Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-13-Speech-4-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080313.2.4-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, clearly I need to begin by thanking all the speakers for the very high quality of their contributions and the relevance of the points made, which closely mirror my own concerns. I should also like, at the outset, to thank the Slovenian Presidency, which has taken a remarkably refreshing approach: it is working to encourage and energise thinking about development policy in the new Member States and has already organised two extremely productive meetings to discuss these issues.
With regard to the comments made about levels of aid – that is, about the amounts of money needed – I fully understand the difficulty facing the new Member States. I would remind you however – indeed, you yourselves have already made the point in a general way – that there are many alternative methods of getting involved and using transfers of expertise, which cost very little. I heard one speaker, for example, referring to projects for cooperation in education. Obviously, sending instructors or teachers to African countries costs relatively little but it nonetheless constitutes an extremely important contribution to those countries.
The underlying question suggested here, as to whether the new Member States would not do better to invest in their own neighbourhood – neighbourhood is not, perhaps, the best word and I may yet think of a better one – as opposed to investing in Africa, is, in my opinion, the wrong question. I fully realise that investment in the neighbourhood is more obviously attractive and easier to justify and that it is more appealing both to public opinion in your countries and to potential development-policy partners. The one approach does not, however, exclude the other and it sets a quite exceptional educational example to young people to see a nation deciding to extend its aid commitment to Africa, to open up to Africa, because it expresses values that are both European in the deepest sense and also universal. Let me say, further, that the basis on which I have made my case for the new Member States having a presence in Africa is the fact that some of your countries have already had experience there, and that experience has generally left quite positive traces, notably in relation to the construction of certain states and certain state services and in the form of real expertise that has been retained.
My second point, ladies and gentlemen, is that Africa is not on target to achieve the Millennium Goals. The goals will be realised in all the developing countries except in Africa. So I would argue, on that basis, that it is part of our responsibility, or our co-responsibility, not to reduce investment in Africa, and I would stress again, echoing one of the speakers, that investment can be sustained through exchanges of expertise. Giving our universities, colleges, municipalities and local authorities encouragement or incentives to get involved in exchanges with developing countries is obviously a relatively low-cost approach and it is an effective one. I must say, too, that I am very willing to invite representatives of the so-called ‘new’ Member States to come with me on some of my missions. I believe it is extremely important that they should see for themselves not only the issues at stake but also the truly tragic situations confronting certain countries and certain peoples.
I should like to conclude with an aspect that offers great potential for added value – probably greater potential than we have in some of our own countries, as has been pointed out – namely the whole area of governance. After all, what do we actually mean by governance? Governance is the ability of a state to assume its major sovereign functions and to provide its people with a basic level of social services. I believe you have a tremendous amount to contribute in terms of governance: that is, everything entailed in building a state and – to underscore a point made, I think, by Mr Lambsdorff – everything concerning the journey from a period of transition towards the building of a state or of more definitive structures. I am thinking here of tax collection, of the establishment of administration at local level, of the principle of subsidiarity and of decentralisation. All these aspects are clearly of fundamental importance in building states that will be genuinely capable of serving their people, and it is obvious that you can play an important role here.
I believe it would be useful – and it is something I will propose – to invite the 12 so-called ‘new’ Member States to work with the Commission on the basis of the tenth European Development Fund programme. The current position is that we have more or less completed the programming of the tenth European Development Fund, and it would be a worthwhile exercise to involve the new Member States in determining, country by country, how they feel they could best be associated with it. We could look to them, for example, to offer training in the areas of justice, administration or education, or they could be asked to make available certain experts. For instance, some of the new Member States have expertise in the field of e-government and this type of expertise is much in demand in certain African countries. That is why I am making my proposal. I think it has been important to have this discussion and I recognise there are some very useful avenues to pursue. That said, I would suggest that if we really want to be effective and to move matters forward we should plan to meet representatives from the 12 countries concerned very soon and actively address the issues so that we can actually produce joint programmes in the weeks ahead. I believe this is a chance that we cannot afford to miss.
Finally, you have talked about conditionality and I can fully understand that point of view. Everything concerning values, human rights, respect for human rights and combating corruption is obviously important, I agree, but in some cases it can be very difficult and even counterproductive to link development aid to – or make it contingent on – the strict observance of such values, dear to us though they undoubtedly are. What has to be recognised is that imposing a value-related link or condition in countries where this type of requirement is not respected will hurt, in the first place, the ordinary people of those countries. Our response to the problem, in countries where good governance is not respected, is to work in conjunction with specific operators, either indirect local operators or NGOs or agencies representing the United Nations. We offer budget support only to countries that can guarantee a minimum level of good governance. So I think there can be no doubt that we are on the same wavelength insofar as that approach is concerned. As for the values that I referred to – they are the values that we consistently convey. We constantly attempt to promote and push these values through political dialogue. Implementing strict conditionality is difficult, however, if we genuinely want to help the people on the ground and that is, after all, the main aim."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples