Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-30-Speech-4-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030130.1.4-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in Europe, every day, every cow receives on average EUR 2 from the European Union. EUR 2 a day: over 2 billion men and women do not have as much as that to live on.
The famine and malnutrition which we are protesting about here are not the result of the earth’s inability to feed its inhabitants, but rather the result of specific political situations, and even of a certain number of international policies for which we share part of the responsibility. Sometimes these may be local political situations – war, the collapse of government, the murderous madness of groups of individuals or of leaders – but they may also be the effects of international policies. Some of these have already been mentioned: debt, the size of our agricultural subsidies which are ruining farmers in the countries of the South, the fact that in many developing countries the farming industry and the economy are oriented first and foremost towards exporting certain products, certain raw materials, resulting in a monoculture which is contrary to the objectives of food self-sufficiency and food security, which require agricultural diversification. This is why I agree with what Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf said just now, to the effect that access to the markets of the North, to our markets, is extremely important, but it is also only an extremely partial view. I believe that strict monitoring is essential in order to ensure that regional integration, economic diversification and food security can be guaranteed in these developing countries.
Some of us have just come back from Porto Alegre. President Lula’s victory and the policy that he wants to pursue, particularly against hunger, have given rise to an enormous feeling of hope: in Brazil, in Latin America generally and, beyond that, in all developing countries. If this policy produces results, it will open up new prospects not only for development but also for hopes of democracy.
What are we going to do to support Brazil, to help it to make this experiment a success? In the IMF, are we going to continue to require these countries to achieve an annual surplus of 3.75%, while at the same time maintaining that a 3% maximum deficit as part of the Stability Pact is rigid and stupid? We have a problem with consistency here. Moreover, at the same time as you are trying to encourage Member States of the Union to increase development aid, within the international bodies – we could quote the WTO as an example here – policies are being pursued which in some cases are preventing these objectives from being achieved.
Finally, President Lula launched an appeal, at Porto Alegre and at Davos, for the creation of a major worldwide fund to combat hunger and poverty. Are we going to support him? Are we going to propose – or rather is the Commission going to propose to the Council and to Parliament – a tax on the wealth created by globalisation, which could be used to supply this fund, which would be managed by the United Nations? That would be a practical response and a strong political signal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples