Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-210"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.11.2-210"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I shall reply to the three questions from Mr Kreissl-Dörfler.
On the first question, the current use of social or environmental incentive clauses, we have so far received four applications with reference to the social incentive clause. These applications are from Moldavia, Ukraine, Georgia and Russia. Of these four applications, one of them, and I believe I am right in saying it was the Moldavian application, was accepted immediately. The others are being examined. It is not a very long list, in fact it is a short list if you think of how many countries could be interested in the scheme in theory.
Why is it not a longer list? In my opinion there are two reasons. The first of these is concerned with a matter of principle: a certain number of developing countries do not, as a matter of principle, wish to make a link between a commercial advantage and the observance of social standards. This is not a unanimous position, nor is it equally firm in every country. The spectrum is relatively broad, but it still poses problems sometimes. We are aware of this, and it is a matter for the countries in question to decide; that is their right, their understanding of the matter, and they are sovereign. We simply believe that, by increasing the margin and the advantage that they might gain from ‘matching’ these criteria, we can perhaps give some countries, who may be hesitating and who may be undecided between economic advantages and matters of principle, a nudge in what we believe to be the right direction.
On the second question, the North-South America free trade zone, at the moment negotiations are proceeding between the 34 countries of the American continent. These negotiations have been going on for almost five years and will probably last another five. In the short term, therefore, this is not a problem, and it does not affect the relative advantage that we give to countries in that region under the ‘drugs’ regime, whether in Central America, the Andes region or the member countries of the Andean Pact. In a sense, we are each making a contribution, the United States in various forms, in particular credits and operations, while our contribution is commercial in nature. We each have our own way of doing things and I think that, from that point of view, the negotiations on the North-South America free trade zone will not change anything very much in the short term. In the medium and long term, it will all depend on the level of tariff preference that they achieve, and this is still an unknown factor.
As for the last question, the prospects in Qatar, as you are no doubt aware, since you are one of the specialists on this subject, we are working flat out, with a number of developing countries, with a view to improving their perception of the advantage that would accrue to them as a result of starting a new round of multilateral negotiations in Qatar. We are making quite good progress here. For example, looking at the results of last week’s meeting of APEC trade ministers from countries bordering on the Pacific, we can see that progress has been made on this subject. In addition, we are working, at this very moment, with the new administration in the United States of America, again at full stretch, to try to ensure that the summit between the United States and the European Union which is to take place next Thursday morning, at the European Council in Gothenburg, will be able, on this point, to give a signal that will help to demonstrate that the movement has now been launched."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples