Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-12-Speech-4-047"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090312.5.4-047"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in recent years there has been a growing trend in the Union to conclude strategic partnerships with third countries. In itself, this does not trouble me much. It can be useful to give more shape to bilateral relations through such a partnership, but there are at least two risks involved in this structure.
That is a situation that is in the interests neither of the continent itself, nor of the European Union. The controversial Venezuelan referendum on amending the constitution illustrates well enough that there will then be little left of European values such as democracy.
Firstly, Europe cannot declare every country a strategic partner. To do so, in my view, would lead to a devaluation of the term ‘strategic’. I therefore argue that only the bilateral relationships with crucial partners should be brought under this banner. As far as I am concerned, this actually applies more to Brazil than to Mexico, the subject of our debate this morning.
Secondly, I sometimes get an indefinable feeling that these strategic partnerships are largely symbolic. It is a chance to call another summit and then things remain largely as they were. These partnerships often function solely as a forum. The question of tangible results is frequently left unanswered.
I have the same sense, to some extent, in relation to Parliament’s draft recommendation to the Council in relation to Brazil, which we shall be discussing tomorrow. Here, too, I feel that there is not enough mention given to specific problems. Mr President, I should like to illustrate this concern using three elements of the draft recommendation.
Firstly, the recommendation notes, somewhat misleadingly, that this partnership is not to be at the expense of the Union’s relations with Mercosur. How is it possible that the European Union, which always puts itself forward as a promoter of regional cooperation, could allow its bilateral relations with Brazil to take preference over its regional cooperation with Mercosur? The Union is choosing the wrong priorities here.
On the strength of our involvement with the region, the European Union must, in fact, indicate to Brazil the importance of a strong Mercosur and must encourage the country to itself invest strongly in this cooperation agreement. Instead, the Union will be sitting down with Brazil at the bilateral level and, in so doing, will be signalling that Mercosur is of secondary importance as far as we are concerned.
In the field of trade, too, it seems to me the draft recommendation has not been worded strictly enough. There is a call for us to work together for the smooth conclusion of the Doha round. This is, of course, a fine aim, but would it not be better to first specify the key points of difference between the Union and Brazil?
The subject of market access is a salient issue for both camps. I believe that the Doha round has more chance of succeeding if this matter is resolved at the bilateral level. I am not saying that that would be easy, but I do believe this to be a better way forward than making rhetorically appealing declarations.
I have also looked at the draft recommendation from the perspective of my geopolitical interest. From that perspective, it occurs to me that the recommendation fails to call on Brazil to take up a leadership role in the region. With this point, I shall wind up my speech. Brazil must gauge political developments in the region well and can do so primarily from the ambition of its neighbour Venezuela to dominate the continent."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples