Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-22-Speech-1-136-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121022.21.1-136-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, there have been a lot of interesting points. I would like very rapidly to go through the main points and main answers.
I believe this 2015 framework should be overarching, and if a country puts in a lot of effort inside the country, we should recognise that effort. But it is not for us to put in small things here and there to address some particular aspects. It is not sufficient, and I believe the agenda should be broader.
To Ms Costello, on middle-income countries: we need criteria. We should be objective. Mr Goerens himself started this process – and I fully agree – when we discussed the very difficult banana-accompanying measures. It was then that we started to ask what the criteria are that we are addressing, and for the first time it was very clear that Parliament now has criteria. If I come to the middle-income countries with a fair attitude, I need to base myself on criteria. Is the GDP good enough or not? Well, this is under debate, but I think we are achieving a consistent approach.
On Ms Ojuland’s point, the EEAS and the Commission are working well together. I would really say that we have definitely a much better situation than Louis Michel had with his colleagues and others. We are very coherent in our approach. We are improving on it and they are working very much on strategy.
Turning to Mr Ferreira, commitments need to be fulfilled, and I think the most important commitment we have made is that of 0.7 % of GNI for development causes in 2015. I believe the push from this House is crucial, especially when we come now to the multiannual financial framework. The part which we have put in the EU budget is exactly that part of our commitment of 0.7 %. It is not different, it is part of it and it is a crucial part that should be continued.
I would finish with Mr Kelly, on the Nobel Peace Prize. I think that this prize is very much justified. I am Latvian, and I think the EU has given us a lot of encouragement. If my country is in a situation of security, peace and relative prosperity, a lot of that is definitely due to the EU being there. It has made changes that would be impossible any other way. I believe the EU experience is definitely something that we need to promote in a lot of regions, and particularly in Africa where all the countries are rather small. Even South Africa, which is the biggest country of all, is actually small. So the only way Africa can evolve is by working together and for this the EU gives a good example and encouragement.
To Mr Brons I would say that we do not necessarily support countries. While we try to work through countries to strength things, we support people, and this should not be misunderstood. We know that the most sustainable way of addressing poverty is by supporting governments of countries with a credible strategy. But our support is always to the people of those countries, and sometimes we make this distinction. As regards differentiation of ACP countries, we have the Cotonou Agreement until 2020. We will be responsible towards that agreement. We have a dialogue, in particular, with ACP countries and we respond to requests from our ACP partner countries. We do not make unilateral moves that change the nature of the relationship. At the same time, we should also in this House encourage discussion on what should come after the Cotonou Agreement and on what comes after 2020.
To Mr Kaczmarek: I believe that what we are trying to do is to make aid a catalyst to achieve the results, plus with PCD – Policy Coherence for Development – where we could achieve definitely even more and stronger change. I would definitely say that our PHARE initiative is transparency in extractive industries, as was proposed by my colleague Mr Barnier. If we capitalise, we really can make a substantial change. I would very much like to thank him for his support for the agenda for change.
To Mr Cortés Lastra: we have discussed differentiation for a long time. Differentiation is not an ambition per se. Differentiation is just the realities of what is happening in the world. But we are keeping new instruments, like cooperation instruments, that we will continue to use with our partner countries. In a lot of countries, we should continue the poverty eradication strategy because the economic level and size of the countries definitely require other forms of cooperation.
To Mrs Sargentini: we are investing and changing our approach during this period’s financial framework, according to the agenda for change.
To Mr Younous: Africa is our absolute priority, because Africa is make or break. It could be a continent of prosperity and it could be a continent of complete disaster. So I believe that our engagement with Africa is crucial, because no one else will support the African nations in their quest for prosperity. In my contacts with African countries I believe that they are very much looking to Europe, not only for money but also very much for encouragement and their development. If we can capitalise on that, I believe Africa would be the driver of world growth, not the continent where there is currently the most insecurity.
Regarding what Mr Mitchell said, we also work with the private sector and others, because this also strengthens the human rights agenda. If you just speak about the human rights agenda without addressing small and medium-sized enterprises and property rights, it is always vulnerable, but if you have a broader discussion, then this helps. Also in regard to what he said about the gendercide issue, we have worked on this and we should continue to do so because it is clearly a human rights agenda but it really needs a push.
Mr Mitchell’s idea about the European Parliament and national parliaments is very interesting and we should reflect on this. I started by being too shy with national parliaments. I came to national parliaments to speak with them as if starting from scratch and discovered with pleasure that they are actually much more engaged than we usually suspect, because these are some of the policies that everybody wants. What type of world will we be living in? I think that is why I believe the debate is essential. It is not just a question of how much money we have to give. It is actually concerns the world we are living in now and the world we would like to live in in 15 or 20 years, and the debate is very much alive.
To Ms Striffler: agriculture, food security and nutrition will remain our priority area, and there we have a new initiative. We have put in place for the first time a nutrition obligation to reduce the number of children left stunted by seven million by 2025. For me, if there is a poverty phase – and actually this phase is a post-2015 development agenda – it is a malnourished child, because it is a shame that it has happened and we know how difficult it is to achieve. As long as there is one child in such a situation, we will not have done our duty. I believe it is very crucial that we focus on this.
Regarding Mr Fisas Ayxela and differentiation, it is true that there will be pockets of poverty in China, but I believe that if we have a definite global framework and China does what it is committing itself to – fighting poverty – then I believe that they are capable of eradicating poverty."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples