Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-12-Speech-4-013"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-05-12"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:WTO eeskirjade rakendamine Hiinas⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050512.3.4-013"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-05-12-Speech-4-014⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Caroline Lucas⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, clearly there are very real concerns about the impact of China on other players in the international trading system. We have already heard about the impact of the surge in textile imports on the EU and the devastation some EU producers face as a result. But let us not forget the impact on other developing countries. China’s deflationary pressure is already driving down wages right across the developing world and pushing global suppliers to reduce their workers’ rights and conditions in a bid to remain competitive at all costs. In the Philippines, for example, the government has ruled that its law on the minimum wage would not longer apply to the clothing industry. In Bangladesh, the government recently announced that it would increase the number of authorised overtime hours and reduce the restrictions on women’s night work. Chinese workers themselves do not necessarily have much to gain either, facing seven-day working weeks, very low wages, appalling health and safety hazards and no trade unions. We are looking here at a downward spiral of social and environmental standards; certainly minimum international standards might help stem that downward spiral. It is most important for this debate not just to focus on this or that sector, textiles today or footwear or machine components tomorrow. What we are looking at here is a systemic problem. It is a challenge posed by a country that has entered the international trading system not just with a comparative advantage but with potentially an almost absolute advantage in just about everything. It is complacent and patronising to assume that Europe and the West can keep a monopoly on innovation and high-tech while China simply does the manufacturing. Chinese graduates are also moving up the value-added chain. Very soon we may need to face the possibility that there could be very little that Europe could produce that China cannot produce more efficiently. The old assumption that while the EU and the industrialised countries keep the leading edge in knowledge-intensive industries while developing nations focus on lower-skill sectors, is now open to huge debate. The response to the challenge posed by China needs to include a thorough reassessment of the assumptions that have underpinned international trade theory up until now. We need to look again at the old ideas dating from David Ricardo onwards that comparative advantage always works in everybody’s best interests. I hope the Commission will act swiftly on textiles. I would also like to hear what the Commissioner plans to do about these longer-term systemic issues. We need a more balanced view than this oral question suggests. We should be looking at some of the impacts of liberalisation on China itself, because there is ample proof to suggest that many of the poorest people in China face significant losses themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of China’s accession to the WTO. So let us have a more balanced view; a view that looks into the future as well."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with Israel (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² member; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² unknown; Green Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)²² substitute; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, clearly there are very real concerns about the impact of China on other players in the international trading system. We have already heard about the impact of the surge in textile imports on the EU and the devastation some EU producers face as a result. But let us not forget the impact on other developing countries. China’s deflationary pressure is already driving down wages right across the developing world and pushing global suppliers to reduce their workers’ rights and conditions in a bid to remain competitive at all costs. In the Philippines, for example, the government has ruled that its law on the minimum wage would not longer apply to the clothing industry. In Bangladesh, the government recently announced that it would increase the number of authorised overtime hours and reduce the restrictions on women’s night work. Chinese workers themselves do not necessarily have much to gain either, facing seven-day working weeks, very low wages, appalling health and safety hazards and no trade unions. We are looking here at a downward spiral of social and environmental standards; certainly minimum international standards might help stem that downward spiral. It is most important for this debate not just to focus on this or that sector, textiles today or footwear or machine components tomorrow. What we are looking at here is a systemic problem. It is a challenge posed by a country that has entered the international trading system not just with a comparative advantage but with potentially an almost absolute advantage in just about everything. It is complacent and patronising to assume that Europe and the West can keep a monopoly on innovation and high-tech while China simply does the manufacturing. Chinese graduates are also moving up the value-added chain. Very soon we may need to face the possibility that there could be very little that Europe could produce that China cannot produce more efficiently. The old assumption that while the EU and the industrialised countries keep the leading edge in knowledge-intensive industries while developing nations focus on lower-skill sectors, is now open to huge debate. The response to the challenge posed by China needs to include a thorough reassessment of the assumptions that have underpinned international trade theory up until now. We need to look again at the old ideas dating from David Ricardo onwards that comparative advantage always works in everybody’s best interests. I hope the Commission will act swiftly on textiles. I would also like to hear what the Commissioner plans to do about these longer-term systemic issues. We need a more balanced view than this oral question suggests. We should be looking at some of the impacts of liberalisation on China itself, because there is ample proof to suggest that many of the poorest people in China face significant losses themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of China’s accession to the WTO. So let us have a more balanced view; a view that looks into the future as well."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, der er helt klart en velbegrundet frygt for Kinas betydning for andre aktører i det internationale handelssystem. Vi har allerede hørt om den stigende tekstilimports betydning for EU og skadevirkningerne for nogle EU-producenter. Men lad os ikke glemme indvirkningen på andre udviklingslande. Kinas deflatoriske pres har allerede presset lønningerne i udviklingslandene og fået de globale leverandører til at forringe arbejdstagernes rettigheder og betingelser i et forsøg på at forblive konkurrencedygtige for enhver pris. På Filippinerne har regeringen f.eks. bestemt, at loven om mindsteløn ikke længere skal gælde for beklædningsindustrien. I Bangladesh bekendtgjorde regeringen for nylig, at den vil hæve antallet af tilladte overtimer og mindske restriktionerne vedrørende kvinders natarbejde. De kinesiske arbejdstagere har heller ikke nødvendigvis de store gevinster med deres syvdages arbejdsuger, meget lave lønninger, rystende sundheds- og sikkerhedsmæssige risici og manglende fagforeninger. Der er tale om en nedadgående spiral af sociale og miljømæssige standarder. Internationale minimumsstandarder kan bestemt være med til at bremse denne nedadgående spiral. Det er meget vigtigt, at der i denne forhandling ikke kun fokuseres på den ene eller den anden sektor - tekstil i dag eller sko eller maskindele i morgen. Der er tale om et systembetinget problem. Det er en udfordring fra et land, der er gået ind i det internationale handelssystem med ikke blot en komparativ fordel, men måske også med en absolut fordel på næsten alle områder. Det er et udtryk for selvtilfredshed og patronisering at antage, at Europa og den vestlige verden kan bevare et monopol inden for innovation og højteknologi, mens Kina blot står for produktionen. Kandidaterne fra de kinesiske læreanstalter bevæger sig også opad i merværdikæden. Vi kan meget snart blive nødt til at erkende, at der findes meget lidt, som Europa kan producere, og som Kina ikke kan producere mere effektivt. Det er på tide at revidere den gamle antagelse om, at EU og industrilandene har et forspring inden for de videnintensive industrier, mens udviklingslandene koncentrerer sig om de sektorer, der ikke kræver så store færdigheder. Et svar på udfordringen fra Kina skal omfatte en grundig vurdering af de hypoteser, der har ligget til grund for den hidtidige internationale handelsteori. Vi skal til at revidere de gamle tanker fra David Ricardos tid om, at komparative fordele altid er til gavn for alle. Jeg håber, at Kommissionen vil handle hurtigt på tekstilområdet. Jeg vil også gerne høre, hvad kommissæren planlægger at gøre ved disse mere langsigtede systemiske spørgsmål. Der er behov for et mere afbalanceret syn, end disse mundtlige forespørgsler antyder. Vi skal se på nogle af liberaliseringens konsekvenser for Kina selv, fordi det til overflod er bevist, at mange af de fattigste i Kina selv står til at miste meget - specielt i landbrugssektoren - som følge af Kinas tiltrædelse af WTO. Så lad os få en mere nuanceret tilgang, hvor man også skuer fremad."@da² ". Herr Präsident, es bestehen natürlich ganz reale Sorgen in der Frage, inwieweit China andere Akteure im internationalen Handelssystem beeinträchtigt. Wir haben bereits von den Auswirkungen der Importwelle im Textilbereich auf die EU und von den katastrophalen Folgen für einige EU-Produzenten gehört. Denken wir aber auch an die Folgen für andere Entwicklungsländer. Der von China ausgehende deflationäre Druck treibt bereits überall in den Entwicklungsländern die Löhne nach unten und zwingt die globalen Lieferanten, die Rechte und die Bedingungen ihrer Arbeitnehmer einzuschränken, um für jeden Preis wettbewerbsfähig zu bleiben. Auf den Philippinen hat die Regierung zum Beispiel verfügt, dass das Gesetz über den Mindestlohn für die Bekleidungsindustrie nicht mehr gilt. In Bangladesh hat die Regierung vor Kurzem angekündigt, dass sie die Zahl der genehmigten Überstunden erhöhen und die Beschränkungen für die Nachtarbeit von Frauen lockern wird. Die chinesischen Arbeitnehmer gewinnen selbst nicht zwangsläufig viel dabei, denn sie müssen mit einer Sieben-Tage-Arbeitswoche, sehr niedrigen Löhnen, erschreckenden Gefahren auf dem Gebiet des Gesundheitsschutzes und der Sicherheit am Arbeitsplatz leben und dabei ohne Gewerkschaften auskommen. Wir haben es hier mit einer Abwärtsspirale im Bereich der Sozial- und Umweltnormen zu tun; internationale Mindestnormen könnten diese Abwärtsspirale durchaus aufhalten. Diese Debatte darf sich nicht nur auf diesen oder jenen Sektor richten, heute auf Textilien oder Schuhwaren, morgen auf Maschinenteile. Wir haben es hier mit einem systemimmanenten Problem zu tun. Es ist eine Herausforderung seitens eines Landes, das in das internationale Handelssystem nicht nur mit einem komparativen Vorteil, sondern mit einem potenziell absoluten Vorteil in nahezu allen Bereichen eingetreten ist. Es ist selbstgefällig und herablassend anzunehmen, Europa und der Westen könnten ein Monopol auf Innovation und High-Tech beibehalten, während China einfach die Produktion übernimmt. Auch die chinesischen Hochschulabsolventen bewegen sich auf der Mehrwertkette nach oben. Sehr bald könnte es möglich sein, dass auf dem Gebiet der Produktion nur noch sehr wenig für Europa übrig bleibt, was China nicht effizienter produzieren könnte. Die alte Auffassung, Europa und die Industrieländer könnten die Führung in den wissensintensiven Industriezweigen beibehalten, während sich die Entwicklungsländer auf die geringere Fähigkeiten erfordernden Sektoren konzentrieren, ist jetzt Gegenstand einer umfassenden Debatte. Die Antwort auf die chinesische Herausforderung muss in einer gründlichen Neubewertung der Voraussetzungen bestehen, auf denen bislang die Theorie des Welthandels beruhte. Wir müssen die alten Ideen seit David Ricardo, dass der komparative Vorteil stets im besten Interesse aller liegt, überprüfen. Ich hoffe, die Kommission wird in der Frage der Textilien rasch handeln. Auch würde ich gern hören, was der Herr Kommissar auf dem Gebiet dieser längerfristigen systemimmanenten Probleme zu unternehmen gedenkt. Wir brauchen eine ausgewogenere Sicht auf die Dinge, als diese mündliche Anfrage unterstellt. Wir sollten einige Folgen der Liberalisierung für China selbst untersuchen, denn es gibt genügend Beweise dafür, dass als Ergebnis des Beitritts Chinas zur WTO auch viele der ärmsten Menschen in China beträchtliche Verluste hinnehmen müssen, insbesondere auf dem Landwirtschaftssektor. Wir sollten uns also um eine ausgewogenere Sicht bemühen, eine Sicht, die auch in die Zukunft gerichtet ist."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, είναι σαφές ότι υπάρχουν πολύ σοβαρές ανησυχίες για τις επιπτώσεις που επιφέρει η Κίνα σε άλλους συμμετέχοντες στο σύστημα διεθνούς εμπορίου. Ακούσαμε ήδη για τις επιπτώσεις της αύξησης των εισαγωγών κλωστοϋφαντουργικών προϊόντων στην ΕΕ και τον αφανισμό που αντιμετωπίζουν ορισμένοι παραγωγοί της ΕΕ ως αποτέλεσμα. Όμως, ας μην ξεχνάμε και τις επιπτώσεις σε άλλες αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες. Η αντιπληθωριστική πίεση της Κίνας οδηγεί ήδη προς τα κάτω τους μισθούς σε όλο τον αναπτυσσόμενο κόσμο και ωθεί τους παγκόσμιους προμηθευτές να περιστείλουν τα δικαιώματα και τις συνθήκες εργασίας των εργαζομένων τους, στην προσπάθειά τους να παραμείνουν ανταγωνιστικοί με κάθε τρόπο. Στις Φιλιππίνες, για παράδειγμα, η κυβέρνηση αποφάσισε ότι ο νόμος της για τον ελάχιστο μισθό δεν θα ισχύει πλέον στη βιομηχανία ένδυσης. Στο Μπαγκλαντές, η κυβέρνηση ανακοίνωσε πρόσφατα ότι θα αυξήσει τον αριθμό των νόμιμων υπερωριών και θα μειώσει τους περιορισμούς στη νυχτερινή εργασία των γυναικών. Ούτε οι ίδιοι οι κινέζοι εργάτες έχουν αναγκαστικά πολλά να κερδίσουν, αντιμετωπίζοντας εβδομάδες επτά εργάσιμων ημερών, πολύ χαμηλούς μισθούς, τρομακτικούς κινδύνους για την υγεία και την ασφάλεια και ανυπαρξία συνδικαλιστικών οργανώσεων. Έχουμε μπροστά μας μια φθίνουσα έλικα κοινωνικών και περιβαλλοντικών προδιαγραφών· σίγουρα κάποιες ελάχιστες διεθνείς προδιαγραφές μπορεί να βοηθήσουν να ανακοπεί αυτή η φθίνουσα έλικα. Είναι πολύ σημαντικό για αυτή τη συζήτηση να μην εστιάσουμε απλώς σε αυτόν ή εκείνον τον τομέα, κλωστοϋφαντουργία σήμερα ή είδη υπόδησης ή εξαρτήματα μηχανών αύριο. Αυτό που αντιμετωπίζουμε εδώ είναι ένα πρόβλημα συστήματος. Είναι μια πρόκληση που τίθεται από μια χώρα η οποία έχει εισχωρήσει στο σύστημα διεθνούς εμπορίου όχι μόνο με ένα συγκριτικό πλεονέκτημα, αλλά πιθανώς με ένα σχεδόν απόλυτο πλεονέκτημα σχεδόν στα πάντα. Είναι αυτάρεσκο και συγκαταβατικό να υποθέτουμε ότι η Ευρώπη και η Δύση μπορούν να διατηρήσουν μονοπώλιο στην καινοτομία και την υψηλή τεχνολογία, ενώ η Κίνα ασχολείται απλώς με τη μεταποίηση. Οι κινέζοι πτυχιούχοι κινούνται επίσης προς την κορυφή της αλυσίδας προστιθέμενης αξίας. Πολύ σύντομα, ίσως αντιμετωπίσουμε την πιθανότητα να υπάρχουν πολύ λίγα που να μπορεί να παράγει η Ευρώπη τα οποία η Κίνα δεν θα μπορεί να παράγει πιο αποτελεσματικά. Η παλιά υπόθεση ότι, ενώ η ΕΕ και οι βιομηχανοποιημένες χώρες διατηρούν το προβάδισμα στις βιομηχανίες γνώσης, τα αναπτυσσόμενα έθνη εστιάζουν σε τομείς όπου απαιτούνται χαμηλότερα προσόντα, επιδέχεται πλέον πολλή συζήτηση. Η απάντηση στην πρόκληση που θέτει η Κίνα πρέπει να περιλαμβάνει μια διεξοδική επανεκτίμηση των υποθέσεων που έχουν στηρίξει το διεθνές εμπόριο μέχρι σήμερα. Πρέπει να επανεξετάσουμε τις παλιές ιδέες που χρονολογούνται από την εποχή του David Ricardo και μεταγενέστερα ότι το ανταγωνιστικό πλεονέκτημα πάντα λειτουργεί προς το καλύτερο συμφέρον όλων. Ελπίζω η Επιτροπή να ενεργήσει γρήγορα σχετικά με τα κλωστοϋφαντουργικά προϊόντα. Θα ήθελα επίσης να ακούσω τι σχεδιάζει να κάνει ο Επίτροπος για αυτά τα μακροπρόθεσμα ζητήματα συστήματος. Χρειαζόμαστε μια άποψη πιο ισορροπημένη από ό,τι προτείνει αυτή η προφορική ερώτηση. Πρέπει να εξετάσουμε κάποιες από τις επιπτώσεις της ελευθέρωσης στην ίδια την Κίνα, επειδή υπάρχουν επαρκείς αποδείξεις που καταδεικνύουν ότι πολλοί από τους φτωχότερους ανθρώπους στην Κίνα αντιμετωπίζουν σημαντικές απώλειες οι ίδιοι, ιδιαίτερα στον γεωργικό τομέα, μετά την προσχώρηση της Κίνας στον ΠΟΕ. Ας έχουμε, λοιπόν, μια πιο ισορροπημένη άποψη, μια άποψη που λαμβάνει επίσης υπόψη το μέλλον."@el¹⁰ "Señor Presidente, es obvio que existe una verdadera preocupación por el efecto que puede tener China sobre otros agentes del sistema de comercio internacional. Ya hemos tenido noticias de las consecuencias que el repentino aumento de las importaciones textiles ha tenido en la UE y los graves problemas a que tienen que hacer frente algunos fabricantes europeos debido a ello. Sin embargo, no debemos olvidar las repercusiones en otros países en desarrollo. La presión deflacionaria de China ya está haciendo bajar los salarios en todo el mundo en desarrollo y está obligando a empresas mundiales a reducir los derechos y condiciones de sus trabajadores en un intento de mantener la competitividad a cualquier precio. En Filipinas, por ejemplo, el Gobierno ha decretado que la ley sobre el salario mínimo deje de aplicarse a la industria textil. En Bangladesh, el Gobierno ha anunciado recientemente que aumentará el número de horas extraordinarias autorizadas y que reducirá las restricciones impuestas al trabajo nocturno de las mujeres. Los propios trabajadores chinos tampoco salen ganando necesariamente gran cosa, teniendo que trabajar los siete días de la semana, percibiendo salarios muy bajos, haciendo frente a terribles peligros para su salud y seguridad y estando privados de sindicatos. Estamos observando una rebaja continua de las normas sociales y medioambientales; sin duda el establecimiento de unas normas mínimas internacionales contribuiría a contener este descenso. Es importante que este debate se centre no solo en un sector o en otro, hoy en la industria textil y mañana en la del calzado o los componentes de máquinas. Lo que estamos observando es un problema sistémico. Se trata de un reto planteado por un país que ha entrado a formar parte del sistema de comercio internacional no solo con una ventaja comparativa, sino potencialmente con una ventaja casi absoluta en todos los ámbitos. Sería pecar de condescendencia y soberbia suponer que Europa y Occidente pueden conservar el monopolio en materia de innovación y alta tecnología mientras que China se encarga simplemente de fabricar. Los universitarios chinos también están ascendiendo en la cadena del valor añadido. Muy pronto puede que tengamos que hacer frente a la posibilidad de que sean muy pocas las cosas que Europa pueda producir que China no sea capaz de fabricar más eficientemente. El antiguo supuesto de que la UE y los países industrializados mantendrían el liderazgo en las industrias que exigen un alto nivel de conocimientos, mientras que las naciones en desarrollo se centrarían en los sectores que requieren una menor cualificación, es objeto actualmente de un intenso debate. La respuesta al reto planteado por China debe incluir un profundo replanteamiento de los supuestos en que se ha asentado hasta el momento la teoría del comercio internacional. Tenemos que examinar de nuevo las viejas ideas, de David Ricardo en adelante, según las cuales la ventaja comparativa siempre beneficia a los intereses generales. Espero que la Comisión actúe con rapidez en lo que a la industria textil se refiere. También me gustaría saber cuáles son los planes del Comisario con respecto a estas cuestiones sistémicas a más largo plazo. Necesitamos un enfoque más equilibrado de lo que sugiere esta pregunta oral. Deberíamos estudiar algunas de las consecuencias de la liberalización en la propia China, porque existen pruebas suficientes que demuestran que muchos de los sectores más pobres de la población china podrían salir perdiendo a su vez de forma significativa, particularmente en el sector agrícola, a raíz de la entrada de China en la OMC. Busquemos un enfoque más equilibrado; un enfoque que mire también al futuro."@es²⁰ "Mr President, clearly there are very real concerns about the impact of China on other players in the international trading system. We have already heard about the impact of the surge in textile imports on the EU and the devastation some EU producers face as a result. But let us not forget the impact on other developing countries. China’s deflationary pressure is already driving down wages right across the developing world and pushing global suppliers to reduce their workers’ rights and conditions in a bid to remain competitive at all costs. In the Philippines, for example, the government has ruled that its law on the minimum wage would not longer apply to the clothing industry. In Bangladesh, the government recently announced that it would increase the number of authorised overtime hours and reduce the restrictions on women’s night work. Chinese workers themselves do not necessarily have much to gain either, facing seven-day working weeks, very low wages, appalling health and safety hazards and no trade unions. We are looking here at a downward spiral of social and environmental standards; certainly minimum international standards might help stem that downward spiral. It is most important for this debate not just to focus on this or that sector, textiles today or footwear or machine components tomorrow. What we are looking at here is a systemic problem. It is a challenge posed by a country that has entered the international trading system not just with a comparative advantage but with potentially an almost absolute advantage in just about everything. It is complacent and patronising to assume that Europe and the West can keep a monopoly on innovation and high-tech while China simply does the manufacturing. Chinese graduates are also moving up the value-added chain. Very soon we may need to face the possibility that there could be very little that Europe could produce that China cannot produce more efficiently. The old assumption that while the EU and the industrialised countries keep the leading edge in knowledge-intensive industries while developing nations focus on lower-skill sectors, is now open to huge debate. The response to the challenge posed by China needs to include a thorough reassessment of the assumptions that have underpinned international trade theory up until now. We need to look again at the old ideas dating from David Ricardo onwards that comparative advantage always works in everybody’s best interests. I hope the Commission will act swiftly on textiles. I would also like to hear what the Commissioner plans to do about these longer-term systemic issues. We need a more balanced view than this oral question suggests. We should be looking at some of the impacts of liberalisation on China itself, because there is ample proof to suggest that many of the poorest people in China face significant losses themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of China’s accession to the WTO. So let us have a more balanced view; a view that looks into the future as well."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, huoli siitä, millainen vaikutus Kiinalla on muihin kansainvälisen kauppajärjestelmän toimijoihin, on varmasti hyvin aiheellinen. Jo aiemmin on puhuttu voimakkaan tekstiilituonnin vaikutuksesta EU:hun ja sen aiheuttamasta EU:n omien valmistajien ahdingosta. Älkäämme kuitenkaan unohtako muihin kehittyviin maihin kohdistuvia vaikutuksia. Kiinan deflatorinen paine vaikuttaa jo nyt palkkoja alentavasti kehittyvissä maissa ja pakottaa valmistajat kaikkialla maailmassa heikentämään työntekijöidensä oikeuksia ja työoloja kilpailukyvyn säilyttämiseksi hinnalla millä hyvänsä. Esimerkiksi Filippiineillä hallitus on päättänyt, että vähimmäispalkkalakia ei enää sovelleta vaatetusteollisuuteen. Bangladeshissa hallitus ilmoitti äskettäin lisäävänsä lainmukaisten ylityötuntien määrää ja vähentävänsä naisten yötyön rajoituksia. Kiinalaisilla työntekijöilläkään ei ole juuri voitettavaa, koska he tekevät seitsenpäiväistä työviikkoa alhaisilla palkoilla, kärsivät hirvittävistä terveys- ja turvallisuusriskeistä ja jäävät ilman ammattiliittojen suojaa. Todistamme omin silmin sosiaali- ja ympäristönormien syöksykierrettä. On selvää, että kansainvälisten vähimmäisnormien avulla voidaan yrittää pysäyttää tämä kierre. Kaikkein tärkeintä on, että tämä keskustelu ei rajoitu koskemaan pelkästään yksittäisiä aloja: tekstiilialaa tänään, jalkineita ja koneiden osia huomenna. Olemme tässä asiassa yleisluonteisen ongelman edessä. Haasteen taustalla on se, että kansainväliseen kauppajärjestelmään on otettu mukaan maa, jolla on suhteellinen etu ja potentiaalisesti lähes absoluuttinen etu miltei kaikessa. On omahyväistä ja holhoavaa kuvitella, että Eurooppa ja länsimaat voivat säilyttää innovaatioiden ja huipputekniikan alalla monopolin Kiinan tyytyessä pelkkään valmistukseen. Myös koulutetut kiinalaiset nousevat ylöspäin arvonlisäketjussa. Meidän on kenties piakkoin kohdattava tilanne, jossa Eurooppa pystyy valmistamaan hyvin vähän sellaista, mitä Kiina ei voi valmistaa tehokkaammin. Tällä hetkellä käydään kiivasta keskustelua vanhasta väittämästä, jonka mukaan EU ja teollistuneet maat säilyttävät johtavan asemansa tietämysintensiivisillä aloilla kehittyvien maiden keskittyessä vähemmän ammattitaitoa edellyttäviin aloihin. Vastaus Kiinan asettamaan haasteeseen edellyttää kansainvälistä kauppaa koskevan talousteorian tähänastisten perusolettamusten perinpohjaista uudelleenarviointia. Meidän on pohdittava uudelleen David Ricardon ajoilta periytyviä vanhoja ajatuksia siitä, että suhteellinen etu toimii aina kaikkien parhaaksi. Toivon, että komissio toimii tekstiiliasiassa nopeasti. Lisäksi haluan kuulla, mitä komission jäsen aikoo tehdä näiden pitkän aikavälin yleistä kehitystä koskevien kysymysten osalta. Tarvitsemme näkökulmaa, joka on tässä suullisessa kysymyksessä tarjottua näkökulmaa tasapainoisempi. On syytä tarkastella vapauttamisen eräitä vaikutuksia Kiinan itsensä kannalta, koska on paljon todisteita siitä, että Kiinan liittyminen WTO:hon on aiheuttanut monille Kiinan köyhimmille ihmisille huomattavia menetyksiä erityisesti maatalouden alalla. Näin ollen tarvitaan tasapainoisempaa näkökulmaa: sellaista, jossa katsotaan myös tulevaisuuteen."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, on note clairement des inquiétudes réelles au sujet de l’impact de la Chine sur d’autres acteurs du système commercial international. On a déjà signalé l’impact du des importations textiles sur l’UE et les dégâts considérables qu’encourront dans la foulée certains producteurs communautaires. Mais n’oublions pas l’impact sur les autres pays en développement. La pression déflationniste exercée par la Chine fait déjà chuter les salaires dans tous les pays en développement et incite les producteurs mondiaux à réduire les droits et conditions de leurs travailleurs afin de rester compétitifs à tous prix. Aux Philippines, par exemple, le gouvernement a arrêté que la loi sur le salaire minimum ne s’appliquerait plus à l’industrie textile. Au Bangladesh, le gouvernement a annoncé récemment qu’il augmenterait le nombre d’heures supplémentaires autorisées et réduirait les restrictions pesant sur le travail de nuit des femmes. Les travailleurs chinois eux-mêmes n’ont pas nécessairement grand-chose à y gagner, confrontés à des semaines de sept jours de travail, des salaires très bas, des risques consternants pour leur santé et leur sécurité et l’absence de syndicats. Les normes sociales et environnementales sont prises dans une spirale descendante; des règles minimales internationales contribueraient certainement à stopper cette spirale. Il est capital que ce débat ne se limite pas seulement à tel ou tel autre secteur, aujourd’hui les textiles et demain les chaussures ou les composantes de machine. Nous avons sous les yeux un problème systémique. Il s’agit du défi lancé par un pays qui a rejoint le système commercial international avec non seulement un avantage comparatif, mais peut-être aussi un avantage absolu sur presque tous les points. Il serait présomptueux et condescendant de croire que l’Europe et l’Occident peuvent conserver un monopole de l’innovation et des technologies de pointe pendant que la Chine se contente de fabriquer. Les diplômés chinois grimpent eux aussi l’échelle de la valeur ajoutée. Il est possible que nous ayons très bientôt à envisager la possibilité que virtuellement tout ce que l’Europe peut produire, la Chine puisse le produire plus efficacement. Le vieux postulat selon lequel l’UE et les pays industrialisés restaient à la pointe des industries requérant un important savoir tandis que les pays en développement se concentrent sur les secteurs peu qualifiés est désormais largement sujet à débat. La réponse au défi lancé par la Chine doit comporter une réévaluation approfondie des postulats qui ont étayé la théorie du commerce international à ce jour. Il nous faut revoir les vieilles idées remontant à David Ricardo selon lesquelles l’avantage comparatif sert toujours les intérêts de tous. J’espère que la Commission réagira rapidement concernant les textiles. Je voudrais également savoir ce que le commissaire entend faire à propos de ces questions systémiques à plus long terme. Il nous faut une vision plus équilibrée que ne semble le suggérer cette question orale. Nous devrions nous pencher sur certains des impacts que la libéralisation a sur la Chine elle-même, car de nombreux témoignages prouvent que nombre des Chinois les plus démunis risquent d’essuyer des pertes importantes, notamment dans le secteur agricole, suite à l’entrée de la Chine dans l’OMC. Adoptons dès lors un point de vue plus équilibré, un point de vue ouvert aussi sur l’avenir."@fr⁸ "Mr President, clearly there are very real concerns about the impact of China on other players in the international trading system. We have already heard about the impact of the surge in textile imports on the EU and the devastation some EU producers face as a result. But let us not forget the impact on other developing countries. China’s deflationary pressure is already driving down wages right across the developing world and pushing global suppliers to reduce their workers’ rights and conditions in a bid to remain competitive at all costs. In the Philippines, for example, the government has ruled that its law on the minimum wage would not longer apply to the clothing industry. In Bangladesh, the government recently announced that it would increase the number of authorised overtime hours and reduce the restrictions on women’s night work. Chinese workers themselves do not necessarily have much to gain either, facing seven-day working weeks, very low wages, appalling health and safety hazards and no trade unions. We are looking here at a downward spiral of social and environmental standards; certainly minimum international standards might help stem that downward spiral. It is most important for this debate not just to focus on this or that sector, textiles today or footwear or machine components tomorrow. What we are looking at here is a systemic problem. It is a challenge posed by a country that has entered the international trading system not just with a comparative advantage but with potentially an almost absolute advantage in just about everything. It is complacent and patronising to assume that Europe and the West can keep a monopoly on innovation and high-tech while China simply does the manufacturing. Chinese graduates are also moving up the value-added chain. Very soon we may need to face the possibility that there could be very little that Europe could produce that China cannot produce more efficiently. The old assumption that while the EU and the industrialised countries keep the leading edge in knowledge-intensive industries while developing nations focus on lower-skill sectors, is now open to huge debate. The response to the challenge posed by China needs to include a thorough reassessment of the assumptions that have underpinned international trade theory up until now. We need to look again at the old ideas dating from David Ricardo onwards that comparative advantage always works in everybody’s best interests. I hope the Commission will act swiftly on textiles. I would also like to hear what the Commissioner plans to do about these longer-term systemic issues. We need a more balanced view than this oral question suggests. We should be looking at some of the impacts of liberalisation on China itself, because there is ample proof to suggest that many of the poorest people in China face significant losses themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of China’s accession to the WTO. So let us have a more balanced view; a view that looks into the future as well."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, l’impatto della presenza cinese sugli altri soggetti del sistema commerciale internazionale suscita, com’è ovvio, concrete apprensioni. Abbiamo già sentito illustrare gli effetti dell’incremento delle importazioni tessili nell’Unione europea, e le devastanti conseguenze che ne sono derivate per alcuni produttori dell’UE. Non dobbiamo però dimenticare l’impatto di questa situazione sugli altri paesi in via di sviluppo. Le pressioni deflazionistiche esercitate dalla Cina stanno già spingendo verso il basso i salari in tutti i paesi in via di sviluppo, e inducono i fornitori globali a limitare i diritti dei lavoratori, imponendo condizioni di lavoro peggiori, nel tentativo di mantenersi competitivi ad ogni costo. Nelle Filippine, per esempio, il governo ha decretato che la legge sui minimi salariali non si applicherà più al settore dell’abbigliamento. Nel Bangladesh, il governo ha recentemente annunciato l’aumento delle ore di straordinario autorizzate e minori limitazioni al lavoro notturno delle donne. Le prospettive non sono rosee neppure per i lavoratori cinesi, che devono accettare settimane lavorative di sette giorni, salari bassissimi e spaventose condizioni sanitarie e di sicurezza, nell’assenza di qualsiasi forma di organizzazione sindacale. Assistiamo a un costante peggioramento degli sociali e ambientali; naturalmente un sistema internazionale di minimi potrebbe contribuire ad arrestare questa spirale perversa. E’ di estrema importanza però che questo dibattito non si concentri unicamente su questo o quel settore – oggi i prodotti tessili o le calzature, domani le componenti meccaniche. Siamo di fronte a una sfida che investe l’intero sistema, lanciata da un paese che ha fatto il suo ingresso nel sistema commerciale internazionale, forte non solo di un vantaggio comparativo, ma anche – potenzialmente – di un vantaggio quasi assoluto praticamente in tutti i campi. Solo cedendo a una sorta di paternalistico autocompiacimento possiamo illuderci che l’Europa e l’Occidente siano destinati a mantenere il monopolio dell’alta tecnologia, con una Cina dedita unicamente all’attività manifatturiera. I laureati cinesi, a loro volta, stanno raggiungendo le posizioni di testa nella classifica del valore aggiunto; è possibile che ben presto vi siano ben pochi prodotti europei che la Cina non sarà in grado di produrre in maniera più efficiente. L’antico presupposto per cui l’Unione europea e i paesi industrializzati avrebbero conservato una posizione di guida nei settori ad alta intensità di conoscenza, mentre i paesi in via di sviluppo si sarebbero concentrati su quelli a più basso contenuto tecnologico, viene ora messo largamente in discussione. Per rispondere alla sfida che ci viene lanciata dalla Cina occorre, tra l’altro, ripensare radicalmente i presupposti su cui finora si è basata la teoria del commercio internazionale. Dobbiamo riesaminare le antiche idee secondo cui – da Ricardo in poi – il vantaggio comparativo favorisce sempre al meglio gli interessi di tutti. Spero che la Commissione agirà tempestivamente riguardo al settore dei tessili. Gradirei anche sapere dal Commissario quali iniziative intende avviare per far fronte a questi problemi di più lungo periodo che interessano l’intero sistema. Ci occorre una visione d’insieme più equilibrata di quella che può scaturire da questa interrogazione orale. Dovremmo considerare alcuni degli effetti che la liberalizzazione produce sulla Cina stessa; vi sono forti motivi per credere, infatti, che l’ingresso della Cina nell’OMC abbia gravemente danneggiato larghi strati della popolazione cinese più povera, soprattutto nel settore agricolo. Cerchiamo quindi di guardare alle cose in una prospettiva più equilibrata: una prospettiva aperta anche al futuro."@it¹² "Mr President, clearly there are very real concerns about the impact of China on other players in the international trading system. We have already heard about the impact of the surge in textile imports on the EU and the devastation some EU producers face as a result. But let us not forget the impact on other developing countries. China’s deflationary pressure is already driving down wages right across the developing world and pushing global suppliers to reduce their workers’ rights and conditions in a bid to remain competitive at all costs. In the Philippines, for example, the government has ruled that its law on the minimum wage would not longer apply to the clothing industry. In Bangladesh, the government recently announced that it would increase the number of authorised overtime hours and reduce the restrictions on women’s night work. Chinese workers themselves do not necessarily have much to gain either, facing seven-day working weeks, very low wages, appalling health and safety hazards and no trade unions. We are looking here at a downward spiral of social and environmental standards; certainly minimum international standards might help stem that downward spiral. It is most important for this debate not just to focus on this or that sector, textiles today or footwear or machine components tomorrow. What we are looking at here is a systemic problem. It is a challenge posed by a country that has entered the international trading system not just with a comparative advantage but with potentially an almost absolute advantage in just about everything. It is complacent and patronising to assume that Europe and the West can keep a monopoly on innovation and high-tech while China simply does the manufacturing. Chinese graduates are also moving up the value-added chain. Very soon we may need to face the possibility that there could be very little that Europe could produce that China cannot produce more efficiently. The old assumption that while the EU and the industrialised countries keep the leading edge in knowledge-intensive industries while developing nations focus on lower-skill sectors, is now open to huge debate. The response to the challenge posed by China needs to include a thorough reassessment of the assumptions that have underpinned international trade theory up until now. We need to look again at the old ideas dating from David Ricardo onwards that comparative advantage always works in everybody’s best interests. I hope the Commission will act swiftly on textiles. I would also like to hear what the Commissioner plans to do about these longer-term systemic issues. We need a more balanced view than this oral question suggests. We should be looking at some of the impacts of liberalisation on China itself, because there is ample proof to suggest that many of the poorest people in China face significant losses themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of China’s accession to the WTO. So let us have a more balanced view; a view that looks into the future as well."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, clearly there are very real concerns about the impact of China on other players in the international trading system. We have already heard about the impact of the surge in textile imports on the EU and the devastation some EU producers face as a result. But let us not forget the impact on other developing countries. China’s deflationary pressure is already driving down wages right across the developing world and pushing global suppliers to reduce their workers’ rights and conditions in a bid to remain competitive at all costs. In the Philippines, for example, the government has ruled that its law on the minimum wage would not longer apply to the clothing industry. In Bangladesh, the government recently announced that it would increase the number of authorised overtime hours and reduce the restrictions on women’s night work. Chinese workers themselves do not necessarily have much to gain either, facing seven-day working weeks, very low wages, appalling health and safety hazards and no trade unions. We are looking here at a downward spiral of social and environmental standards; certainly minimum international standards might help stem that downward spiral. It is most important for this debate not just to focus on this or that sector, textiles today or footwear or machine components tomorrow. What we are looking at here is a systemic problem. It is a challenge posed by a country that has entered the international trading system not just with a comparative advantage but with potentially an almost absolute advantage in just about everything. It is complacent and patronising to assume that Europe and the West can keep a monopoly on innovation and high-tech while China simply does the manufacturing. Chinese graduates are also moving up the value-added chain. Very soon we may need to face the possibility that there could be very little that Europe could produce that China cannot produce more efficiently. The old assumption that while the EU and the industrialised countries keep the leading edge in knowledge-intensive industries while developing nations focus on lower-skill sectors, is now open to huge debate. The response to the challenge posed by China needs to include a thorough reassessment of the assumptions that have underpinned international trade theory up until now. We need to look again at the old ideas dating from David Ricardo onwards that comparative advantage always works in everybody’s best interests. I hope the Commission will act swiftly on textiles. I would also like to hear what the Commissioner plans to do about these longer-term systemic issues. We need a more balanced view than this oral question suggests. We should be looking at some of the impacts of liberalisation on China itself, because there is ample proof to suggest that many of the poorest people in China face significant losses themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of China’s accession to the WTO. So let us have a more balanced view; a view that looks into the future as well."@lv¹³ "Mr President, clearly there are very real concerns about the impact of China on other players in the international trading system. We have already heard about the impact of the surge in textile imports on the EU and the devastation some EU producers face as a result. But let us not forget the impact on other developing countries. China’s deflationary pressure is already driving down wages right across the developing world and pushing global suppliers to reduce their workers’ rights and conditions in a bid to remain competitive at all costs. In the Philippines, for example, the government has ruled that its law on the minimum wage would not longer apply to the clothing industry. In Bangladesh, the government recently announced that it would increase the number of authorised overtime hours and reduce the restrictions on women’s night work. Chinese workers themselves do not necessarily have much to gain either, facing seven-day working weeks, very low wages, appalling health and safety hazards and no trade unions. We are looking here at a downward spiral of social and environmental standards; certainly minimum international standards might help stem that downward spiral. It is most important for this debate not just to focus on this or that sector, textiles today or footwear or machine components tomorrow. What we are looking at here is a systemic problem. It is a challenge posed by a country that has entered the international trading system not just with a comparative advantage but with potentially an almost absolute advantage in just about everything. It is complacent and patronising to assume that Europe and the West can keep a monopoly on innovation and high-tech while China simply does the manufacturing. Chinese graduates are also moving up the value-added chain. Very soon we may need to face the possibility that there could be very little that Europe could produce that China cannot produce more efficiently. The old assumption that while the EU and the industrialised countries keep the leading edge in knowledge-intensive industries while developing nations focus on lower-skill sectors, is now open to huge debate. The response to the challenge posed by China needs to include a thorough reassessment of the assumptions that have underpinned international trade theory up until now. We need to look again at the old ideas dating from David Ricardo onwards that comparative advantage always works in everybody’s best interests. I hope the Commission will act swiftly on textiles. I would also like to hear what the Commissioner plans to do about these longer-term systemic issues. We need a more balanced view than this oral question suggests. We should be looking at some of the impacts of liberalisation on China itself, because there is ample proof to suggest that many of the poorest people in China face significant losses themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of China’s accession to the WTO. So let us have a more balanced view; a view that looks into the future as well."@mt¹⁵ ". Mijnheer de Voorzitter, het is duidelijk dat er zeer reële zorgen bestaan omtrent de invloed van China op andere spelers in het internationale handelsstelsel. We hebben al het een en ander gehoord over de invloed die de grote toename van de textielimport in de EU heeft en de ellende waarmee bepaalde producenten in de EU daardoor geconfronteerd worden. Maar we mogen ook de gevolgen voor andere ontwikkelingslanden niet vergeten. De deflatoire druk vanuit China heeft nu al tot gevolg dat overal in de ontwikkelingslanden de lonen verlaagd worden en dat mondiale leveranciers de rechten en arbeidsomstandigheden van hun werknemers inperken in een poging om koste wat het kost concurrerend te blijven. In de Filippijnen heeft de regering bijvoorbeeld besloten dat de wet op het minimumloon niet langer geldt voor de kledingindustrie. In Bangladesh heeft de regering onlangs aangekondigd dat zij het aantal toegestane overuren uitbreidt en de beperkingen op het verrichten van nachtelijke arbeid door vrouwen versoepelt. Ook de Chinese arbeiders zelf gaan er niet noodzakelijkerwijs veel op vooruit, aangezien zij worden geconfronteerd met zevendaagse werkweken, zeer lage lonen, onthutsende gezondheids- en veiligheidsrisico’s, zonder dat er vakbonden zijn. We zien hier een neerwaartse spiraal van sociale en milieunormen; internationale minimumnormen zouden zonder meer kunnen bijdragen tot het tegengaan van deze neerwaartse spiraal. Het is van zeer groot belang voor dit debat om ons niet alleen te richten op die of die sector, vandaag textiel of schoenen, morgen weer machineonderdelen. Wat we hier namelijk zien is een structureel probleem. Het gaat om een uitdaging die veroorzaakt wordt doordat het internationale handelsstelsel is uitgebreid met een land dat niet alleen een relatief voordeel heeft, maar potentieel beschikt over een welhaast absoluut voordeel op zo ongeveer elk terrein. Het is zelfgenoegzaam en neerbuigend om ervan uit te gaan dat Europa en het Westen een monopolie kunnen behouden op het vlak van innovatie en high-tech, terwijl China alleen het productiewerk doet. Ook Chinese academici krijgen steeds meer toegevoegde waarde. We zullen misschien zeer binnenkort al geconfronteerd worden met de mogelijkheid dat er nog maar heel weinig is wat China niet efficiënter kan produceren dan Europa. De oude veronderstelling dat de EU en de geïndustrialiseerde landen een beslissende voorsprong houden in kennisintensieve industrieën, terwijl de ontwikkelingslanden zich toeleggen op sectoren waarvoor minder vaardigheden vereist zijn, staat enorm ter discussie. De reactie op de uitdaging die China vormt, dient gepaard te gaan met een grondige heroverweging van de veronderstellingen die tot nu toe ten grondslag hebben gelegen aan de internationale handelstheorie. We zullen vanaf de tijd van David Ricardo opnieuw moeten kijken naar het oude idee dat een relatief voordeel altijd in ieders belang is. Ik hoop dat de Commissie snel actie zal ondernemen met betrekking tot textielproducten. Verder zou ik graag van de commissaris willen horen wat hij voornemens is te doen aan deze structurele langetermijnkwesties. We hebben behoefte aan een evenwichtiger standpunt dan deze mondelinge vraag suggereert. We zouden ook moeten kijken naar bepaalde gevolgen van de liberalisering voor China zelf, want er zijn voldoende bewijzen dat veel van de armste mensen in China zelf ten gevolge van de toetreding van China tot de WTO te maken krijgen met aanzienlijke verliezen, met name in de landbouwsector. Daarom moet er dus een evenwichtiger standpunt komen; een standpunt waarin ook gelet wordt op de toekomst."@nl³ "Mr President, clearly there are very real concerns about the impact of China on other players in the international trading system. We have already heard about the impact of the surge in textile imports on the EU and the devastation some EU producers face as a result. But let us not forget the impact on other developing countries. China’s deflationary pressure is already driving down wages right across the developing world and pushing global suppliers to reduce their workers’ rights and conditions in a bid to remain competitive at all costs. In the Philippines, for example, the government has ruled that its law on the minimum wage would not longer apply to the clothing industry. In Bangladesh, the government recently announced that it would increase the number of authorised overtime hours and reduce the restrictions on women’s night work. Chinese workers themselves do not necessarily have much to gain either, facing seven-day working weeks, very low wages, appalling health and safety hazards and no trade unions. We are looking here at a downward spiral of social and environmental standards; certainly minimum international standards might help stem that downward spiral. It is most important for this debate not just to focus on this or that sector, textiles today or footwear or machine components tomorrow. What we are looking at here is a systemic problem. It is a challenge posed by a country that has entered the international trading system not just with a comparative advantage but with potentially an almost absolute advantage in just about everything. It is complacent and patronising to assume that Europe and the West can keep a monopoly on innovation and high-tech while China simply does the manufacturing. Chinese graduates are also moving up the value-added chain. Very soon we may need to face the possibility that there could be very little that Europe could produce that China cannot produce more efficiently. The old assumption that while the EU and the industrialised countries keep the leading edge in knowledge-intensive industries while developing nations focus on lower-skill sectors, is now open to huge debate. The response to the challenge posed by China needs to include a thorough reassessment of the assumptions that have underpinned international trade theory up until now. We need to look again at the old ideas dating from David Ricardo onwards that comparative advantage always works in everybody’s best interests. I hope the Commission will act swiftly on textiles. I would also like to hear what the Commissioner plans to do about these longer-term systemic issues. We need a more balanced view than this oral question suggests. We should be looking at some of the impacts of liberalisation on China itself, because there is ample proof to suggest that many of the poorest people in China face significant losses themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of China’s accession to the WTO. So let us have a more balanced view; a view that looks into the future as well."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, é óbvio que existem preocupações muito reais sobre o impacto da China noutros actores do sistema de comércio internacional. Já ouvimos falar do impacto que o afluxo de importações de têxteis chineses está a ter na UE e dos consequentes prejuízos que os produtores da UE estão a enfrentar. Não podemos, contudo, esquecer-nos do impacto que essas importações estão a ter noutros países em desenvolvimento. A pressão deflacionária da China já está a fazer baixar os salários em todo o mundo em desenvolvimento e a obrigar os fornecedores globais a reduzir os direitos e as condições laborais dos seus trabalhadores, tentando conservar a competitividade a todo o custo. Nas Filipinas, por exemplo, o Governo decretou que a sua lei sobre o salário mínimo deixaria de se aplicar à indústria do vestuário. No Bangladesh, o Governo anunciou recentemente que iria aumentar o número de horas extraordinárias permitidas e reduzir as restrições impostas ao trabalho nocturno feminino. Os próprios trabalhadores chineses também não têm necessariamente muito a ganhar com esta situação, pois têm de cumprir semanas de trabalho de sete dias, auferem salários muito baixos, correm riscos enormes em termos de saúde e segurança, e não têm sindicatos. Estamos aqui perante uma espiral descendente das normas sociais e ambientais; certamente que o cumprimento de normas mínimas internacionais poderia ajudar a conter essa espiral descendente. É muito importante que este debate não seja focalizado apenas neste ou naquele sector, hoje nos têxteis ou amanhã no calçado ou em componentes de máquinas. Aquilo que temos diante de nós é um problema sistémico. É um desafio que nos é colocado por um país que entrou para o sistema de comércio internacional não só com uma vantagem comparativa mas com uma vantagem potencialmente quase absoluta, justamente em quase todos os sectores. Estaremos a ser complacentes e condescendentes se partirmos do princípio de que a Europa e o Ocidente podem manter o monopólio da inovação e da alta tecnologia enquanto a China se limita à transformação. Os diplomados chineses estão também a subir na cadeia do valor acrescentado. Muito em breve, poderemos ter de enfrentar a possibilidade de haver muito poucos produtos produzidos na Europa que a China não possa também produzir com mais eficiência. A antiga suposição de que a UE e os países industrializados mantêm a liderança nas indústrias com elevada intensidade de conhecimento, enquanto os países em desenvolvimento se concentram em sectores menos qualificados, está agora aberta a um enorme debate. A resposta ao desafio que a China nos coloca tem de incluir uma reavaliação minuciosa dessas hipóteses que até este momento sustentaram a teoria comercial internacional. Temos de rever essas antigas ideias que surgiram a partir de David Ricardo e que defendem que a vantagem comparativa resulta sempre no melhor interesse de todos. Espero que a Comissão intervenha rapidamente na questão dos têxteis. Também gostaria que o Senhor Comissário nos dissesse o que planeia fazer acerca destas questões sistémicas de mais longo prazo. Precisamos de uma visão mais equilibrada do que a sugerida pela pergunta oral. Deveríamos olhar para alguns dos impactos da liberalização na própria China, porque existem amplas provas que sugerem que grande parte da população mais pobre da China se debate com grandes perdas, particularmente no sector agrícola, em consequência da adesão da China à OMC. Adoptemos, pois, uma visão equilibrada; uma visão virada também para o futuro."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, clearly there are very real concerns about the impact of China on other players in the international trading system. We have already heard about the impact of the surge in textile imports on the EU and the devastation some EU producers face as a result. But let us not forget the impact on other developing countries. China’s deflationary pressure is already driving down wages right across the developing world and pushing global suppliers to reduce their workers’ rights and conditions in a bid to remain competitive at all costs. In the Philippines, for example, the government has ruled that its law on the minimum wage would not longer apply to the clothing industry. In Bangladesh, the government recently announced that it would increase the number of authorised overtime hours and reduce the restrictions on women’s night work. Chinese workers themselves do not necessarily have much to gain either, facing seven-day working weeks, very low wages, appalling health and safety hazards and no trade unions. We are looking here at a downward spiral of social and environmental standards; certainly minimum international standards might help stem that downward spiral. It is most important for this debate not just to focus on this or that sector, textiles today or footwear or machine components tomorrow. What we are looking at here is a systemic problem. It is a challenge posed by a country that has entered the international trading system not just with a comparative advantage but with potentially an almost absolute advantage in just about everything. It is complacent and patronising to assume that Europe and the West can keep a monopoly on innovation and high-tech while China simply does the manufacturing. Chinese graduates are also moving up the value-added chain. Very soon we may need to face the possibility that there could be very little that Europe could produce that China cannot produce more efficiently. The old assumption that while the EU and the industrialised countries keep the leading edge in knowledge-intensive industries while developing nations focus on lower-skill sectors, is now open to huge debate. The response to the challenge posed by China needs to include a thorough reassessment of the assumptions that have underpinned international trade theory up until now. We need to look again at the old ideas dating from David Ricardo onwards that comparative advantage always works in everybody’s best interests. I hope the Commission will act swiftly on textiles. I would also like to hear what the Commissioner plans to do about these longer-term systemic issues. We need a more balanced view than this oral question suggests. We should be looking at some of the impacts of liberalisation on China itself, because there is ample proof to suggest that many of the poorest people in China face significant losses themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of China’s accession to the WTO. So let us have a more balanced view; a view that looks into the future as well."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, clearly there are very real concerns about the impact of China on other players in the international trading system. We have already heard about the impact of the surge in textile imports on the EU and the devastation some EU producers face as a result. But let us not forget the impact on other developing countries. China’s deflationary pressure is already driving down wages right across the developing world and pushing global suppliers to reduce their workers’ rights and conditions in a bid to remain competitive at all costs. In the Philippines, for example, the government has ruled that its law on the minimum wage would not longer apply to the clothing industry. In Bangladesh, the government recently announced that it would increase the number of authorised overtime hours and reduce the restrictions on women’s night work. Chinese workers themselves do not necessarily have much to gain either, facing seven-day working weeks, very low wages, appalling health and safety hazards and no trade unions. We are looking here at a downward spiral of social and environmental standards; certainly minimum international standards might help stem that downward spiral. It is most important for this debate not just to focus on this or that sector, textiles today or footwear or machine components tomorrow. What we are looking at here is a systemic problem. It is a challenge posed by a country that has entered the international trading system not just with a comparative advantage but with potentially an almost absolute advantage in just about everything. It is complacent and patronising to assume that Europe and the West can keep a monopoly on innovation and high-tech while China simply does the manufacturing. Chinese graduates are also moving up the value-added chain. Very soon we may need to face the possibility that there could be very little that Europe could produce that China cannot produce more efficiently. The old assumption that while the EU and the industrialised countries keep the leading edge in knowledge-intensive industries while developing nations focus on lower-skill sectors, is now open to huge debate. The response to the challenge posed by China needs to include a thorough reassessment of the assumptions that have underpinned international trade theory up until now. We need to look again at the old ideas dating from David Ricardo onwards that comparative advantage always works in everybody’s best interests. I hope the Commission will act swiftly on textiles. I would also like to hear what the Commissioner plans to do about these longer-term systemic issues. We need a more balanced view than this oral question suggests. We should be looking at some of the impacts of liberalisation on China itself, because there is ample proof to suggest that many of the poorest people in China face significant losses themselves, particularly in the agricultural sector, as a result of China’s accession to the WTO. So let us have a more balanced view; a view that looks into the future as well."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Problemen med Kinas inverkan på andra aktörer inom den internationella handeln är utan tvekan påtagliga. Vi har redan hört talas om effekten av den ökade textilimporten inom EU och det stora problem denna innebär för vissa tillverkare inom EU. Men vi får inte glömma den inverkan den har på andra utvecklingsländer. Kinas deflationstryck håller redan på att pressa ned lönerna i hela tredje världen och tvinga leverantörer i hela världen att försämra sina arbetares villkor för att förbli konkurrenskraftiga till varje pris. I Filippinerna har regeringen till exempel bestämt att lagen om minimilön inte längre skall gälla för konfektionsindustrin. I Bangladesh meddelade regeringen nyligen att man skulle tillåta mer övertidsarbete och minska restriktionerna för nattarbete för kvinnor. De kinesiska arbetarna har inte heller nödvändigtvis mycket att vinna, mer än sjudagarsvecka, mycket låga löner, fruktansvärda hälso- och säkerhetsrisker och frånvaro av arbetstagarorganisationer. Var vi ser här är en negativ utveckling inom sociala och miljömässiga standarder, men internationella minimistandarder skulle säkert kunna bromsa denna negativa utveckling. Det är mycket viktigt att denna debatt inte bara fokuseras på enskilda sektorer, textilier eller skor i dag och maskinkomponenter i morgon. Detta handlar om ett systemfel. Det är en utmaning från ett land som har gjort sin entré i det internationella handelssystemet, inte bara med en komparativ fördel utan med nästan totala potentiella fördelar på i stort sett alla områden. Det är självbelåtet och nedlåtande att förutsätta att Europa och västvärlden skall kunna behålla ett monopol på nyskapande och högteknologi, medan Kina bara sköter tillverkningen. Kineser med akademisk examen tillför också ett allt större förädlingsvärde. Mycket snart kan vi komma att ställas inför möjligheten att det finns mycket lite som Europa kan producera som Kina inte kan producera mer effektivt. Det gamla antagandet att EU och de industrialiserade länderna leder utvecklingen inom den kunskapsintensiva industrin, medan utvecklingsländerna inriktar sig på mindre kompetensintensiva sektorer, kan nu definitivt ifrågasättas. Reaktionen på utmaningen från Kina måste innefatta en grundlig omprövning av de antaganden som hittills har legat till grund för teorier om internationell handel. Vi måste på nytt gå tillbaka till de gamla tankarna från David Ricardo och senare om att komparativ fördel alltid är till den största nyttan för alla. Jag hoppas att kommissionen snabbt kommer att vidta åtgärder på textilområdet. Jag skulle också vilja höra vad kommissionsledamoten planerar att göra åt dessa mer långsiktiga systemrelaterade frågor. Vi behöver ett mer balanserat perspektiv än det som föreslås i denna muntliga fråga. Vi bör undersöka effekterna av liberaliseringen inom själva Kina, för det finns ett stort antal fakta som tyder på att många av de fattigaste i Kina, särskilt inom jordbrukssektorn, kommer att förlora mycket på Kinas anslutning till WTO. Så låt oss skaffa oss ett mer balanserat perspektiv; ett perspektiv som också innefattar framtiden."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(ΕΝ)"¹⁰ "Caroline Lucas,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,10,13,4} "on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,11,16,13,4} "standard"¹² "εξ ονόματος της Ομάδας Verts/ALE"¹⁰