Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-24-Speech-2-391"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061024.38.2-391"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I have never been a unilateral disarmer at any stage in my political career, in any context. I have always been a multilateralist, whether it be in respect of disarmament or the putting in place of international rules to create institutions of global governance or in the design of processes to create agreements or to solve disputes in the world. I bring those principles and that approach to this subject as I have done to others throughout my political career.
I would just like to say in conclusion that, whatever disruptions, interventions, distractions or diversions we have in a trade agenda which is very wide and very complex, I will always keep my eyes very carefully focused on the DDA, the importance of the agenda we are pursuing in the DDA and the vital importance of bringing those negotiations to a successful completion. I want to do that in respect not only of market access but also of trade rules and their strengthening, and that is what the Commission remains dedicated to achieving.
We have heard a call this evening for moral leadership. The morality that I bring to this subject of trade is my belief in free trade. I say it is moral because I believe that free trade is the best way to drive economic growth, to lever up living standards, to create opportunities for people and to attack poverty in our world. That is what I call ‘moral’.
However, one of the ways in which we ‘morally’ pursue free trade is by standing up for fair trade. When I look around me and see the public disquiet, uncertainty and unhappiness about what is going on in the global economy and the sense that people feel increasingly insecure and threatened by the dramatic changes that are taking place in the architecture and landscape of the global economy, I see people beginning to question whether free trade is a good idea. I see them beginning to wonder whether sheltering from the global economy would be better; whether erecting barriers between us and our trading partners might not be a better way of securing our jobs and our livelihoods.
I make a very strong argument against that reaction and instinct, but I will never help that argument against protectionism if I am seen to be or thought to be weak when it comes to standing up for the upholding and implementation of internationally agreed trade rules which stand out against anti-competitive behaviour, state interventions or trade distortions, which are designed to give one trading partner an unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable advantage in trade against another. That is why it is appropriate and proper to operate trade defence instruments within the rules created by our multilateral institutions.
However, I would never want to see those rules used as a weapon against others’ low-cost competition or against others’ legitimate use of their comparative advantage. That is not right and it is not acceptable, but nor, if I may say to Mr Kamall, was that the case either in respect of textiles or shoes. Shoes, yes, was an anti-dumping measure, arrived at after considerable investigation, analysis, recommendation, discussion, debate and finally decision amongst our Member States, as it properly should be. I would stand by the objectivity and the transparency with which that decision was arrived at, and it certainly was not adopted for protectionist purposes.
However, in the case of textiles, I never said it was unfair trading. I never said that the fierce competition that we were facing in the case of textiles was as a result of price or market distortions by the Chinese. I merely pointed to the fact that with the final lifting of quotas we in Europe were suddenly and unexpectedly faced with what amounted to an avalanche which, if it had not been resisted, would have had the likely effect of burying our market and severely distorting what people produce, how people sell, their profits, their livelihoods and, therefore, their jobs in such a sudden way that I believed it was appropriate – and, in the end, our Chinese trading partners also agreed that it was right and appropriate – to take voluntary cooperative measures to slow down the rapid increase in Chinese textile exports.
You are right that at all times, on all occasions and in all cases we should operate impartiality, transparency and truthfulness in the analysis we put forward, the conclusions we reach and how we seek to justify the measures we are advocating.
It is true, as Mrs Handzlik said, that any intervention of any sort in the market – legitimate, anti-dumping or other uses of trade defence instruments – is bound to create some uncertainty and weaken the ability of businesses to plan ahead. Mr Kamall made a similar point. I take this very seriously indeed, because I do not want my actions, as agreed by the Member States, to have the effect of making a bad situation worse by further disrupting or undermining the ability of companies to plan ahead and to organise their production, which, of course, is hampered if supply and production chains are undermined or disrupted by interventions such as these. Therefore we must minimise the disruption. One of the things I want to take very seriously in the context of our Green Paper and our examination of this matter, is how we can minimise disruption and offer the greatest possible predictability to companies that might be affected.
I just want to make this last point: Mr Caspary said – if I may elaborate on and embroider his words slightly – that we should keep to the rules and at all times seek to strengthen and improve them. I agree with that. That is precisely what we are doing in the DDA and why we have a multilateral system and process governing these rules and an institution that enables us to negotiate precisely the strengthening and the improvement that you advocate. That is why the WTO system is so important."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have never been a unilateral disarmer at any stage in my political career, in any context. I have always been a multilateralist, whether it be in respect of disarmament or the putting in place of international rules to create institutions of global governance or in the design of processes to create agreements or to solve disputes in the world. I bring those principles and that approach to this subject as I have done to others throughout my political career.
I would just like to say in conclusion that, whatever disruptions, interventions, distractions or diversions we have in a trade agenda which is very wide and very complex, I will always keep my eyes very carefully focused on the DDA, the importance of the agenda we are pursuing in the DDA and the vital importance of bringing those negotiations to a successful completion. I want to do that in respect not only of market access but also of trade rules and their strengthening, and that is what the Commission remains dedicated to achieving.
We have heard a call this evening for moral leadership. The morality that I bring to this subject of trade is my belief in free trade. I say it is moral because I believe that free trade is the best way to drive economic growth, to lever up living standards, to create opportunities for people and to attack poverty in our world. That is what I call ‘moral’.
However, one of the ways in which we ‘morally’ pursue free trade is by standing up for fair trade. When I look around me and see the public disquiet, uncertainty and unhappiness about what is going on in the global economy and the sense that people feel increasingly insecure and threatened by the dramatic changes that are taking place in the architecture and landscape of the global economy, I see people beginning to question whether free trade is a good idea. I see them beginning to wonder whether sheltering from the global economy would be better; whether erecting barriers between us and our trading partners might not be a better way of securing our jobs and our livelihoods.
I make a very strong argument against that reaction and instinct, but I will never help that argument against protectionism if I am seen to be or thought to be weak when it comes to standing up for the upholding and implementation of internationally agreed trade rules which stand out against anti-competitive behaviour, state interventions or trade distortions, which are designed to give one trading partner an unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable advantage in trade against another. That is why it is appropriate and proper to operate trade defence instruments within the rules created by our multilateral institutions.
However, I would never want to see those rules used as a weapon against others’ low-cost competition or against others’ legitimate use of their comparative advantage. That is not right and it is not acceptable, but nor, if I may say to Mr Kamall, was that the case either in respect of textiles or shoes. Shoes, yes, was an anti-dumping measure, arrived at after considerable investigation, analysis, recommendation, discussion, debate and finally decision amongst our Member States, as it properly should be. I would stand by the objectivity and the transparency with which that decision was arrived at, and it certainly was not adopted for protectionist purposes.
However, in the case of textiles, I never said it was unfair trading. I never said that the fierce competition that we were facing in the case of textiles was as a result of price or market distortions by the Chinese. I merely pointed to the fact that with the final lifting of quotas we in Europe were suddenly and unexpectedly faced with what amounted to an avalanche which, if it had not been resisted, would have had the likely effect of burying our market and severely distorting what people produce, how people sell, their profits, their livelihoods and, therefore, their jobs in such a sudden way that I believed it was appropriate – and, in the end, our Chinese trading partners also agreed that it was right and appropriate – to take voluntary cooperative measures to slow down the rapid increase in Chinese textile exports.
You are right that at all times, on all occasions and in all cases we should operate impartiality, transparency and truthfulness in the analysis we put forward, the conclusions we reach and how we seek to justify the measures we are advocating.
It is true, as Mrs Handzlik said, that any intervention of any sort in the market – legitimate, anti-dumping or other uses of trade defence instruments – is bound to create some uncertainty and weaken the ability of businesses to plan ahead. Mr Kamall made a similar point. I take this very seriously indeed, because I do not want my actions, as agreed by the Member States, to have the effect of making a bad situation worse by further disrupting or undermining the ability of companies to plan ahead and to organise their production, which, of course, is hampered if supply and production chains are undermined or disrupted by interventions such as these. Therefore we must minimise the disruption. One of the things I want to take very seriously in the context of our Green Paper and our examination of this matter, is how we can minimise disruption and offer the greatest possible predictability to companies that might be affected.
I just want to make this last point: Mr Caspary said – if I may elaborate on and embroider his words slightly – that we should keep to the rules and at all times seek to strengthen and improve them. I agree with that. That is precisely what we are doing in the DDA and why we have a multilateral system and process governing these rules and an institution that enables us to negotiate precisely the strengthening and the improvement that you advocate. That is why the WTO system is so important."@cs1
"Hr. formand, i min politiske karriere har jeg aldrig været tilhænger af ensidig nedrustning. Jeg har altid været tilhænger af multilateralisme, uanset om det handler om nedrustning, om at indføre internationale regler for institutioner for global samfundsforvaltning eller om at designe processer for at skabe aftaler eller løse stridigheder i verden. Jeg anvender de samme principper og tilgange til dette emne som til andre emner i min politiske karriere.
Afslutningsvis vil jeg blot sige, at uanset hvilke forstyrrelser, interventioner, afvigelser eller omledninger, vi har i en handelsdagsorden, der er meget omfattende og meget kompleks, så vil jeg altid holde blikket fast rettet mod Doha-udviklingsdagsordenen, mod betydningen af den dagsorden, vi følger, samt mod den afgørende betydning af en vellykket afslutning på disse forhandlinger. Det vil jeg gerne gøre ikke kun af hensyn til markedsadgang, men også af hensyn til handelsregler og styrkelsen heraf, og Kommissionen er fortsat opsat på at nå dette mål.
I aften har vi hørt en opfordring til moralsk ledelse. Den moral, jeg tilfører handelsemnet, er min tro på frihandel. Jeg kalder det moral, fordi frihandel efter min mening er den bedste motor til økonomisk vækst, til at hæve levestandarder, til at skabe muligheder for mennesker samt til at angribe fattigdommen i vores verden. Det er det, jeg kalder "moral".
En af metoderne i vores "moralske" jagt på frihandel er imidlertid forsvaret af frihandel. Når jeg ser mig omkring og bemærker den offentlige uro, usikkerhed og misfornøjelse over, hvad der foregår i den globale økonomi, samt folks stigende usikkerhed over de dramatiske ændringer i den globale økonomis arkitektur og landskab, kan jeg se, at folk begynder at tvivle på, om frihandel er en god idé. Jeg kan se, at de begynder at overveje, om det ville være bedre at beskytte sig mod den globale økonomi og indføre hindringer mellem os og vores handelspartnere for at beskytte vores job og levebrød.
Jeg er meget stærk modstander af den reaktion og det instinkt, og jeg vil aldrig støtte argumentet imod protektionisme, hvis jeg opfattes som værende svag, når det handler om at forsvare opretholdelsen og gennemførelsen af internationalt vedtagne handelsregler, der bekæmper konkurrencebegrænsende opførsel, statsinterventioner eller handelsforvridninger, der giver én handelspartner en urimelig, ufornuftig og uacceptabel handelsmæssig fordel i forhold til en anden. Derfor er det hensigtsmæssigt og rimeligt at gennemføre handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenter inden for rammerne af de regler, som vores multilaterale institutioner har oprettet.
Jeg vil imidlertid aldrig ønske at se disse regler brugt som våben imod konkurrence fra lavomkostningsområder eller imod andres legitime brug af deres komparative fordel. Det er ikke rimeligt eller acceptabelt, men til hr. Kamall vil jeg sige, at det heller ikke var tilfældet med hensyn til tekstil eller sko. På skoområdet blev der indført en antidumpingforanstaltning efter omfattende undersøgelser, analyser, anbefalinger, diskussioner, forhandlinger og endelig en beslutning foretaget af medlemsstaterne, sådan som det bør foregå. Jeg vil fastholde den objektivitet og gennemsigtighed, hvormed beslutningen blev truffet, og foranstaltningen blev bestemt ikke vedtaget af protektionistiske årsager.
Med hensyn til tekstiler har jeg aldrig sagt, at der var tale om illoyal forretningspraksis. Jeg har aldrig sagt, at den barske konkurrence, som vi oplevede på tekstilområdet, var et resultat af kinesernes pris- eller markedsfordrejninger. Jeg påpegede blot det faktum, at vi med den sidste ophævelse af kvoter i Europa pludselig og uventet stod over for en lavine, som vi var nødt til at bremse, hvis ikke den skulle begrave vores marked og i alvorlig grad fordreje folks produktion, salg, overskud, levebrød og dermed job på en så pludselig måde, at jeg fandt det passende - hvilket vores kinesiske handelspartnere i sidste ende også gjorde - at indføre frivillige samarbejdsmæssige foranstaltninger for at bremse den hastige vækst i den kinesisk tekstileksport.
De har ret i, at det til alle tider, ved alle lejligheder og i alle sager skal være upartiskhed, gennemsigtighed og sandfærdighed, der gennemsyrer vores analyser og konklusioner samt vores forsøg på at retfærdiggøre de foranstaltninger, vi advokerer.
Det er sandt, som fru Handzlik sagde, at ethvert indgreb på markedet - det være sig legitime eller antidumpingmæssige handelsbeskyttelsesinstrumenter - nødvendigvis må skabe en vis usikkerhed og svække virksomhedernes evne til at planlægge ud i fremtiden. Hr. Kamall havde en lignende kommentar. Jeg tager dette meget alvorligt, fordi jeg ikke ønsker, at mine handlinger - der har medlemsstaternes opbakning - skal forværre situationen gennem en yderligere forstyrrelse eller underminering af virksomhedernes evne til at planlægge ud i fremtiden og organisere deres produktion, idet den naturligvis hæmmes, hvis forsynings- og produktionskæderne undermineres eller forstyrres af sådanne interventioner. Vi skal derfor minimere sådanne forstyrrelser. En af de ting, jeg vil tage meget alvorligt i forbindelse med vores grønbog og undersøgelsen af denne sag, er mulighederne for at minimere forstyrrelser og give de berørte virksomheder den bedst mulige forudsigelighed.
Jeg har blot et sidste punkt. Hr. Caspary sagde - hvis jeg må uddybe og pynte en smule på hans ord - at vi skal holde os til reglerne og til enhver tid forsøge at styrke og forbedre dem. Det er jeg helt enig i. Det er netop det, vi gør i Doha-udviklingsdagsordenen og grunden til, at vi har et multilateralt system og en multilateral proces, der styrer disse regler, samt en institution, der sætter os i stand til netop at forhandle om den styrkelse og forbedring, som De slår til lyd for. Derfor er WTO-systemet så vigtigt."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Ich bin in keiner Phase meiner politischen Laufbahn, in keinem Zusammenhang ein einseitiger Abrüstungsbefürworter gewesen. Ich bin seit jeher ein Multilateralist, ob es nun um die Abrüstung oder die Schaffung internationaler Regeln zur Einrichtung von Institutionen, die weltweit Einfluss nehmen können, geht oder um die Gestaltung von Prozessen zur Erzielung von Übereinkünften oder zur Beilegung von Streitfragen in der Welt. Das sind meine Prinzipien und das ist mein Ansatz bei diesem Thema, ebenso wie bei anderen im Laufe meiner politischen Karriere.
Abschließend möchte ich nur noch sagen, dass ungeachtet der Störungen, Eingriffe, Ablenkungen oder Richtungswechsel auf einer handelspolitischen Agenda, die sehr breit und sehr komplex angelegt ist, mein Blick stets sehr aufmerksam auf die Entwicklungsagenda von Doha, die Bedeutung der Agenda, die wir in der Runde verfolgen, und die maßgebende Bedeutung eines erfolgreichen Abschlusses dieser Verhandlungen gerichtet sein wird. Ich möchte dies nicht nur in Bezug auf den Marktzugang, sondern auch auf die Handelsregeln und deren Stärkung tun – und diesem Ziel bleibt die Kommission verpflichtet.
Wir haben heute Abend einen Aufruf zu moralischer Führung gehört. Die Moral, die ich mit diesem handelspolitischen Thema verbinde, ist mein Glauben an den freien Handel. Ich spreche von Moral, weil ich glaube, dass freier Handel der beste Weg ist, um das Wirtschaftswachstum voranzubringen, den Lebensstandard zu heben, den Menschen neue Chance zu eröffnen und die Armut in unserer Welt zu bekämpfen. Das meine ich mit Moral.
Doch eine Form, in der wir „auf moralische Weise“ freien Handel betreiben, ist das Eintreten für fairen Handel. Wenn ich mich umschaue und feststelle, wie besorgt, unsicher und unzufrieden die Menschen angesichts dessen sind, was in der Weltwirtschaft vor sich geht, und spüre, wie sich die Menschen durch die dramatischen Veränderungen in der Architektur und Landschaft der Weltwirtschaft zunehmend verunsichert und bedroht fühlen, dann sehe ich, dass sie sich allmählich fragen, ob freier Handel eine gute Idee ist. Ich sehe, wie sie sich allmählich fragen, ob es nicht besser wäre, man würde sich vor der Weltwirtschaft schützen, ob die Errichtung von Schranken zwischen uns und unseren Handelspartnern nicht vielleicht der geeignetere Weg wären, um unsere Arbeitsplätze und unsere Existenz zu sichern.
Ich spreche mich ganz klar gegen diese Reaktion und dieses Gefühl aus, aber ich werde nie dieses Argument gegen Protektionismus unterstützen, auch wenn man mich für schwach ansieht oder hält, wenn es darum geht, für die Einhaltung und Anwendung international vereinbarter Handelsregeln einzutreten, die sich gegen wettbewerbsfeindliches Verhalten, staatlichen Interventionismus oder Handelsverzerrungen richten, die einem Handelspartner unfaire, unangemessene und inakzeptable Vorteile im Handel mit anderen gewähren sollen. Deshalb ist es angebracht und richtig, im Rahmen der von unseren multilateralen Institutionen geschaffenen Regelungen handelspolitische Schutzinstrumente anzuwenden.
Allerdings dürfen diese Regelungen nie als Waffe gegen die Billigkonkurrenz anderer oder wenn andere ihre Wettbewerbsvorteile rechtmäßig nutzen eingesetzt werden. Das ist nicht richtig und nicht tragbar, aber – wenn ich das Herrn Kamall sagen darf – das war weder bei den Textilien noch bei den Schuhen der Fall. Bei den Schuhen, ja, da war es eine Antidumpingmaßnahme, die man nach eingehender Prüfung, Untersuchung, Empfehlung, Diskussion, Aussprache und schließlich Entscheidung unserer Mitgliedstaaten beschlossen hatte, ganz wie es sein muss. Ich stehe zu der Objektivität und Transparenz, mit der man zu dieser Entscheidung gelangt ist, und sie wurde gewiss nicht zu protektionistischen Zwecken getroffen.
Aber bei den Textilien habe ich nie gesagt, dass es unlauterer Handel war. Ich habe nie behauptet, dass der intensive Wettbewerb, dem wir hier ausgesetzt waren, durch die Preis- oder Marktverzerrungen seitens der Chinesen entstanden ist. Ich habe lediglich darauf hingewiesen, dass wir in Europa durch die endgültige Aufhebung der Quoten plötzlich und unerwartet mit so etwas wie einer Lawine konfrontiert waren, die, hätte man nichts dagegen unternommen, wahrscheinlich unseren Markt unter sich begraben und das, was wir produzieren, wie wir verkaufen, unsere Profite, unseren Lebensunterhalt und daher unsere Arbeitsplätze so plötzlich so gravierend verzerrt hätte, dass es meiner Meinung nach angemessen war – und letzten Endes stimmten auch unsere chinesischen Handelspartner zu, dass es richtig und angemessen war –, freiwillige Kooperationsmaßnahmen zu ergreifen, um die drastische Zunahme der chinesischen Textilausfuhren abzubremsen.
Sie haben Recht, dass wir jederzeit, bei jeder Gelegenheit und in jedem Fall unparteiisch, transparent und aufrichtig vorgehen sollten, wenn wir Analysen vorlegen, Schlussfolgerungen ziehen und die Maßnahmen, die wir befürworten, zu rechtfertigen suchen.
Es stimmt, dass, wie Frau Handzlik sagte, jegliches wie auch immer geartetes Eingreifen in den Markt – rechtmäßige, Antidumping- oder sonstige handelspolitische Schutzmaßnahmen – zwangsläufig eine gewisse Unsicherheit schafft und die Fähigkeit der Unternehmen vorauszuplanen schwächt. Herr Kamall hat eine ähnliche Feststellung getroffen. Ich nehme das wirklich sehr ernst, weil ich nicht will, dass meine Maßnahmen, denen die Mitgliedstaaten zugestimmt haben, eine schlimme Lage noch weiter verschlimmern, indem die Fähigkeit der Unternehmen, vorauszuplanen und ihre Produktion zu organisieren, noch weiter gestört oder unterminiert wird, was natürlich erschwert wird, wenn die Liefer- und Produktionsketten durch solche Interventionen beeinträchtigt oder gestört werden. Daher müssen wir die Störung so gering wie möglich halten. Eines der Dinge, die ich im Zusammenhang mit unserem Grünbuch und unserer Untersuchung dieser Angelegenheit sehr ernst nehmen möchte, ist die Frage, wie wir die Störung möglichst gering halten und potenziell betroffenen Unternehmen die größtmögliche Berechenbarkeit bieten können.
Einen letzten Punkt möchte ich noch ansprechen. Herr Caspary sagte – wenn ich seine Worte aufgreifen und etwas ausschmücken darf –, dass wir uns an die Regeln halten und jederzeit versuchen sollten, sie zu stärken und zu verbessern. Dem stimme ich zu. Das ist genau das, was wir in der Entwicklungsagenda von Doha tun und warum wir ein multilaterales System und multilaterale Prozesse haben, die die Regeln bestimmen, und eine Institution, mit der wir eben über die Stärkung und Verbesserung verhandeln können, die Sie wollen. Deshalb ist das WTO-System ja so wichtig."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ποτέ σε κανένα στάδιο της πολιτικής σταδιοδρομίας μου, σε κανένα πλαίσιο, δεν υπήρξα υπέρ του μονομερούς αφοπλισμού. Υπήρξα ανέκαθεν υπέρ της πολυμερούς συνεργασίας, είτε αυτή αφορούσε τον αφοπλισμό είτε τη θέσπιση διεθνών κανόνων για τη δημιουργία θεσμών παγκόσμιας διακυβέρνησης είτε τον σχεδιασμό διαδικασιών για τη δημιουργία συμφωνιών ή την επίλυση διαφορών στον κόσμο. Φέρνω στο θέμα αυτό αυτές τις αρχές και αυτήν την προσέγγιση, όπως έκανα και σε άλλα στη διάρκεια της πολιτικής μου σταδιοδρομίας.
Θα ήθελα μόνο να πω ολοκληρώνοντας ότι, όποιες διαταραχές, παρεμβάσεις, περισπασμούς ή εκτροπές και αν έχουμε σε μια εμπορική ατζέντα η οποία είναι πολύ ευρεία και πολύ περίπλοκη, πάντα θα έχω τα μάτια μου προσεκτικά στραμμένα στον Αναπτυξιακό Γύρο της Ντόχα, στη σημασία της ατζέντας που εφαρμόζουμε στον Αναπτυξιακό Γύρο της Ντόχα και στη ζωτική σημασία της επιτυχούς ολοκλήρωσης αυτών των διαπραγματεύσεων. Θέλω αυτό να το κάνω σε σχέση όχι μόνο με την πρόσβαση στην αγορά αλλά και με τους εμπορικούς κανόνες και την ενίσχυσή τους, και αυτό επιδιώκει με προσήλωση να επιτύχει η Επιτροπή.
Ακούσαμε μια έκκληση απόψε για ηθική ηγεσία. Η ηθική που φέρνω στο θέμα του εμπορίου είναι η πίστη μου στο ελεύθερο εμπόριο. Ισχυρίζομαι ότι είναι ηθικό, επειδή πιστεύω ότι το ελεύθερο εμπόριο αποτελεί τον καλύτερο τρόπο για την προώθηση της οικονομικής ανάπτυξης, την αύξηση του βιοτικού επιπέδου, τη δημιουργία ευκαιριών για τον κόσμο και για την καταπολέμηση της φτώχειας στον κόσμο μας. Αυτό αποκαλώ «ηθικό».
Ωστόσο, ένας από τους τρόπους με τους οποίους επιδιώκουμε «ηθικά» το ελεύθερο εμπόριο είναι η υποστήριξη του θεμιτού εμπορίου. Όταν κοιτάζω γύρω μου και βλέπω την ανησυχία, αβεβαιότητα και δυστυχία του κόσμου για το τι συμβαίνει στην παγκόσμια οικονομία και την αίσθηση ότι ο κόσμος αισθάνεται ολοένα και περισσότερο ανασφαλής και απειλούμενος από τις δραματικές αλλαγές που συντελούνται στην αρχιτεκτονική και το τοπίο της παγκόσμιας οικονομίας, βλέπω ότι ο κόσμος αρχίζει να αμφιβάλλει για το αν το ελεύθερο εμπόριο είναι καλή ιδέα. Βλέπω ότι αρχίζουν να διερωτώνται μήπως θα ήταν καλύτερα να προστατεύονται από την παγκόσμια οικονομία· μήπως οι φραγμοί μεταξύ ημών και των εμπορικών εταίρων μας αποτελούν καλύτερο τρόπο διασφάλισης των θέσεων εργασίας μας και του βιοπορισμού μας.
Καταδικάζω απερίφραστα αυτήν την αντίδραση και αυτήν την παρόρμηση, αλλά δεν θα βοηθήσω αυτήν την επιχειρηματολογία κατά του προστατευτισμού αν φανώ ή θεωρηθώ αδύναμος όσον αφορά την υποστήριξη της τήρησης και της εφαρμογής διεθνώς συμπεφωνημένων εμπορικών κανόνων που πλήττουν τη συμπεριφορά κατά του ανταγωνισμού, τις κρατικές παρεμβάσεις ή τις στρεβλώσεις του εμπορίου, που στοχεύουν να δώσουν στον έναν εμπορικό εταίρο αθέμιτο, παράλογο και απαράδεκτο εμπορικό πλεονέκτημα εις βάρος του άλλου. Για αυτόν τον λόγο, είναι προσήκον και σωστό να εφαρμόζουμε τα μέσα εμπορικής άμυνας στο πλαίσιο των κανόνων που έχουν θεσπίσει τα πολυμερή θεσμικά μας όργανα.
Ωστόσο, δεν θα ήθελα ποτέ να δω αυτούς τους κανόνες να χρησιμοποιούνται ως όπλο κατά του χαμηλού κόστους ανταγωνισμού άλλων ή κατά της νόμιμης χρήσης του ανταγωνιστικού πλεονεκτήματος άλλων. Αυτό δεν είναι σωστό και δεν είναι αποδεκτό, όμως, αν μου επιτρέπεται να πω στον κ. Kamall, αυτό δεν συνέβη ούτε σε σχέση με την υφαντουργία ούτε σε σχέση με την υπόδηση. Τα υποδήματα, ναι, ήταν ένα μέτρο αντιντάμπινγκ, στο οποίο καταλήξαμε ύστερα από προσεκτική έρευνα, ανάλυση, συστάσεις, συζήτηση, διάλογο και τελικά απόφαση των κρατών μελών μας, όπως θα έπρεπε να γίνει. Τάσσομαι υπέρ της αντικειμενικότητας και της διαφάνειας με την οποία καταλήξαμε σε αυτήν την απόφαση και σίγουρα αυτή δεν ελήφθη για λόγους προστατευτισμού.
Ωστόσο, στην περίπτωση της υφαντουργίας, ποτέ δεν είπα ότι επρόκειτο για αθέμιτη εμπορική πρακτική. Ποτέ δεν είπα ότι ο σκληρός ανταγωνισμός που αντιμετωπίζαμε στην περίπτωση της υφαντουργίας ήταν αποτέλεσμα στρεβλώσεων στις τιμές ή την αγορά εκ μέρους των Κινέζων. Επεσήμανα μόνο το γεγονός ότι με την οριστική άρση των ποσοστώσεων εμείς στην Ευρώπη αντιμετωπίσαμε ξαφνικά και απρόσμενα αυτό που κατέληξε να είναι μια χιονοστιβάδα η οποία, αν δεν είχε συναντήσει αντίσταση, πιθανότατα θα είχε καταλήξει στην κατάρρευση της αγοράς μας και τη σοβαρή στρέβλωση αυτού που παράγει ο κόσμος, του τρόπου πώλησης, των κερδών, του βιοπορισμού και συνεπώς των θέσεων εργασίας κατά τρόπο τόσο ξαφνικό που πίστευα ότι ήταν ανάρμοστη η ανάληψη εκούσιων μέτρων για επιβράδυνση της ταχείας αύξησης των κινεζικών εξαγωγών κλωστοϋφαντουργικών προϊόντων – και, στο τέλος, οι κινέζοι εμπορικοί εταίροι μας συμφώνησαν και αυτοί ότι ήταν σωστό και προσήκον.
Έχετε δίκιο ότι πάντοτε, με κάθε ευκαιρία και σε κάθε περίπτωση θα πρέπει να λειτουργούμε με αμεροληψία, διαφάνεια και ειλικρίνεια στην ανάλυση που προβάλλουμε, στα συμπεράσματα στα οποία καταλήγουμε και στο πώς επιδιώκουμε να αιτιολογήσουμε τα μέτρα υπέρ των οποίων τασσόμαστε.
Είναι αλήθεια, όπως είπε η κ. Handzlik, ότι κάθε είδους παρέμβαση στην αγορά –νόμιμη, αντιντάμπινγκ ή άλλες χρήσεις μέσων εμπορικής άμυνας– είναι πιθανόν να δημιουργήσει κάποια αβεβαιότητα και να αποδυναμώσει την ικανότητα των επιχειρήσεων να προγραμματίζουν. Ο κ. Kamall έκανε μια παρόμοια παρατήρηση. Τις λαμβάνω πράγματι πολύ σοβαρά υπόψη, επειδή δεν θέλω οι ενέργειές μου, όπως έχουν συμφωνηθεί από τα κράτη μέλη, να έχουν ως αποτέλεσμα την περαιτέρω επιδείνωση μιας κατάστασης που είναι ήδη κακή, διαταράσσοντας περαιτέρω ή υπονομεύοντας την ικανότητα των εταιρειών να προγραμματίζουν και να οργανώνουν την παραγωγή τους, κάτι που, φυσικά, εμποδίζεται αν οι αλυσίδες εφοδιασμού και παραγωγής υπονομεύονται ή διαταράσσονται από τέτοιου είδους παρεμβάσεις. Πρέπει, επομένως, να ελαχιστοποιήσουμε τη διαταραχή. Κάτι που μεταξύ άλλων θέλω να λάβω πολύ σοβαρά υπόψη στο πλαίσιο του Πράσινου Βιβλίου μας και της εξέτασης του θέματος είναι το πώς μπορούμε να ελαχιστοποιήσουμε τη διαταραχή και να προσφέρουμε στις εταιρείες που ενδεχομένως επηρεαστούν τη μεγαλύτερη δυνατή δυνατότητα πρόβλεψης.
Θέλω μόνο να κάνω την εξής τελευταία παρατήρηση: ο κ. Caspary είπε –αν μπορώ να επεκτείνω και να διανθίσω ελαφρώς τα λόγια του– ότι θα πρέπει να εμμένουμε στους κανόνες και πάντοτε να επιδιώκουμε να τους ενισχύουμε και να τους βελτιώνουμε. Συμφωνώ με αυτό. Αυτό ακριβώς κάνουμε στον Αναπτυξιακή Γύρο της Ντόχα και αυτός είναι ο λόγος για τον οποίο έχουμε ένα πολυμερές σύστημα και διαδικασία που διέπει αυτούς τους κανόνες και ένα θεσμικό όργανο που μας επιτρέπει να διαπραγματευτούμε επακριβώς την ενίσχυση και τη βελτίωση που υποστηρίζετε. Γι’ αυτό είναι τόσο σημαντικό το σύστημα του ΠΟΕ."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, nunca he sido partidario del desarme unilateral, en ninguna etapa de mi trayectoria política ni en ningún contexto. Siempre he sido partidario del multilateralismo, tanto con respecto al desarme como a la aplicación de normas internacionales para la creación de instituciones de gestión de asuntos públicos mundiales o el diseño de procesos para alcanzar acuerdos o resolver conflictos en el mundo. Menciono esos principios y ese enfoque del tema como he hecho en otras ocasiones durante toda mi carrera política.
Solo quiero decir para terminar que, sean cuales sean las perturbaciones, intervenciones, distracciones o desviaciones que tengamos en un programa comercial tan amplio y tan complejo, siempre tendré la mirada muy puesta en el Programa de Doha para el Desarrollo, en la importancia de ese programa que queremos aprobar y en la importancia crucial de concluir con éxito esas negociaciones. Quiero hacer eso no solo con respecto al acceso al mercado, sino también a las normas comerciales y a su fortalecimiento, y eso es lo que la Comisión sigue empeñada en conseguir.
Hemos escuchado esta noche un llamamiento al liderazgo moral. La moral que yo aporto a este tema del comercio es mi confianza en el libre comercio. Digo que es moral porque creo que el libre comercio es la mejor forma de promover el crecimiento económico, elevar los niveles de vida, crear oportunidades para las personas y combatir la pobreza en nuestro mundo. Eso es lo que yo llamo «moral».
Ahora bien, una de las formas de promover «moralmente» el libre comercio es la defensa del comercio justo. Cuando miro a mi alrededor y veo la preocupación, la incertidumbre y el descontento de los ciudadanos por lo que está sucediendo en la economía mundial y percibo que los ciudadanos se sienten cada vez más inseguros y amenazados por los profundos cambios que están teniendo lugar en la arquitectura y el paisaje de la economía mundial, pienso que la gente se empieza a cuestionar si el libre comercio es una buena idea. Les veo empezando a preguntarse si no sería mejor protegernos de la economía mundial; si no sería mejor levantar barreras entre nosotros y nuestros socios comerciales para asegurar nuestros puestos de trabajo y nuestro sustento.
Quiero manifestarme rotundamente en contra de esa reacción y ese instinto, pero nunca ayudaré a defender el argumento en contra del proteccionismo si se me ve o se me considera débil a la hora de defender la adopción y aplicación de normas comerciales internacionales contrarias a las conductas anticompetitivas, las intervenciones estatales o las distorsiones del mercado, cuya finalidad es dar a un socio comercial una ventaja injusta, injustificada e inaceptable en el mercado frente a otro. Por eso es necesario y correcto el uso de instrumentos de defensa comercial siempre que se respeten las normas establecidas por nuestras instituciones multilaterales.
Pero en ningún caso quiero ver que esas normas se utilicen como arma arrojadiza contra los competidores de bajo coste o contra el uso legítimo que otros hagan de sus ventajas comparativas. Eso no es correcto ni aceptable, pero tampoco fue ese el caso, si se lo puedo decir al señor Kamall, con los textiles o el calzado. El calzado, sí, fue una medida antidúmping adoptada después de mucho trabajo de investigación, análisis, recomendaciones, comentarios, debates y, finalmente, decisión entre nuestros Estados miembros, como debe ser. Quiero destacar la objetividad y transparencia con que se tomó esa decisión, y desde luego que no se tomó con fines proteccionistas.
Pero en el caso de los textiles, nunca he dicho que se tratara de comercio injusto. Nunca he dicho que la feroz competencia a la que nos enfrentamos en los textiles fuera el resultado de distorsiones del precio o del mercado por los chinos. Simplemente he sugerido que con la supresión definitiva de las cuotas, en Europa nos vimos enfrentados de pronto e inesperadamente a lo que resultó ser una avalancha que, de no haberse frenado, habría tenido probablemente el efecto de acabar con nuestro mercado y distorsionar tan seriamente lo que nuestros ciudadanos producen, su manera de vender, los beneficios que obtienen, su forma de ganarse la vida y, por tanto, sus puestos de trabajo, y de una forma tan repentina, que consideré conveniente –y, al final, nuestros socios comerciales chinos admitieron también que había sido necesario y conveniente– adoptar medidas de cooperación voluntaria para poner freno al rápido aumento de las exportaciones de textiles chinos.
Tienen ustedes razón en que en todo momento, en todas las ocasiones y en todos los casos, debemos actuar con imparcialidad, transparencia y veracidad en los análisis que presentemos, las conclusiones que alcancemos y la manera de tratar de justificar las medidas propuestas.
Es cierto, como ha dicho la señora Handzlik, que cualquier tipo de intervención en el mercado –legítima, antidúmping u otras aplicaciones de los instrumentos de defensa comercial– está abocada a crear cierta incertidumbre y a debilitar la capacidad de las empresas para planificar su futuro. El señor Kamall ha hecho un comentario parecido. Esto es algo que, en efecto, me tomo muy en serio, porque no quiero que mis decisiones, con el respaldo de los Estados miembros, tengan el efecto de empeorar una situación ya de por sí mala al interferir con o debilitar la capacidad de las empresas para planificar el futuro y organizar su producción, cosas ambas que se ven dificultadas, por supuesto, si las cadenas de suministro y producción se debilitan o perturban con este tipo de intervenciones. Así pues, tenemos que reducir al mínimo esas perturbaciones. Una de las cosas que quiero abordar muy en serio en el contexto de nuestro Libro Verde y nuestro análisis de la cuestión es la manera de reducir al mínimo las perturbaciones y ofrecer la mayor previsibilidad posible a las empresas que puedan verse afectadas.
Solo quiero hacer un último comentario: el señor Caspary ha dicho –si me permiten extender y adornar un poco sus palabras– que debemos respetar las normas y tratar en todo momento de reforzarlas y mejorarlas. Estoy de acuerdo con esto. Pero precisamente por eso estamos trabajando en el Programa de Doha para el Desarrollo y por eso tenemos un sistema y un proceso multilateral que gobierna esas normas, así como una institución que nos permite negociar justamente el fortalecimiento y la mejora que han propuesto ustedes. De ahí la importancia del sistema de la OMC."@es20
"Mr President, I have never been a unilateral disarmer at any stage in my political career, in any context. I have always been a multilateralist, whether it be in respect of disarmament or the putting in place of international rules to create institutions of global governance or in the design of processes to create agreements or to solve disputes in the world. I bring those principles and that approach to this subject as I have done to others throughout my political career.
I would just like to say in conclusion that, whatever disruptions, interventions, distractions or diversions we have in a trade agenda which is very wide and very complex, I will always keep my eyes very carefully focused on the DDA, the importance of the agenda we are pursuing in the DDA and the vital importance of bringing those negotiations to a successful completion. I want to do that in respect not only of market access but also of trade rules and their strengthening, and that is what the Commission remains dedicated to achieving.
We have heard a call this evening for moral leadership. The morality that I bring to this subject of trade is my belief in free trade. I say it is moral because I believe that free trade is the best way to drive economic growth, to lever up living standards, to create opportunities for people and to attack poverty in our world. That is what I call ‘moral’.
However, one of the ways in which we ‘morally’ pursue free trade is by standing up for fair trade. When I look around me and see the public disquiet, uncertainty and unhappiness about what is going on in the global economy and the sense that people feel increasingly insecure and threatened by the dramatic changes that are taking place in the architecture and landscape of the global economy, I see people beginning to question whether free trade is a good idea. I see them beginning to wonder whether sheltering from the global economy would be better; whether erecting barriers between us and our trading partners might not be a better way of securing our jobs and our livelihoods.
I make a very strong argument against that reaction and instinct, but I will never help that argument against protectionism if I am seen to be or thought to be weak when it comes to standing up for the upholding and implementation of internationally agreed trade rules which stand out against anti-competitive behaviour, state interventions or trade distortions, which are designed to give one trading partner an unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable advantage in trade against another. That is why it is appropriate and proper to operate trade defence instruments within the rules created by our multilateral institutions.
However, I would never want to see those rules used as a weapon against others’ low-cost competition or against others’ legitimate use of their comparative advantage. That is not right and it is not acceptable, but nor, if I may say to Mr Kamall, was that the case either in respect of textiles or shoes. Shoes, yes, was an anti-dumping measure, arrived at after considerable investigation, analysis, recommendation, discussion, debate and finally decision amongst our Member States, as it properly should be. I would stand by the objectivity and the transparency with which that decision was arrived at, and it certainly was not adopted for protectionist purposes.
However, in the case of textiles, I never said it was unfair trading. I never said that the fierce competition that we were facing in the case of textiles was as a result of price or market distortions by the Chinese. I merely pointed to the fact that with the final lifting of quotas we in Europe were suddenly and unexpectedly faced with what amounted to an avalanche which, if it had not been resisted, would have had the likely effect of burying our market and severely distorting what people produce, how people sell, their profits, their livelihoods and, therefore, their jobs in such a sudden way that I believed it was appropriate – and, in the end, our Chinese trading partners also agreed that it was right and appropriate – to take voluntary cooperative measures to slow down the rapid increase in Chinese textile exports.
You are right that at all times, on all occasions and in all cases we should operate impartiality, transparency and truthfulness in the analysis we put forward, the conclusions we reach and how we seek to justify the measures we are advocating.
It is true, as Mrs Handzlik said, that any intervention of any sort in the market – legitimate, anti-dumping or other uses of trade defence instruments – is bound to create some uncertainty and weaken the ability of businesses to plan ahead. Mr Kamall made a similar point. I take this very seriously indeed, because I do not want my actions, as agreed by the Member States, to have the effect of making a bad situation worse by further disrupting or undermining the ability of companies to plan ahead and to organise their production, which, of course, is hampered if supply and production chains are undermined or disrupted by interventions such as these. Therefore we must minimise the disruption. One of the things I want to take very seriously in the context of our Green Paper and our examination of this matter, is how we can minimise disruption and offer the greatest possible predictability to companies that might be affected.
I just want to make this last point: Mr Caspary said – if I may elaborate on and embroider his words slightly – that we should keep to the rules and at all times seek to strengthen and improve them. I agree with that. That is precisely what we are doing in the DDA and why we have a multilateral system and process governing these rules and an institution that enables us to negotiate precisely the strengthening and the improvement that you advocate. That is why the WTO system is so important."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, en ole koskaan kannattanut yksipuolista aseistariisuntaa missään poliittisen urani vaiheessa enkä missään yhteydessä. Olen aina kannattanut monenvälisyyttä, oli kyse sitten aseistariisunnasta tai kansainvälisten sääntöjen käyttöönotosta maailmanlaajuisen ohjausjärjestelmän instituutioiden perustamiseksi. Olen aina kannattanut monenvälisyyttä myös sopimusten tekemiseen tai kiistojen ratkaisemiseen tähtäävien prosessien suunnittelussa. Tarkastelen nyt käsiteltävänä olevaa aihetta näiden periaatteiden ja tämän lähestymistavan pohjalta, kuten olen tehnyt muiden aiheiden kohdalla koko poliittisen urani ajan.
Puheenvuoroni päätteeksi haluan vain todeta, että huolimatta kaikista keskeytyksistä, väliintuloista, häiriötekijöistä tai poikkeamisista kauppakysymyksiä koskevalla asialistalla, joka on hyvin laaja ja erittäin monitahoinen, pidän katseeni aina erittäin tiukasti Dohan kehitysohjelmassa, kehitysohjelman yhteydessä ajamissamme merkittävissä asioissa ja siinä, että on ensiarvoisen tärkeää saattaa nämä neuvottelut menestyksekkäästi päätökseen. Haluan tehdä näin paitsi markkinoillepääsyn myös kauppasääntöjen ja niiden vahvistamisen yhteydessä, ja tämän tavoitteen saavuttamiseen komissio on edelleen omistautunut.
Olemme kuulleet tänä iltana vaadittavan moraalista johtajuutta. Moraalini tässä kauppaa koskevassa aiheessa tarkoittaa uskoani vapaakauppaan. Sanon sitä moraaliksi, koska uskon, että vapaakauppa on paras tapa edistää talouskasvua, nostaa elintasoa, luoda mahdollisuuksia ihmisille ja torjua köyhyyttä maailmassamme. Tätä minä kutsun "moraaliksi".
Yksi niistä tavoista, joilla harjoitamme vapaakauppaa "moraalisesti", on kuitenkin oikeudenmukaisen kaupan puolustaminen. Kun katson ympärilleni ja näen ihmisten olevan levottomia, epävarmoja ja onnettomia siitä, mitä globaalissa taloudessa tapahtuu, ja tuntevan olonsa yhä epävarmemmaksi ja uhatummaksi globaalin talouden rakenteessa ja toimintaympäristössä tapahtuvien dramaattisten muutosten vuoksi, näen heidän alkavan epäillä, onko vapaakauppa hyvä ajatus. Näen heidän alkavan miettiä, olisiko parempi suojautua globaalilta taloudelta, ja eikö esteiden pystyttäminen meidän ja kauppakumppaneidemme välille olisi ehkä sittenkin parempi tapa turvata työpaikkamme ja toimeentulomme.
Torjun erittäin jyrkästi tällaisen reaktion ja vaistomaisen toiminnan, mutta minusta ei ole koskaan apua tälle protektionismin vastaiselle argumentille, jos minun todetaan tai ajatellaan olevan heikko, kun kyse on kansainvälisesti sovittujen kauppasääntöjen täytäntöönpanon ja noudattamisen puolustamisesta. Kyseisissä säännöissä vastustetaan jyrkästi kilpailun vastaisia toimia, valtion väliintuloa tai kauppaa vääristäviä toimia, joiden tarkoituksena on antaa yhdelle kauppakumppanille epäoikeudenmukaista, kohtuutonta ja tuomittavaa kilpailuetua kauppakumppaneihin nähden. Tästä syystä on tarkoituksenmukaista ja oikein ottaa käyttöön kaupan suojakeinoja monenvälisten instituutioidemme laatimien sääntöjen rajoissa.
En kuitenkaan koskaan halua nähdä näitä sääntöjä käytettävän aseena muiden toimijoiden alhaisemmista kustannuksista aiheutuvaa kilpailua tai kilpailuedun laillista käyttöä vastaan. Se ei ole oikein eikä hyväksyttävää, mutta saanen todeta jäsen Kamallille, että siitä ei myöskään ollut kyse tekstiilien tai jalkineiden kohdalla. Jalkineiden kohdalla kyse oli toki polkumyynnin vastaisesta toimenpiteestä, johon päädyttiin pitkähkön tutkinnan, analysoinnin, suosittelun, keskustelun, kiistelyn ja lopuksi jäsenvaltioidemme tekemän päätöksen jälkeen, kuten pitäisikin menetellä. Puolustan objektiivisuutta ja avoimuutta, jolla kyseinen päätös tehtiin, eikä sitä todellakaan hyväksytty protektionistisiin tarkoituksiin.
Tekstiilien tapauksessa en kuitenkaan koskaan sanonut, että kyse oli epäreilusta kaupankäynnistä. En koskaan sanonut, että ankara kilpailu, jota kohtasimme tekstiilien kohdalla, oli seurausta kiinalaisten aiheuttamasta hintojen tai markkinoiden vääristymisestä. Viittasin vain siihen tosiasiaan, että kiintiöiden lopullinen poistaminen johti äkkiä ja odottamatta kiinalaisten tekstiilien vyöryyn Euroopan unioniin. Ellei tätä tekstiilien vyöryä olisi torjuttu, se olisi todennäköisesti haudannut alleen markkinamme ja vääristänyt pahasti tekstiilien tuotantoa ja myyntiä EU:ssa sekä tuottajien ja myyjien voittoja, toimeentuloa ja sitä kautta heidän työpaikkojaan niin yllättävällä tavalla, että katsoin tarkoituksenmukaiseksi ryhtyä vapaaehtoisiin yhteistyötoimiin kiinalaisen tekstiiliviennin nopean kasvun jarruttamiseksi. Lopultahan myös kiinalaiset kauppakumppanimme olivat samaa mieltä siitä, että tämä oli oikein ja tarkoituksenmukaista.
Olette oikeassa, että meidän olisi sovellettava kaikkina aikoina, kaikissa tilanteissa ja kaikissa tapauksissa puolueettomuutta, avoimuutta ja rehellisyyttä tekemissämme analyyseissa ja päätelmissä sekä siinä, miten pyrimme oikeuttamaan tukemamme toimet.
On totta, kuten jäsen Handzlik totesi, että kaikenlainen markkinoiden toimintaan puuttuminen – laillisten toimenpiteiden, polkumyynnin vastaisten toimenpiteiden tai muiden kaupan suojakeinojen käyttö – luo väistämättä jonkinlaista epävarmuutta ja heikentää yritysten kykyä suunnitella tulevaa. Jäsen Kamall esitti samansuuntaisen huomautuksen. Suhtaudun tähän todellakin erittäin vakavasti, koska en halua jäsenvaltioiden hyväksymien toimieni pahentavan huonoa tilannetta entisestään estämällä tai heikentämällä yritysten mahdollisuuksia suunnitella tulevaa ja järjestää tuotantonsa, mikä tietysti vaikeutuu, jos toimitus- ja tuotantoketjuja heikennetään tai katkaistaan tämänkaltaisilla toimenpiteillä. Meidän on siten minimoitava tällaiset häiriöt. Yksi niistä asioista, joita haluan käsitellä hyvin vakavasti vihreän kirjamme ja tätä asiaa koskevan tarkastelumme yhteydessä, on se, miten voimme minimoida häiriöt ja tarjota mahdollisimman suuren ennakoitavuuden yrityksille, joihin toimenpiteet mahdollisesti vaikuttavat.
Haluan esittää lopuksi vain seuraavan huomautuksen: jäsen Caspary totesi – jos saan selventää ja värittää hänen sanojaan hieman – että meidän olisi noudatettava sääntöjä ja pyrittävä jatkuvasti vahvistamaan ja parantamaan niitä. Olen tästä samaa mieltä. Juuri näin teemme Dohan kehitysohjelmassa, ja juuri tämän vuoksi meillä on monenvälinen järjestelmä ja prosessi näiden sääntöjen laatimista varten sekä instituutio, jonka ansiosta voimme neuvotella nimenomaan sääntöjen vahvistamisesta ja parantamisesta, jota kannatatte. Tästä syystä WTO:n järjestelmä on niin tärkeä."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, à aucun moment de ma carrière politique et dans aucun contexte, je n’ai été un partisan unilatéral du désarmement. J’ai toujours été un multilatéraliste, que ce soit en matière de désarmement ou d’instauration de règles internationales visant à créer des institutions de gouvernance mondiale ou en ce qui concerne l’élaboration de procédures destinées à conclure des accords ou à résoudre des litiges dans le monde. J’applique ces principes et cette approche à ce sujet, comme je l’ai fait pour d’autres questions durant toute ma carrière politique.
En conclusion, je voudrais simplement ajouter que, quelles que soient les interruptions, les interventions, les confusions ou les diversions que nous rencontrons dans un programme commercial très vaste et complexe, je resterai toujours très concentré sur le programme de Doha pour le développement, sur le caractère fondamental du programme que nous suivons dans ce cadre et sur l’importance vitale de mener à bien ces négociations. Je souhaite le faire en respectant non seulement l’accès au marché, mais aussi les règles commerciales et leur renforcement, un objectif que la Commission vise toujours à atteindre.
Nous avons entendu ce soir une demande d’autorité morale. La moralité que j’applique à cette question relative au commerce est ma croyance en le libre-échange. Je pense que c’est moral parce que je suis convaincu que le libre-échange est le meilleur moyen de stimuler la croissance économique, de relever les niveaux de vie, de créer des occasions pour les citoyens et de lutter contre la pauvreté dans notre monde. C’est ce que je qualifie de «moral».
Cependant, l’un des moyens par lesquels nous exerçons «moralement» le libre-échange est la défense du commerce équitable. Lorsque je regarde autour de moi et que je vois l’inquiétude, l’incertitude et le chagrin des citoyens à propos de ce qui se produit dans l’économie mondiale et le sentiment que les citoyens se sentent de moins en moins en sécurité et de plus en plus menacés par les changements impressionnants qui se produisent dans l’architecture et le paysage de l’économie mondiale, je vois des citoyens qui commencent à se demander si le libre-échange est une bonne idée. Je les vois commencer à se demander s’il ne vaudrait pas mieux de se protéger de l’économie mondiale et si la pose d’obstacles entre nous et nos partenaires commerciaux ne constituerait pas un meilleur moyen de protéger nos emplois et nos moyens de subsistance.
Je m’oppose vivement à cette réaction et à cet instinct, mais je n’utiliserai jamais ce raisonnement à l’encontre du protectionnisme si l’on constate ou pense que je ne suis pas à même de défendre le respect et la mise en œuvre des règles commerciales convenues sur la scène internationale, dont l’objectif est de lutter contre les comportements anticoncurrentiels, les interventions publiques ou les distorsions commerciales, qui visent à accorder à un partenaire commercial un avantage déloyal, déraisonnable et inacceptable dans des échanges commerciaux, au détriment d’un autre partenaire. C’est pourquoi il est approprié et correct d’utiliser des mesures de défense commerciale dans le cadre des règles établies par nos institutions multilatérales.
Toutefois, je ne voudrais jamais voir ces règles utilisées comme arme contre la concurrence à bas prix des autres ou contre le recours légitime par les autres à leur avantage comparatif. Ce n’est ni juste ni acceptable, mais - et je voudrais m’adresser à M. Kamall - ce n’était pas le cas dans les secteurs des textiles et des chaussures. Pour les chaussures, il s’agissait effectivement d’une mesure antidumping à laquelle nous sommes arrivés à l’issue d’une enquête de grande envergure, d’une analyse, d’une recommandation, d’une discussion, d’un débat et enfin d’une décision entre nos États membres, comme il se devait. Je tiens à défendre l’objectivité et la transparence avec lesquelles cette décision a été prise; elle n’a certainement pas été adoptée à des fins protectionnistes.
Néanmoins, dans le cas des textiles, je n’ai jamais dit qu’il s’agissait de commerce déloyal. Je n’ai jamais affirmé que la concurrence acharnée que nous connaissons dans le secteur des textiles était le résultat de distorsions de prix ou du marché de la part des Chinois. J’ai simplement fait remarquer que, en raison de la dernière levée des quotas, nous, en Europe, nous sommes retrouvés de manière soudaine et inattendue face à une sorte d’avalanche qui, si elle n’avait pas résisté, aurait probablement eu pour effet d’enterrer notre marché et de perturber sévèrement ce que les citoyens produisent, leurs méthodes de vente, leurs profits, leurs moyens de subsistance et, par conséquent, leur emploi. Cela se serait produit si soudainement que je crois qu’il était approprié - et, finalement, nos partenaires commerciaux chinois étaient également d’accord sur le fait qu’il était juste et approprié - de prendre des mesures concertées et volontaires pour ralentir la croissance rapide des exportations chinoises de textiles.
Vous avez raison de rappeler qu’à tout moment, en toute occasion et dans tous les cas, nous devrions faire preuve d’impartialité, de transparence et de véracité dans l’analyse que nous présentons, dans les conclusions auxquelles nous parvenons et dans la manière dont nous cherchons à justifier les mesures que nous prônons.
Il est vrai, comme Mme Handzlik l’a dit, que toute intervention de toute nature sur le marché - légitime, antidumping ou d’autres utilisations des mesures de défense commerciale - créera des incertitudes et réduira la capacité des entreprises à planifier leurs activités. M. Kamall a formulé une observation similaire. En effet, je prends cela très au sérieux, car je ne veux pas que les mesures que je prends, après approbation par les États membres, aient pour conséquence une aggravation de la situation en faussant ou en réduisant la capacité des entreprises à planifier et à organiser leur production, qui, bien entendu, se voit entravée si les chaînes d’approvisionnement et de production sont ébranlées ou interrompues par des interventions comme celles-là. Nous devons donc réduire au minimum cette perturbation. L’un des aspects que je veux prendre très au sérieux dans le contexte de notre livre vert et de notre examen de cette question est la manière dont nous pouvons réduire la perturbation au minimum et offrir les meilleures perspectives possibles aux entreprises qui pourraient être touchées.
Je voudrais émettre une dernière remarque: M. Caspary a déclaré - permettez-moi d’étoffer et de broder quelque peu ses paroles - que nous devrions respecter les règles et chercher en permanence à les renforcer et à les améliorer. Je suis d’accord avec cela. C’est précisément ce que nous faisons dans le programme de Doha pour le développement et c’est la raison pour laquelle nous disposons d’un système et d’une procédure multilatéraux qui régissent ces règles et d’une institution qui nous permet de négocier précisément le renforcement et l’amélioration que vous préconisez. C’est pourquoi le système de l’OMC est si important."@fr8
"Mr President, I have never been a unilateral disarmer at any stage in my political career, in any context. I have always been a multilateralist, whether it be in respect of disarmament or the putting in place of international rules to create institutions of global governance or in the design of processes to create agreements or to solve disputes in the world. I bring those principles and that approach to this subject as I have done to others throughout my political career.
I would just like to say in conclusion that, whatever disruptions, interventions, distractions or diversions we have in a trade agenda which is very wide and very complex, I will always keep my eyes very carefully focused on the DDA, the importance of the agenda we are pursuing in the DDA and the vital importance of bringing those negotiations to a successful completion. I want to do that in respect not only of market access but also of trade rules and their strengthening, and that is what the Commission remains dedicated to achieving.
We have heard a call this evening for moral leadership. The morality that I bring to this subject of trade is my belief in free trade. I say it is moral because I believe that free trade is the best way to drive economic growth, to lever up living standards, to create opportunities for people and to attack poverty in our world. That is what I call ‘moral’.
However, one of the ways in which we ‘morally’ pursue free trade is by standing up for fair trade. When I look around me and see the public disquiet, uncertainty and unhappiness about what is going on in the global economy and the sense that people feel increasingly insecure and threatened by the dramatic changes that are taking place in the architecture and landscape of the global economy, I see people beginning to question whether free trade is a good idea. I see them beginning to wonder whether sheltering from the global economy would be better; whether erecting barriers between us and our trading partners might not be a better way of securing our jobs and our livelihoods.
I make a very strong argument against that reaction and instinct, but I will never help that argument against protectionism if I am seen to be or thought to be weak when it comes to standing up for the upholding and implementation of internationally agreed trade rules which stand out against anti-competitive behaviour, state interventions or trade distortions, which are designed to give one trading partner an unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable advantage in trade against another. That is why it is appropriate and proper to operate trade defence instruments within the rules created by our multilateral institutions.
However, I would never want to see those rules used as a weapon against others’ low-cost competition or against others’ legitimate use of their comparative advantage. That is not right and it is not acceptable, but nor, if I may say to Mr Kamall, was that the case either in respect of textiles or shoes. Shoes, yes, was an anti-dumping measure, arrived at after considerable investigation, analysis, recommendation, discussion, debate and finally decision amongst our Member States, as it properly should be. I would stand by the objectivity and the transparency with which that decision was arrived at, and it certainly was not adopted for protectionist purposes.
However, in the case of textiles, I never said it was unfair trading. I never said that the fierce competition that we were facing in the case of textiles was as a result of price or market distortions by the Chinese. I merely pointed to the fact that with the final lifting of quotas we in Europe were suddenly and unexpectedly faced with what amounted to an avalanche which, if it had not been resisted, would have had the likely effect of burying our market and severely distorting what people produce, how people sell, their profits, their livelihoods and, therefore, their jobs in such a sudden way that I believed it was appropriate – and, in the end, our Chinese trading partners also agreed that it was right and appropriate – to take voluntary cooperative measures to slow down the rapid increase in Chinese textile exports.
You are right that at all times, on all occasions and in all cases we should operate impartiality, transparency and truthfulness in the analysis we put forward, the conclusions we reach and how we seek to justify the measures we are advocating.
It is true, as Mrs Handzlik said, that any intervention of any sort in the market – legitimate, anti-dumping or other uses of trade defence instruments – is bound to create some uncertainty and weaken the ability of businesses to plan ahead. Mr Kamall made a similar point. I take this very seriously indeed, because I do not want my actions, as agreed by the Member States, to have the effect of making a bad situation worse by further disrupting or undermining the ability of companies to plan ahead and to organise their production, which, of course, is hampered if supply and production chains are undermined or disrupted by interventions such as these. Therefore we must minimise the disruption. One of the things I want to take very seriously in the context of our Green Paper and our examination of this matter, is how we can minimise disruption and offer the greatest possible predictability to companies that might be affected.
I just want to make this last point: Mr Caspary said – if I may elaborate on and embroider his words slightly – that we should keep to the rules and at all times seek to strengthen and improve them. I agree with that. That is precisely what we are doing in the DDA and why we have a multilateral system and process governing these rules and an institution that enables us to negotiate precisely the strengthening and the improvement that you advocate. That is why the WTO system is so important."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, non sono mai stato un fautore del disarmo unilaterale in nessuna fase della mia carriera politica, in nessun contesto. Sono sempre stato un multilateralista, rispetto sia al disarmo, sia alla fissazione di regole internazionali per creare istituzioni di
globale, sia all’elaborazione di sistemi per creare accordi o dirimere controversie nel mondo. Tali principi e tale approccio li applico a questo tema come ho fatto in molti altri casi per tutta la mia carriera politica.
Vorrei soltanto aggiungere in conclusione che, indipendentemente dalle interruzioni, dagli interventi, dalle distrazioni o deviazioni della nostra agenda commerciale molto ampia e molto complessa, terrò sempre sotto stretto controllo l’agenda di sviluppo di Doha, l’importanza degli obiettivi che stiamo perseguendo in seno alla medesima e la rilevanza vitale di portare felicemente a termine tali negoziati. Lo voglio fare rispetto non soltanto all’accesso al mercato, ma anche alle norme commerciali e al loro rafforzamento, obiettivi a cui la Commissione rimane votata.
Stasera qualcuno ha fatto appello alla
morale. La moralità che applico al tema del commercio è la mia fiducia nel libero commercio. Secondo me è morale perché ritengo che il libero scambio rappresenti il modo migliore per determinare la crescita economica, elevare gli
di vita, creare opportunità per le persone e combattere la povertà nel mondo: questo è ciò che io definisco “morale”.
Tuttavia, uno dei modi in cui perseguiamo “moralmente” il libero commercio è difendendo il commercio equo. Quando mi guardo attorno e noto l’inquietudine, l’incertezza e l’infelicità dei cittadini per quello che sta accadendo all’economia mondiale, e avverto che le persone si sentono sempre più insicure e minacciate dai cambiamenti drammatici che si stanno verificando nell’architettura e nel panorama dell’economia globale, mi accorgo che qualcuno sta iniziando a mettere in dubbio la bontà del concetto di libero scambio. Vedo che i cittadini iniziano a chiedersi se non sia meglio mettersi al riparo dall’economia mondiale, se erigere barriere tra noi e i nostri
commerciali non possa essere un metodo più efficace per mettere al sicuro i nostri posti di lavoro e il nostro sostentamento.
Sono fermamente contrario a tale reazione e istinto, ma non potrò mai combattere il protezionismo se darò prova di debolezza quando si tratta di difendere il mantenimento e l’attuazione di norme commerciali internazionalmente concordate che si oppongono ai comportamenti anticoncorrenziali, agli interventi statali o alle distorsioni del commercio mirati a conferire a un
commerciale un vantaggio sleale, irragionevole e inaccettabile negli scambi con la controparte. Per tale motivo è appropriato e opportuno applicare strumenti di difesa commerciale nell’ambito delle norme create dalle nostre istituzioni multilaterali.
Tuttavia, non vorrei mai che tali regole venissero utilizzate come arma contro la concorrenza altrui a basso costo o contro l’uso legittimo altrui di vantaggi competitivi. Non è giusto né accettabile, e assicuro all’onorevole Kamall che nel caso dei prodotti tessili o delle calzature il caso era diverso. Per quanto riguarda le calzature, si è trattato effettivamente di una misura
promulgata dopo infinite indagini, analisi, raccomandazioni, discussioni, dibattiti e decisione finale da parte dei nostri Stati membri, come è giusto che sia. Difendo l’obiettività e la trasparenza con le quali si è giunti a tale decisione, che certamente non è stata adottata per fini protezionistici.
Tuttavia, nel caso del tessile, non ho mai detto che si trattava di commercio scorretto. Non ho mai affermato che l’aspra concorrenza che dovevamo affrontare nel caso dei prodotti tessili era il risultato di distorsioni di prezzo o di mercato da parte dei cinesi. Ho semplicemente rilevato che, con l’abolizione definitiva delle quote, noi europei ci trovavamo improvvisamente e inaspettatamente di fronte a una specie di valanga che, se non fosse stata fermata, avrebbe presumibilmente travolto il nostro mercato e distorto gravemente la produzione, i sistemi di vendita, i profitti, i mezzi di sostentamento e, di conseguenza, i posti di lavoro dei cittadini, il tutto in modo così repentino che ho ritenuto opportuno – e, alla fine, anche i nostri
cinesi hanno convenuto sull’adeguatezza del provvedimento – adottare misure cooperative volontarie per rallentare il rapido incremento delle esportazioni tessili cinesi.
Avete ragione sul fatto che in ogni momento, evento e circostanza dovremmo essere imparziali, trasparenti e veritieri nell’analisi che presentiamo, nelle conclusioni che traiamo e nel modo in cui cerchiamo di giustificare le misure da noi richieste.
E’ vero, come ha detto l’onorevole Handzlik, che qualsiasi intervento di sorta nel mercato – legittimo
o in base ad altri impieghi degli strumenti di difesa commerciale – creerà inevitabilmente una certa incertezza e indebolirà l’incapacità delle aziende di pianificare. L’onorevole Kamall ha sollevato un punto analogo. Prendo tale tema con molta serietà, perché non voglio che le mie azioni, concordate dagli Stati membri, abbiano l’effetto di peggiorare la situazione pregiudicando o danneggiando ulteriormente la capacità delle imprese di pianificare e organizzare la produzione, che ovviamente ne risente se le catene di fornitura e produzione vengono compromesse o danneggiate da interventi del genere. Dobbiamo pertanto ridurre al minimo gli effetti dirompenti. Una delle cose che voglio prendere molto seriamente nel contesto del nostro Libro verde e del nostro esame della questione, è come riuscire a ridurre al minimo gli effetti dirompenti e offrire la massima prevedibilità possibile alle aziende eventualmente interessate.
Vorrei solo sollevare quest’ultimo punto: l’onorevole Caspary ha dichiarato – se posso riprendere e integrare in certa misura le sue parole – che dovremmo attenerci alle regole e cercare costantemente di rafforzarle e migliorarle. Sono d’accordo. E’ esattamente quello che stiamo facendo nell’agenda di sviluppo di Doha, ed è per questo che abbiamo un sistema e un processo multilaterali che disciplinano tali norme, e un’istituzione che ci consente di negoziare proprio il rafforzamento e il miglioramento da voi auspicati. Per tale ragione il sistema dell’OMC è di vitale importanza."@it12
"Mr President, I have never been a unilateral disarmer at any stage in my political career, in any context. I have always been a multilateralist, whether it be in respect of disarmament or the putting in place of international rules to create institutions of global governance or in the design of processes to create agreements or to solve disputes in the world. I bring those principles and that approach to this subject as I have done to others throughout my political career.
I would just like to say in conclusion that, whatever disruptions, interventions, distractions or diversions we have in a trade agenda which is very wide and very complex, I will always keep my eyes very carefully focused on the DDA, the importance of the agenda we are pursuing in the DDA and the vital importance of bringing those negotiations to a successful completion. I want to do that in respect not only of market access but also of trade rules and their strengthening, and that is what the Commission remains dedicated to achieving.
We have heard a call this evening for moral leadership. The morality that I bring to this subject of trade is my belief in free trade. I say it is moral because I believe that free trade is the best way to drive economic growth, to lever up living standards, to create opportunities for people and to attack poverty in our world. That is what I call ‘moral’.
However, one of the ways in which we ‘morally’ pursue free trade is by standing up for fair trade. When I look around me and see the public disquiet, uncertainty and unhappiness about what is going on in the global economy and the sense that people feel increasingly insecure and threatened by the dramatic changes that are taking place in the architecture and landscape of the global economy, I see people beginning to question whether free trade is a good idea. I see them beginning to wonder whether sheltering from the global economy would be better; whether erecting barriers between us and our trading partners might not be a better way of securing our jobs and our livelihoods.
I make a very strong argument against that reaction and instinct, but I will never help that argument against protectionism if I am seen to be or thought to be weak when it comes to standing up for the upholding and implementation of internationally agreed trade rules which stand out against anti-competitive behaviour, state interventions or trade distortions, which are designed to give one trading partner an unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable advantage in trade against another. That is why it is appropriate and proper to operate trade defence instruments within the rules created by our multilateral institutions.
However, I would never want to see those rules used as a weapon against others’ low-cost competition or against others’ legitimate use of their comparative advantage. That is not right and it is not acceptable, but nor, if I may say to Mr Kamall, was that the case either in respect of textiles or shoes. Shoes, yes, was an anti-dumping measure, arrived at after considerable investigation, analysis, recommendation, discussion, debate and finally decision amongst our Member States, as it properly should be. I would stand by the objectivity and the transparency with which that decision was arrived at, and it certainly was not adopted for protectionist purposes.
However, in the case of textiles, I never said it was unfair trading. I never said that the fierce competition that we were facing in the case of textiles was as a result of price or market distortions by the Chinese. I merely pointed to the fact that with the final lifting of quotas we in Europe were suddenly and unexpectedly faced with what amounted to an avalanche which, if it had not been resisted, would have had the likely effect of burying our market and severely distorting what people produce, how people sell, their profits, their livelihoods and, therefore, their jobs in such a sudden way that I believed it was appropriate – and, in the end, our Chinese trading partners also agreed that it was right and appropriate – to take voluntary cooperative measures to slow down the rapid increase in Chinese textile exports.
You are right that at all times, on all occasions and in all cases we should operate impartiality, transparency and truthfulness in the analysis we put forward, the conclusions we reach and how we seek to justify the measures we are advocating.
It is true, as Mrs Handzlik said, that any intervention of any sort in the market – legitimate, anti-dumping or other uses of trade defence instruments – is bound to create some uncertainty and weaken the ability of businesses to plan ahead. Mr Kamall made a similar point. I take this very seriously indeed, because I do not want my actions, as agreed by the Member States, to have the effect of making a bad situation worse by further disrupting or undermining the ability of companies to plan ahead and to organise their production, which, of course, is hampered if supply and production chains are undermined or disrupted by interventions such as these. Therefore we must minimise the disruption. One of the things I want to take very seriously in the context of our Green Paper and our examination of this matter, is how we can minimise disruption and offer the greatest possible predictability to companies that might be affected.
I just want to make this last point: Mr Caspary said – if I may elaborate on and embroider his words slightly – that we should keep to the rules and at all times seek to strengthen and improve them. I agree with that. That is precisely what we are doing in the DDA and why we have a multilateral system and process governing these rules and an institution that enables us to negotiate precisely the strengthening and the improvement that you advocate. That is why the WTO system is so important."@lt14
"Mr President, I have never been a unilateral disarmer at any stage in my political career, in any context. I have always been a multilateralist, whether it be in respect of disarmament or the putting in place of international rules to create institutions of global governance or in the design of processes to create agreements or to solve disputes in the world. I bring those principles and that approach to this subject as I have done to others throughout my political career.
I would just like to say in conclusion that, whatever disruptions, interventions, distractions or diversions we have in a trade agenda which is very wide and very complex, I will always keep my eyes very carefully focused on the DDA, the importance of the agenda we are pursuing in the DDA and the vital importance of bringing those negotiations to a successful completion. I want to do that in respect not only of market access but also of trade rules and their strengthening, and that is what the Commission remains dedicated to achieving.
We have heard a call this evening for moral leadership. The morality that I bring to this subject of trade is my belief in free trade. I say it is moral because I believe that free trade is the best way to drive economic growth, to lever up living standards, to create opportunities for people and to attack poverty in our world. That is what I call ‘moral’.
However, one of the ways in which we ‘morally’ pursue free trade is by standing up for fair trade. When I look around me and see the public disquiet, uncertainty and unhappiness about what is going on in the global economy and the sense that people feel increasingly insecure and threatened by the dramatic changes that are taking place in the architecture and landscape of the global economy, I see people beginning to question whether free trade is a good idea. I see them beginning to wonder whether sheltering from the global economy would be better; whether erecting barriers between us and our trading partners might not be a better way of securing our jobs and our livelihoods.
I make a very strong argument against that reaction and instinct, but I will never help that argument against protectionism if I am seen to be or thought to be weak when it comes to standing up for the upholding and implementation of internationally agreed trade rules which stand out against anti-competitive behaviour, state interventions or trade distortions, which are designed to give one trading partner an unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable advantage in trade against another. That is why it is appropriate and proper to operate trade defence instruments within the rules created by our multilateral institutions.
However, I would never want to see those rules used as a weapon against others’ low-cost competition or against others’ legitimate use of their comparative advantage. That is not right and it is not acceptable, but nor, if I may say to Mr Kamall, was that the case either in respect of textiles or shoes. Shoes, yes, was an anti-dumping measure, arrived at after considerable investigation, analysis, recommendation, discussion, debate and finally decision amongst our Member States, as it properly should be. I would stand by the objectivity and the transparency with which that decision was arrived at, and it certainly was not adopted for protectionist purposes.
However, in the case of textiles, I never said it was unfair trading. I never said that the fierce competition that we were facing in the case of textiles was as a result of price or market distortions by the Chinese. I merely pointed to the fact that with the final lifting of quotas we in Europe were suddenly and unexpectedly faced with what amounted to an avalanche which, if it had not been resisted, would have had the likely effect of burying our market and severely distorting what people produce, how people sell, their profits, their livelihoods and, therefore, their jobs in such a sudden way that I believed it was appropriate – and, in the end, our Chinese trading partners also agreed that it was right and appropriate – to take voluntary cooperative measures to slow down the rapid increase in Chinese textile exports.
You are right that at all times, on all occasions and in all cases we should operate impartiality, transparency and truthfulness in the analysis we put forward, the conclusions we reach and how we seek to justify the measures we are advocating.
It is true, as Mrs Handzlik said, that any intervention of any sort in the market – legitimate, anti-dumping or other uses of trade defence instruments – is bound to create some uncertainty and weaken the ability of businesses to plan ahead. Mr Kamall made a similar point. I take this very seriously indeed, because I do not want my actions, as agreed by the Member States, to have the effect of making a bad situation worse by further disrupting or undermining the ability of companies to plan ahead and to organise their production, which, of course, is hampered if supply and production chains are undermined or disrupted by interventions such as these. Therefore we must minimise the disruption. One of the things I want to take very seriously in the context of our Green Paper and our examination of this matter, is how we can minimise disruption and offer the greatest possible predictability to companies that might be affected.
I just want to make this last point: Mr Caspary said – if I may elaborate on and embroider his words slightly – that we should keep to the rules and at all times seek to strengthen and improve them. I agree with that. That is precisely what we are doing in the DDA and why we have a multilateral system and process governing these rules and an institution that enables us to negotiate precisely the strengthening and the improvement that you advocate. That is why the WTO system is so important."@lv13
"Mr President, I have never been a unilateral disarmer at any stage in my political career, in any context. I have always been a multilateralist, whether it be in respect of disarmament or the putting in place of international rules to create institutions of global governance or in the design of processes to create agreements or to solve disputes in the world. I bring those principles and that approach to this subject as I have done to others throughout my political career.
I would just like to say in conclusion that, whatever disruptions, interventions, distractions or diversions we have in a trade agenda which is very wide and very complex, I will always keep my eyes very carefully focused on the DDA, the importance of the agenda we are pursuing in the DDA and the vital importance of bringing those negotiations to a successful completion. I want to do that in respect not only of market access but also of trade rules and their strengthening, and that is what the Commission remains dedicated to achieving.
We have heard a call this evening for moral leadership. The morality that I bring to this subject of trade is my belief in free trade. I say it is moral because I believe that free trade is the best way to drive economic growth, to lever up living standards, to create opportunities for people and to attack poverty in our world. That is what I call ‘moral’.
However, one of the ways in which we ‘morally’ pursue free trade is by standing up for fair trade. When I look around me and see the public disquiet, uncertainty and unhappiness about what is going on in the global economy and the sense that people feel increasingly insecure and threatened by the dramatic changes that are taking place in the architecture and landscape of the global economy, I see people beginning to question whether free trade is a good idea. I see them beginning to wonder whether sheltering from the global economy would be better; whether erecting barriers between us and our trading partners might not be a better way of securing our jobs and our livelihoods.
I make a very strong argument against that reaction and instinct, but I will never help that argument against protectionism if I am seen to be or thought to be weak when it comes to standing up for the upholding and implementation of internationally agreed trade rules which stand out against anti-competitive behaviour, state interventions or trade distortions, which are designed to give one trading partner an unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable advantage in trade against another. That is why it is appropriate and proper to operate trade defence instruments within the rules created by our multilateral institutions.
However, I would never want to see those rules used as a weapon against others’ low-cost competition or against others’ legitimate use of their comparative advantage. That is not right and it is not acceptable, but nor, if I may say to Mr Kamall, was that the case either in respect of textiles or shoes. Shoes, yes, was an anti-dumping measure, arrived at after considerable investigation, analysis, recommendation, discussion, debate and finally decision amongst our Member States, as it properly should be. I would stand by the objectivity and the transparency with which that decision was arrived at, and it certainly was not adopted for protectionist purposes.
However, in the case of textiles, I never said it was unfair trading. I never said that the fierce competition that we were facing in the case of textiles was as a result of price or market distortions by the Chinese. I merely pointed to the fact that with the final lifting of quotas we in Europe were suddenly and unexpectedly faced with what amounted to an avalanche which, if it had not been resisted, would have had the likely effect of burying our market and severely distorting what people produce, how people sell, their profits, their livelihoods and, therefore, their jobs in such a sudden way that I believed it was appropriate – and, in the end, our Chinese trading partners also agreed that it was right and appropriate – to take voluntary cooperative measures to slow down the rapid increase in Chinese textile exports.
You are right that at all times, on all occasions and in all cases we should operate impartiality, transparency and truthfulness in the analysis we put forward, the conclusions we reach and how we seek to justify the measures we are advocating.
It is true, as Mrs Handzlik said, that any intervention of any sort in the market – legitimate, anti-dumping or other uses of trade defence instruments – is bound to create some uncertainty and weaken the ability of businesses to plan ahead. Mr Kamall made a similar point. I take this very seriously indeed, because I do not want my actions, as agreed by the Member States, to have the effect of making a bad situation worse by further disrupting or undermining the ability of companies to plan ahead and to organise their production, which, of course, is hampered if supply and production chains are undermined or disrupted by interventions such as these. Therefore we must minimise the disruption. One of the things I want to take very seriously in the context of our Green Paper and our examination of this matter, is how we can minimise disruption and offer the greatest possible predictability to companies that might be affected.
I just want to make this last point: Mr Caspary said – if I may elaborate on and embroider his words slightly – that we should keep to the rules and at all times seek to strengthen and improve them. I agree with that. That is precisely what we are doing in the DDA and why we have a multilateral system and process governing these rules and an institution that enables us to negotiate precisely the strengthening and the improvement that you advocate. That is why the WTO system is so important."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik ben in mijn politieke loopbaan nooit voorstander geweest van eenzijdige ontwapening, op welk gebied dan ook. Ik ben altijd een multilateralist geweest, of het nu gaat om ontwapening of om de opstelling van internationale regels om instellingen van mondiaal bestuur in het leven te roepen of om de sluiting van overeenkomsten of de oplossing van geschillen in de wereld. Dit beginsel, deze aanpak pas ik ook toe op het onderwerp dat we nu bespreken, zoals ik in mijn gehele politieke loopbaan heb gedaan.
Ter afsluiting wil ik zeggen dat welke verstoringen, bemoeienissen en afleidingen ook op onze zeer brede en complexe handelsagenda staan, ik mijn ogen altijd zeer scherp gericht zal houden op de DDA en het belang van de agenda die wij in de DDA bepleiten. Tevens zal ik voor ogen houden hoe wezenlijk het is dat deze onderhandelingen tot een goed einde worden gebracht. Het gaat daarbij niet alleen om markttoegang maar ook om de handelsregels en de versterking daarvan. De Commissie zal ernaar blijven streven een adequate regeling voor deze zaken te treffen.
Er is vanavond opgeroepen tot moreel leiderschap. Voor mij staat moraliteit in dit geval gelijk aan vrijhandel. Vrijhandel is een morele praktijk omdat het mijns inziens de beste manier is om economische groei te stimuleren, levensstandaards te verhogen, mensen kansen te bieden en de armoede in onze wereld te bestrijden. Dat noem ik "moreel".
Ons "morele" streven naar vrijhandel komt echter onder andere tot uiting in ons pleidooi voor eerlijke handel. Wanneer ik om me heen kijk, zie ik dat mensen bezorgd, onzeker en ontevreden zijn over wat er gaande is in de wereldeconomie. Zij voelen zich steeds meer bedreigd door de ingrijpende veranderingen in de structuur en het landschap van de mondiale economie. Ik merk dat men zich begint af te vragen of vrijhandel wel zo'n goed idee is. Ik merk dat men zich begint af te vragen of het niet beter zou zijn zich van de wereldeconomie af te schermen en of onze banen en onze bestaansmiddelen niet beter kunnen worden veiliggesteld door belemmeringen tussen ons en onze handelspartners op te werpen.
Ik wil een zeer krachtig betoog tegen deze instinctieve reactie houden. Ik zal dit pleit tegen een protectionistische houding echter nooit winnen als mensen denken dat ik me onvoldoende sterk maak voor de handhaving en uitvoering van internationaal afgesproken handelsregels tegen concurrerentieverstorend gedrag, overheidsbemoeienis of handelsverstoringen die een van de handelspartners een oneerlijk, onredelijk en onaanvaardbaar voordeel verschaffen. Daarom is het goed en gepast om handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten toe te passen binnen de regels die onze multilaterale instellingen hebben opgesteld.
Ik zou deze regels echter nooit als wapens willen inzetten tegen goedkope concurrentie van anderen of tegen het legitieme gebruik van het relatieve voordeel dat zij hebben. Dat is niet juist en onaanvaardbaar. Tegen de heer Kamall wil ik overigens zeggen dat hiervan in het geval van textiel of schoenen nooit sprake is geweest. Wat betreft schoenen hebben we inderdaad een antidumpingmaatregel ingesteld, na veel onderzoek, analyses, aanbevelingen, discussies en debatten en nadat de lidstaten tot een dergelijke maatregel besloten hadden, zoals het betaamt. Ik geloof beslist in de objectiviteit en de transparantie van de besluitvorming daarover en er lagen zeker geen protectionistische doeleinden aan ten grondslag.
Wat betreft textiel heb ik nooit gezegd dat er sprake was van oneerlijke handel. Ik heb nooit gezegd dat de hevige concurrentie in deze sector het gevolg was van prijs- of marktverstoringen door de Chinezen. Ik heb er alleen maar op gewezen dat we met de afschaffing van de laatste quota in Europa plotseling en onverwachts te maken kregen met een lawine aan Chinese producten. Hadden we ons daartegen niet verzet, dan zou onze markt waarschijnlijk onder deze producten zijn bedolven en zouden de productie, de verkoop, de winsten, de bestaansmiddelen en de werkgelegenheid ernstig zijn verstoord. Dit zou zo plotseling zijn gebeurd dat het volgens mij correct was om door middel van vrijwillige samenwerkingsmaatregelen de snelle groei van de export van Chinese textiel te remmen. Uiteindelijk konden ook onze Chinese handelspartners zich in deze maatregel vinden.
U hebt gelijk als u zegt dat we te allen tijde, bij elke gelegenheid en in alle gevallen onpartijdigheid, transparantie en eerlijkheid moeten betrachten bij de analyse die we verrichten, de conclusies die we trekken, en de wijze waarop we de maatregelen die we graag willen doorvoeren, proberen te onderbouwen.
Mevrouw Handzlik heeft gelijk met haar opmerking dat dit soort marktbemoeienis – legitieme antidumpingmaatregelen of andere toepassingen van handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten – voor enige onzekerheid zorgt en het voor bedrijven moeilijker maakt om vooruit te plannen. De heer Kamall deed een soortgelijke uitspraak. Ik neem dit zeer serieus, omdat ik niet wil dat de maatregelen die ik na goedkeuring door de lidstaten uitvoer, leiden tot een verslechtering van een toch al ongunstige situatie. Door dit soort bemoeienis worden de bevoorradings- en productieketens ondermijnd of verstoord met uiteraard tot gevolg dat bedrijven minder goed of helemaal niet meer vooruit kunnen plannen of hun productie organiseren. Daarom moeten we verstorende ingrepen zo veel mogelijk beperken. Een van de dingen die ik in het kader van ons groenboek en ons onderzoek naar deze kwestie zeer serieus neem, is hoe wij de verstoring tot een minimum kunnen beperken en zo voorspelbaar mogelijk jegens de betrokken bedrijven kunnen handelen.
Tot slot nog even dit: de heer Caspary heeft gezegd – als ik zijn woorden enigszins vrij mag interpreteren – dat wij ons aan de regels moeten houden en deze te allen tijde dienen te versterken en te verbeteren. Ik ben het daarmee eens. Dat is precies wat we met de ontwikkelingsagenda van Doha (DDA) doen en waarom we een multilateraal systeem en proces hebben waaruit deze regels voortvloeien. Ook hebben we daarom een instelling waar we zorgvuldig de door u bepleite versterking en verbetering kunnen bespreken. Daarom is het WTO-systeem ook zo belangrijk."@nl3
"Mr President, I have never been a unilateral disarmer at any stage in my political career, in any context. I have always been a multilateralist, whether it be in respect of disarmament or the putting in place of international rules to create institutions of global governance or in the design of processes to create agreements or to solve disputes in the world. I bring those principles and that approach to this subject as I have done to others throughout my political career.
I would just like to say in conclusion that, whatever disruptions, interventions, distractions or diversions we have in a trade agenda which is very wide and very complex, I will always keep my eyes very carefully focused on the DDA, the importance of the agenda we are pursuing in the DDA and the vital importance of bringing those negotiations to a successful completion. I want to do that in respect not only of market access but also of trade rules and their strengthening, and that is what the Commission remains dedicated to achieving.
We have heard a call this evening for moral leadership. The morality that I bring to this subject of trade is my belief in free trade. I say it is moral because I believe that free trade is the best way to drive economic growth, to lever up living standards, to create opportunities for people and to attack poverty in our world. That is what I call ‘moral’.
However, one of the ways in which we ‘morally’ pursue free trade is by standing up for fair trade. When I look around me and see the public disquiet, uncertainty and unhappiness about what is going on in the global economy and the sense that people feel increasingly insecure and threatened by the dramatic changes that are taking place in the architecture and landscape of the global economy, I see people beginning to question whether free trade is a good idea. I see them beginning to wonder whether sheltering from the global economy would be better; whether erecting barriers between us and our trading partners might not be a better way of securing our jobs and our livelihoods.
I make a very strong argument against that reaction and instinct, but I will never help that argument against protectionism if I am seen to be or thought to be weak when it comes to standing up for the upholding and implementation of internationally agreed trade rules which stand out against anti-competitive behaviour, state interventions or trade distortions, which are designed to give one trading partner an unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable advantage in trade against another. That is why it is appropriate and proper to operate trade defence instruments within the rules created by our multilateral institutions.
However, I would never want to see those rules used as a weapon against others’ low-cost competition or against others’ legitimate use of their comparative advantage. That is not right and it is not acceptable, but nor, if I may say to Mr Kamall, was that the case either in respect of textiles or shoes. Shoes, yes, was an anti-dumping measure, arrived at after considerable investigation, analysis, recommendation, discussion, debate and finally decision amongst our Member States, as it properly should be. I would stand by the objectivity and the transparency with which that decision was arrived at, and it certainly was not adopted for protectionist purposes.
However, in the case of textiles, I never said it was unfair trading. I never said that the fierce competition that we were facing in the case of textiles was as a result of price or market distortions by the Chinese. I merely pointed to the fact that with the final lifting of quotas we in Europe were suddenly and unexpectedly faced with what amounted to an avalanche which, if it had not been resisted, would have had the likely effect of burying our market and severely distorting what people produce, how people sell, their profits, their livelihoods and, therefore, their jobs in such a sudden way that I believed it was appropriate – and, in the end, our Chinese trading partners also agreed that it was right and appropriate – to take voluntary cooperative measures to slow down the rapid increase in Chinese textile exports.
You are right that at all times, on all occasions and in all cases we should operate impartiality, transparency and truthfulness in the analysis we put forward, the conclusions we reach and how we seek to justify the measures we are advocating.
It is true, as Mrs Handzlik said, that any intervention of any sort in the market – legitimate, anti-dumping or other uses of trade defence instruments – is bound to create some uncertainty and weaken the ability of businesses to plan ahead. Mr Kamall made a similar point. I take this very seriously indeed, because I do not want my actions, as agreed by the Member States, to have the effect of making a bad situation worse by further disrupting or undermining the ability of companies to plan ahead and to organise their production, which, of course, is hampered if supply and production chains are undermined or disrupted by interventions such as these. Therefore we must minimise the disruption. One of the things I want to take very seriously in the context of our Green Paper and our examination of this matter, is how we can minimise disruption and offer the greatest possible predictability to companies that might be affected.
I just want to make this last point: Mr Caspary said – if I may elaborate on and embroider his words slightly – that we should keep to the rules and at all times seek to strengthen and improve them. I agree with that. That is precisely what we are doing in the DDA and why we have a multilateral system and process governing these rules and an institution that enables us to negotiate precisely the strengthening and the improvement that you advocate. That is why the WTO system is so important."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, nunca defendi o desarmamento unilateral em fase alguma da minha carreira política nem em contexto nenhum. Sempre fui adepto do multilateralismo, quer se tratasse de desarmamento, de introduzir normas internacionais para criar instituições de governação mundial ou da concepção de processos destinados a conduzir a acordos ou a resolver diferendos no mundo. São estes os princípios e é esta a abordagem que me norteiam ao ocupar-me deste assunto, tal como aconteceu com outros assuntos ao longo da minha carreira política.
Para concluir, gostaria apenas de dizer que, quaisquer que sejam as perturbações, intervenções, distracções ou desvios que haja num programa comercial que é muito amplo e complexo, manterei sempre um olhar muito atento sobre a Agenda de Desenvolvimento de Doha, a importância daquilo que pretendemos alcançar através da mesma e a importância vital de levarmos estas negociações a bom termo. É isto que pretendo não só em relação ao acesso aos mercados, mas também no que se refere às normas comerciais e ao seu reforço, e são estes os resultados q ue a Comissão continuará a empenhar-se em alcançar.
Ouvimos aqui esta noite um apelo à liderança moral. A moral que procuro trazer para este tema do comércio é a minha fé no comércio livre. Falo em moral porque penso que o comércio livre é o melhor motor do crescimento económico, da elevação dos níveis de vida, da criação de oportunidades para as pessoas e da luta contra a pobreza no nosso mundo. É a isto que chamo "moral".
No entanto, uma maneira de praticarmos o comércio livre de uma forma "moral" é defendermos o comércio leal. Quando olho à minha volta e vejo a inquietação, incerteza e descontentamento do público com aquilo que se está a passar na economia global e a sensação de que as pessoas se sentem cada vez mais inseguras e ameaçadas pelas mudanças drásticas que se estão a dar na arquitectura e na paisagem da economia global, vejo as pessoas começarem a pôr em causa se o comércio livre será uma boa ideia. Vejo-as começarem a perguntar-se se não seria melhor protegerem-se da economia global, se erguer barreiras entre nós e os nossos parceiros comerciais não será uma maneira melhor de garantir os nossos empregos e os nossos modos de vida.
Tenho argumentos muito fortes contra esta reacção e este instinto, mas não poderei ajudar os argumentos contra o proteccionismo se for visto ou tido como fraco quando se trata de defender a manutenção e implementação de normas comerciais acordadas internacionalmente que se destinam a combater comportamentos anticoncorrenciais, intervenções dos Estados ou distorções do comércio que têm por finalidade conceder a um parceiro comercial uma vantagem injusta, injustificada e inaceitável no comércio em relação a outro. É por isso que é apropriado e correcto utilizar os instrumentos de defesa comercial em conformidade com as normas criadas pelas nossas instituições multilaterais.
No entanto, não gostaria jamais de ver essas normas serem utilizadas como uma arma contra a concorrência de custos baixos de terceiros ou contra o uso legítimo de uma vantagem comparativa por terceiros. Isso não seria correcto nem aceitável, e também não foi o que aconteceu - se o Senhor Deputado Kamall permite que lho diga - no caso dos têxteis nem dos sapatos. Os sapatos foram, sim, uma medida anti
tomada depois de muita investigação, análise, recomendações, discussão, debate e, por fim, decisão entre os nossos Estados-Membros, que é a forma correcta de agir. Mantenho a objectividade e transparência do processo que conduziu àquela decisão, que não foi de modo algum tomada com intuitos proteccionistas.
No caso dos têxteis, porém, nunca disse que se tratava de comércio desleal. Nunca disse que a concorrência feroz que estávamos a enfrentar no caso dos têxteis se devia a distorções dos preços ou do mercado por parte dos Chineses. Limitei-me a fazer ver que, com a suspensão final das quotas, nos vimos súbita e inesperadamente, na Europa, perante uma verdadeira avalanche que, a não ser travada, teria provavelmente o efeito de afundar o nosso mercado e provocar graves distorções na forma como as pessoas produzem e vendem, nos seus lucros, nos seus modos de vida e, por conseguinte, nos seus empregos, e isto de uma forma tão súbita que considerei apropriado - e os nossos parceiros comerciais chineses acabaram por concordar que era correcto e apropriado - adoptar medidas de cooperação voluntárias para abrandar o rápido crescimento das exportações de têxteis chinesas.
Têm razão em dizer que devemos usar sempre, em todas as ocasiões e em todos os casos, de imparcialidade, transparência e verdade nas análises que apresentamos, nas conclusões a que chegamos e na forma como procuramos justificar as medidas que pretendemos.
É verdade, tal como disse a Senhora Deputada Handzlik, que qualquer intervenção de qualquer tipo no mercado - utilizações legítimas, anti
ou de outro tipo dos instrumentos de defesa comercial - geram forçosamente alguma incerteza e enfraquecem a capacidade das empresas para fazerem planos para o futuro. O Senhor Deputado Kamall disse algo de semelhante. Levo isto muito a sério, porque não quero que as minhas acções, depois de acordadas entre os Estados-Membros, tenham o efeito de agravar uma situação já de si grave causando novas perturbações ou afectando a capacidade das empresas para fazerem planos e organizarem a sua produção, coisas que são evidentemente prejudicadas se a oferta e as cadeias de produção forem prejudicadas ou perturbadas por intervenções desse tipo. Temos, portanto, de reduzir ao mínimo as perturbações. Uma das coisas que quero considerar muito seriamente no contexto do nosso Livro Verde e da nossa análise deste assunto é a forma de minimizarmos as perturbações e de proporcionar às empresas eventualmente afectadas a maior previsibilidade possível.
Quero apenas focar um último aspecto: o Senhor Deputado Caspary disse - se me permite que desenvolva e elabore um pouco as suas palavras - que devemos respeitar as normas e procurar sempre reforçá-las e aperfeiçoá-las. Estou de acordo com isto. É isso, precisamente, que estamos a fazer na Agenda de Desenvolvimento de Doha e é por essa razão que temos um sistema e um processo multilaterais a reger essas normas e uma instituição que nos permite negociar precisamente o reforço e aperfeiçoamento que o senhor deputado propugna. É por isso que o sistema da OMC é tão importante."@pt17
"Mr President, I have never been a unilateral disarmer at any stage in my political career, in any context. I have always been a multilateralist, whether it be in respect of disarmament or the putting in place of international rules to create institutions of global governance or in the design of processes to create agreements or to solve disputes in the world. I bring those principles and that approach to this subject as I have done to others throughout my political career.
I would just like to say in conclusion that, whatever disruptions, interventions, distractions or diversions we have in a trade agenda which is very wide and very complex, I will always keep my eyes very carefully focused on the DDA, the importance of the agenda we are pursuing in the DDA and the vital importance of bringing those negotiations to a successful completion. I want to do that in respect not only of market access but also of trade rules and their strengthening, and that is what the Commission remains dedicated to achieving.
We have heard a call this evening for moral leadership. The morality that I bring to this subject of trade is my belief in free trade. I say it is moral because I believe that free trade is the best way to drive economic growth, to lever up living standards, to create opportunities for people and to attack poverty in our world. That is what I call ‘moral’.
However, one of the ways in which we ‘morally’ pursue free trade is by standing up for fair trade. When I look around me and see the public disquiet, uncertainty and unhappiness about what is going on in the global economy and the sense that people feel increasingly insecure and threatened by the dramatic changes that are taking place in the architecture and landscape of the global economy, I see people beginning to question whether free trade is a good idea. I see them beginning to wonder whether sheltering from the global economy would be better; whether erecting barriers between us and our trading partners might not be a better way of securing our jobs and our livelihoods.
I make a very strong argument against that reaction and instinct, but I will never help that argument against protectionism if I am seen to be or thought to be weak when it comes to standing up for the upholding and implementation of internationally agreed trade rules which stand out against anti-competitive behaviour, state interventions or trade distortions, which are designed to give one trading partner an unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable advantage in trade against another. That is why it is appropriate and proper to operate trade defence instruments within the rules created by our multilateral institutions.
However, I would never want to see those rules used as a weapon against others’ low-cost competition or against others’ legitimate use of their comparative advantage. That is not right and it is not acceptable, but nor, if I may say to Mr Kamall, was that the case either in respect of textiles or shoes. Shoes, yes, was an anti-dumping measure, arrived at after considerable investigation, analysis, recommendation, discussion, debate and finally decision amongst our Member States, as it properly should be. I would stand by the objectivity and the transparency with which that decision was arrived at, and it certainly was not adopted for protectionist purposes.
However, in the case of textiles, I never said it was unfair trading. I never said that the fierce competition that we were facing in the case of textiles was as a result of price or market distortions by the Chinese. I merely pointed to the fact that with the final lifting of quotas we in Europe were suddenly and unexpectedly faced with what amounted to an avalanche which, if it had not been resisted, would have had the likely effect of burying our market and severely distorting what people produce, how people sell, their profits, their livelihoods and, therefore, their jobs in such a sudden way that I believed it was appropriate – and, in the end, our Chinese trading partners also agreed that it was right and appropriate – to take voluntary cooperative measures to slow down the rapid increase in Chinese textile exports.
You are right that at all times, on all occasions and in all cases we should operate impartiality, transparency and truthfulness in the analysis we put forward, the conclusions we reach and how we seek to justify the measures we are advocating.
It is true, as Mrs Handzlik said, that any intervention of any sort in the market – legitimate, anti-dumping or other uses of trade defence instruments – is bound to create some uncertainty and weaken the ability of businesses to plan ahead. Mr Kamall made a similar point. I take this very seriously indeed, because I do not want my actions, as agreed by the Member States, to have the effect of making a bad situation worse by further disrupting or undermining the ability of companies to plan ahead and to organise their production, which, of course, is hampered if supply and production chains are undermined or disrupted by interventions such as these. Therefore we must minimise the disruption. One of the things I want to take very seriously in the context of our Green Paper and our examination of this matter, is how we can minimise disruption and offer the greatest possible predictability to companies that might be affected.
I just want to make this last point: Mr Caspary said – if I may elaborate on and embroider his words slightly – that we should keep to the rules and at all times seek to strengthen and improve them. I agree with that. That is precisely what we are doing in the DDA and why we have a multilateral system and process governing these rules and an institution that enables us to negotiate precisely the strengthening and the improvement that you advocate. That is why the WTO system is so important."@sk18
"Mr President, I have never been a unilateral disarmer at any stage in my political career, in any context. I have always been a multilateralist, whether it be in respect of disarmament or the putting in place of international rules to create institutions of global governance or in the design of processes to create agreements or to solve disputes in the world. I bring those principles and that approach to this subject as I have done to others throughout my political career.
I would just like to say in conclusion that, whatever disruptions, interventions, distractions or diversions we have in a trade agenda which is very wide and very complex, I will always keep my eyes very carefully focused on the DDA, the importance of the agenda we are pursuing in the DDA and the vital importance of bringing those negotiations to a successful completion. I want to do that in respect not only of market access but also of trade rules and their strengthening, and that is what the Commission remains dedicated to achieving.
We have heard a call this evening for moral leadership. The morality that I bring to this subject of trade is my belief in free trade. I say it is moral because I believe that free trade is the best way to drive economic growth, to lever up living standards, to create opportunities for people and to attack poverty in our world. That is what I call ‘moral’.
However, one of the ways in which we ‘morally’ pursue free trade is by standing up for fair trade. When I look around me and see the public disquiet, uncertainty and unhappiness about what is going on in the global economy and the sense that people feel increasingly insecure and threatened by the dramatic changes that are taking place in the architecture and landscape of the global economy, I see people beginning to question whether free trade is a good idea. I see them beginning to wonder whether sheltering from the global economy would be better; whether erecting barriers between us and our trading partners might not be a better way of securing our jobs and our livelihoods.
I make a very strong argument against that reaction and instinct, but I will never help that argument against protectionism if I am seen to be or thought to be weak when it comes to standing up for the upholding and implementation of internationally agreed trade rules which stand out against anti-competitive behaviour, state interventions or trade distortions, which are designed to give one trading partner an unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable advantage in trade against another. That is why it is appropriate and proper to operate trade defence instruments within the rules created by our multilateral institutions.
However, I would never want to see those rules used as a weapon against others’ low-cost competition or against others’ legitimate use of their comparative advantage. That is not right and it is not acceptable, but nor, if I may say to Mr Kamall, was that the case either in respect of textiles or shoes. Shoes, yes, was an anti-dumping measure, arrived at after considerable investigation, analysis, recommendation, discussion, debate and finally decision amongst our Member States, as it properly should be. I would stand by the objectivity and the transparency with which that decision was arrived at, and it certainly was not adopted for protectionist purposes.
However, in the case of textiles, I never said it was unfair trading. I never said that the fierce competition that we were facing in the case of textiles was as a result of price or market distortions by the Chinese. I merely pointed to the fact that with the final lifting of quotas we in Europe were suddenly and unexpectedly faced with what amounted to an avalanche which, if it had not been resisted, would have had the likely effect of burying our market and severely distorting what people produce, how people sell, their profits, their livelihoods and, therefore, their jobs in such a sudden way that I believed it was appropriate – and, in the end, our Chinese trading partners also agreed that it was right and appropriate – to take voluntary cooperative measures to slow down the rapid increase in Chinese textile exports.
You are right that at all times, on all occasions and in all cases we should operate impartiality, transparency and truthfulness in the analysis we put forward, the conclusions we reach and how we seek to justify the measures we are advocating.
It is true, as Mrs Handzlik said, that any intervention of any sort in the market – legitimate, anti-dumping or other uses of trade defence instruments – is bound to create some uncertainty and weaken the ability of businesses to plan ahead. Mr Kamall made a similar point. I take this very seriously indeed, because I do not want my actions, as agreed by the Member States, to have the effect of making a bad situation worse by further disrupting or undermining the ability of companies to plan ahead and to organise their production, which, of course, is hampered if supply and production chains are undermined or disrupted by interventions such as these. Therefore we must minimise the disruption. One of the things I want to take very seriously in the context of our Green Paper and our examination of this matter, is how we can minimise disruption and offer the greatest possible predictability to companies that might be affected.
I just want to make this last point: Mr Caspary said – if I may elaborate on and embroider his words slightly – that we should keep to the rules and at all times seek to strengthen and improve them. I agree with that. That is precisely what we are doing in the DDA and why we have a multilateral system and process governing these rules and an institution that enables us to negotiate precisely the strengthening and the improvement that you advocate. That is why the WTO system is so important."@sl19
"Herr talman! Jag har aldrig i något skede eller i något sammanhang i min politiska karriär varit för unilateral nedrustning. Jag har alltid förespråkat multilateralism, oavsett om det har handlat om nedrustning eller om att införa internationella regler för att skapa institutioner för globalt styre eller att utforma processer för att skapa överenskommelser eller lösa tvister i världen. Jag tillämpar dessa principer och detta förhållningssätt på den här frågan, precis som jag har gjort med andra frågor under hela min politiska karriär.
Avslutningsvis vill jag bara säga att oavsett vilka avbrott, ingripanden, distraherande faktorer eller avstickare som förekommer i en mycket bred och komplex handelsagenda kommer jag alltid att vara mycket fokuserad på utvecklingsagendan från Doha, betydelsen av den strategi vi driver i Doharundan och vikten av att dessa förhandlingar fullbordas. Detta vill jag göra både när det gäller tillträdet till marknaden och när det gäller handelsreglerna och förbättringen av dessa. Det är detta kommissionen fortsätter att målmedvetet sträva efter.
I kväll har det ställts krav på moraliskt ledarskap. Den moral jag tillämpar i handelsfrågan är min tro på frihandel. Jag kallar det moral eftersom jag menar att frihandeln är det bästa sättet att öka den ekonomiska tillväxten, höja levnadsstandarden, skapa möjligheter för människor samt bekämpa fattigdomen i världen. Det är det jag kallar ”moral”.
I ”moraliskt hänseende” bedriver vi bland annat frihandel genom att stå upp för rättvis handel. När jag ser mig omkring och ser att allmänheten känner oro, ovisshet och bedrövelse över det som händer i den globala ekonomin och att människor känner sig alltmer osäkra och hotade av de pågående dramatiska förändringarna av den globala ekonomins uppbyggnad och utformning, ser jag att människor börjar ifrågasätta om frihandeln är en bra idé. Jag ser att de börjar undra om det inte vore bättre att skydda sig från den globala ekonomin, om det inte vore bättre att ställa upp hinder mellan oss och våra handelspartner för att säkerställa arbetstillfällen och levebröd.
Jag invänder mycket starkt mot denna protektionistiska reaktion och instinkt. Jag kommer dock inte att vara till någon hjälp i kampen mot protektionismen om jag anses vara dålig på att försvara upprätthållandet och genomförandet av internationellt överenskomna regler mot konkurrensbegränsande beteende, statliga ingripanden eller snedvridning av handeln, som utformats för att ge en handelspartner en otillbörlig, oskälig och oacceptabel handelsfördel gentemot en annan. Det är därför lämpligt och riktigt att använda handelspolitiska skyddsinstrument enligt de regler som har fastställts av våra multilaterala organ.
Jag vill dock aldrig att dessa regler används som ett vapen mot dem som konkurrerar med låga kostnader eller på ett legitimt sätt använder en komparativ fördel. Detta är inte rätt eller acceptabelt, men det var, om jag får säga detta till Syed Kamall, heller inte fallet vare sig med textilier eller skor. När det gäller skor var det som sig bör en antidumpningsåtgärd som medlemsstaterna efter en omfattande undersökning, analys, rekommendation och diskussion till slut fattade beslut om. Jag stöder den objektivitet och insyn som tillämpades under beslutsfattandet, och beslutet fattades definitivt inte av protektionistiska skäl.
När det gäller textilier sa jag dock aldrig att det handlade om illojal handel. Jag har aldrig sagt att den hårda konkurrens som vi utsattes för när det gäller textilier var ett resultat av att kineserna snedvridit priserna eller marknaden. Jag påpekade bara att EU genom att till slut avskaffa kvoterna plötsligt och oväntat ställdes inför något som liknande en störtskur. Om vi inte hade stått emot den skulle den förmodligen snabbt ha sänkt vår marknad och allvarligt snedvridit det som människor producerar, hur människor säljer, deras vinst, deras levebröd och således deras arbetstillfällen. Jag ansåg därför att det var lämpligt att vidta frivilliga samarbetsåtgärder för att minska Kinas snabba textilexportökning, och till slut höll våra kinesiska handelspartner också med om att det var riktigt och lämpligt.
Ni har rätt i att vi alltid, vid alla tillfällen och i alla fall borde tillämpa objektivitet, insyn och uppriktighet i de analyser vi lägger fram, de slutsatser vi drar och när vi försöker rättfärdiga de åtgärder vi förespråkar.
Som Małgorzata Handzlik sa stämmer det att alla slags interventioner på marknaden – legitima åtgärder, antidumpning eller annan användning av handelspolitiska skyddsinstrument – säkert kommer att skapa viss ovisshet och försvaga företagens förmåga att planera framåt. Syed Kamall sa något liknande. Jag ser verkligen mycket allvarligt på detta eftersom jag inte vill att mina insatser, som medlemsstaterna har enats om, ska förvärra en redan dålig situation genom att ytterligare störa eller undergräva företagens förmåga att planera framåt och organisera produktionen. Denna förmåga blir naturligtvis hämmad om leverantörs- och produktionskedjorna undergrävs eller störs av den här typen av interventioner. Vi måste därför minimera avbrotten. En av de saker som jag vill ta allvarligt på när det gäller vår grönbok och vår undersökning av frågan är hur vi kan minimera avbrotten och göra situationen så förutsägbar som möjligt för de företag som kan komma att påverkas.
Jag vill bara säga en sak till: Daniel Caspary sa – om jag får utveckla och brodera ut det han sa något – att vi borde hålla oss till reglerna och alltid försöka stärka och förbättra dem. Det håller jag med om. Det är precis det vi gör i utvecklingsagendan från Doha (DDA). Det är också därför vi har ett multilateralt system och en multilateral process för att kontrollera dessa regler och ett organ som gör det möjligt att förhandla om just den förstärkning och förbättring som ni förespråkar. Det är därför som WTO-systemet är så viktigt."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
"Peter Mandelson,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples