Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-22-Speech-2-293"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080422.49.2-293"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, given the short time available to me, I would like to answer very briefly. However, first I would like to make one or two criticisms.
I am not going to come back to you, Mr Hutchinson, on your constant refrain about EPAs, because I truly have too much admiration and esteem for you. Would you like me to tell you that if I am in favour of EPAs, of economic partnership agreements to create regional markets, then it is because I believe that to tackle the question of food security, economic partnership agreements are probably part of the solution, because until we have regional markets that are economically integrated, developing countries will not be able to benefit from globalisation? There is my answer. We cannot agree, in fact in my opinion we will never see eye to eye on this subject, although I think that it is important nonetheless to remind you of my position.
I have heard people talking today about capitalist barbarianism. I do not really understand what that is. For me, capitalism is an economic mechanism, it is an economic machine that, until proven otherwise, has demonstrated its benefits more than any other system. Of course, I have said it often before, I am no lover of capitalism. Capitalism is not an object of my affection, it is simply a means to an end.
In any case, I do often like to distinguish between capitalism and liberalism. Clearly, my socialist friends are keen to combine these, yet the two things are not the same. Even I have to say it. Fine, so capitalism is a means to an end and nothing more than that. I agree that a market economy and capitalism cannot be virtuous without a government to lay down rules, to enforce them and to redistribute the wealth created properly and fairly, but please do not let us get bogged down in ideological simplification, because if we do there will be no end to this crisis. I think this has to be said.
That is pretty much what I wanted to say on the subject. This subject is not closed. I have heard valid and important arguments from both sides of the chamber. As the Minister said, we need to continue this discussion, but right now I am faced with an emergency. We need to help the WFP find ways of preventing an imminent food disaster. The second priority, in the medium term, is to give massive support to developing countries that are not self-sufficient so that they can produce more. Nevertheless, when I hear all these people saying that they want to introduce laws and regulations, I wonder whether we need to rein in the market economy.
Nevertheless, I should remind you that our agriculture is one of the few economic sectors which has come under enormous regulation and I would even say improvised dirigisme. Dirigisme, when it is not improvised, can deliver results, but stop-and-go, improvised dirigisme is rather dangerous. If the effects of this policy in the agricultural sector have not been totally convincing, perhaps we should ask ourselves, as was said earlier, whether this is not precisely because there has been too much improvised dirigisme instead of natural globalisation.
I am not a fan of globalisation, I am simply saying that it is there, we cannot constrain it. Yes, we can introduce rules, through the WTO, through the United Nations, through any number of international organisations, but to say that we can legislate on all of this overnight and get rid of all the systemic abuses through regulations that you do not have the power to issue, then I do not really see how this can be done.
I too wish to be pragmatic. We will pull out all the stops, and have already done so, in order to increase production in developing countries; this seems to me to be the only real solution to tackling this phenomenon, which admittedly I was critical of at first. I wanted to really raise awareness because, if nothing is done, there will be a humanitarian disaster, a food tsunami, with conflict, with truly unmanageable situations.
Thank you for this debate. I think this is a subject we will return to. It has been extremely productive and interesting. What I will take away with me are the best arguments that I have heard from both sides, which I will try to use to defend a cause which is still, when all is said and done, a common cause.
Evidently I share some of the considerations and points that have been made, although not all of them, so I will try to focus on the factors that need clarification.
Firstly, I clearly agree that solutions cannot be implemented effectively by the European Union alone; that is quite obvious but also rather enlightening. It is clear that these solutions must be implemented by all major stakeholders, and I believe that this process is under way.
However, I would like to point out that what I have heard here today is excellent for democracy and for adversarial debate. However, I have still witnessed rather perfunctory ideological positions – and an extremely radical one, in one case – being adopted. I respect that, I have absolutely no prejudices on the subject, but if there is one thing that from my point of view is not a solution to the food crisis, it is short-sighted and narrow-minded ideological rhetoric. I do not believe that this will offer us a solution, because the problem is many-sided and multifaceted. There is a whole series of answers for a whole series of causes, as the Minister said. There is not one single cause.
Take biofuels, for example. The European Commission has always stressed that it is vital to ensure that investments in biofuel development translate into tangible effects for poverty, particularly in rural areas. We have never recommended or said that biofuels should be grown everywhere. We can only grow biofuels where there is evidence of possible overproduction. In countries where there is no self-sufficiency, it is obviously extremely dangerous and absolutely inadvisable to grow biofuels. Therefore, the solutions are not as simple as that.
I would also like to say something else, which is that basically I do not understand. I hear MEPs who, I think, still believe in the effectiveness, honour and values of Europe, as well as feeling a certain pride in being European. I hear them constantly complaining and apologising
Basically this is all meant to be Europe’s fault. I do not accept that. Someone said that Europe did not like or was not helping developing countries.
Europe today accounts for 56% of world aid. In terms of food aid, today Europe finances produce on local markets and does not send its agricultural surplus to developing countries. We also need to stop talking nonsense about the political responsibility of Europe. Personally, I am rather proud of what Europe has done over the last 50 years, particularly for developing countries even if no one else will say it.
Biofuels: I have already answered that question. It is clear that the WTO must be reformed, that we must go further with the WTO. However, if there was no WTO, where would we be? What would happen to world poverty? The WTO is the first international organisation to try to restore some ethical principles to global trade. I am reminding you of this because it is all too easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is one ideological prejudice that I would like to get rid of. We must be reasonable.
GMOs: on this subject, I am of course speaking in a personal capacity, because it is frowned on to become unilaterally involved in this issue. Personally, I am not one of those people who thinks that this issue has already been settled. To say that GMOs are a bad thing, just like that, is an ideological prejudice. It is a kind of scientism, a kind of improvised scientism. I believe that there is nothing wrong with continuing research into trying to ensure food self-sufficiency, particularly in poor countries. It is intellectually rational. To do otherwise would not be intellectually rational, it would not be open-minded. I think this is something that needs to be said."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples