openness in China and China’s implementation of its WTO commitments later this year. IPR was another focus of my talks last month with Minister Bo Xilai. Cooperation and dialogue on IPR issues are not an end in themselves. They have to produce real change. Talk is not enough. That is why the Commission has made it clear to China that the cooperative approach we are presently favouring must produce tangible results.
The next meeting of the EU-China IP working group should be held in the coming month. If significant progress is not made in the short-term on key issues for the EU, such as fake markets and payment of royalties, we will have to reconsider our approach with China in the IPR area. The Commission does not exclude using the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. In addition, the Commission is working actively to stop Chinese exports of fakes from entering the Community, most notably through strengthened customs actions at EU borders. I believe this must become a higher priority for the EU as a whole.
Europe can cope with tough competition, but it needs to be fair competition. This means that we have to ensure that we are acting on a level playing field, rejecting anti-competitive trading practices and standing ready to apply our trade defence instruments against dumping and illegal subsidies, as well as stepping up the fight against counterfeiting.
I should also like to share with you key elements of our updated assessment of China’s request for market economy status. This issue is important in the context of the EU’s application of its trade defence instruments when faced with allegations of unfair dumping in Europe by Chinese exports. The updated assessment reflects the significant and welcome steps of China towards becoming a market economy. Progress was recorded across the board and brought China closer to fulfilling the four outstanding market economy status (MES) criteria. In particular, we think that the adoption of a number of important laws deserves recognition – the bankruptcy law, the new property rights law and the new accounting standards. However, the updated assessment also makes clear that still further progress is needed. None of the four outstanding criteria has been fully met. In particular, proper implementation of the new pieces of legislation will be crucial. It is not enough to pass new laws. They, as I believe China’s state authorities understand, must also be used and respected. We will review the situation again in 12 months and continue technical talks in the meanwhile.
I welcome this opportunity to give this House some feedback on recent developments in bilateral trade relations with China. China has been a top priority since I took office. We have a lot to gain, but also some things to lose, depending on how we conduct this important relationship.
I value the views of this House very highly and I am committed to providing early and clear information to you. Where possible and appropriate, this has been done in writing, for instance the MES assessment has been transmitted to the Committee on International Trade. On other occasions, it may be more appropriate to provide information orally because of its sensitivity. This is fully in line with Article 19 of the Framework Agreement. What matters is that I will continue to keep Parliament fully informed.
To summarise my approach, I believe in a balanced partnership between the European Union and China based on fair reciprocity, a partnership whose core task is to open markets to fair trade for the benefit of Europe, China and the wider world. I believe the EU has been playing its part in delivering that partnership. It is right that we insist that China should play its full part as well.
I chose the European Parliament last October to present, together with Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, the Commission’s China strategy paper – ‘Closer Partners, Growing Responsibilities’ – and, more specifically on trade and investment, the policy paper entitled ‘Competition and Partnership’. I argued in that policy paper that Europe benefits from an open and balanced economic relationship with China based on fair reciprocity.
That fundamental argument still holds good today. Our economies are complementary: China has strong competitive advantages in many areas; we have an enduring competitive advantage in high value-added services and goods, especially ones that require strong intellectual property right (IPR) protection.
However, we have not yet achieved the balance in our relationship that will guarantee that it can be sustained to our mutual benefit. Europe’s trade deficit with China is indeed growing. I accept that part of this deficit may be the natural result of market forces, but we also know that our export potential is being hampered by barriers in the Chinese market and that an important part of the current trade balance is consequently artificial. It is a product of politics, not economics; it can be addressed by politics. A recent study has even put a number on the cost of China’s barriers to our trade at about EUR 20 billion annually in lost exports, that is 30% of our exports to China. China must take practical steps to address the problem.
So what is the EU looking for? Well, we want improved access to China’s goods and services markets and, for EU investors, a sea change in protection of intellectual property rights and copyrights, especially by cleaning up the huge street markets that sell counterfeit products and by ensuring Chinese companies pay royalties due to EU companies when using their technology.
We want an ambitious approach to negotiations to update the 1985 Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement between the EU and China. This has to be a genuinely high-standard agreement that addresses long-term concerns, and we want assurances that the drive for growth and the lack of domestic market signals in China will not lead to over-production and dumping, especially in key products like steel.
The fundamental case for a positive trade relationship with China remains correct, but we are at something of a crossroads in our trade relations with China. A policy of dialogue to address the problems we have is credible only if it delivers more than the alternative means of trying to force change.
The policy of dialogue and engagement can be challenged. It will be challenged if things do not improve between us and if people cannot see tangible, deliverable, practical improvements and benefits as a result of that policy of dialogue and engagement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples