Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.4.3-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I have tried to be as quick as possible. It is very fortunate that Parliament sometimes gets ahead of the agenda. It obliges us to get away from our usual responses and I am very glad of that.
Thirdly, the ‘Singapore’ issues, namely competition, investment, facilitation of trade and transparency in public contracts. We must determine the negotiating rules so that talks can be launched formally. This objective remains one of the Union’s priorities. These questions cannot be separated from the single commitment. We will resist all temptation to drop one part or another, for to do so would jeopardise the round’s entire equilibrium. We will therefore have to reach agreement on the rules.
Fourthly, the important questions for the developing countries, namely special and differential treatment and implementation. We are trying to be more flexible towards the developing countries, moving in the direction they desire and wish for without creating a sort of two-speed WTO. We are willing to make progress in this respect and to draw up a framework agreement or even a set of guiding principles for adoption in Cancun in order to ensure that greater attention is paid to these questions which – let me repeat – are important for the developing countries.
On trade and the environment, which are sensitive issues in this Assembly, at the Cancun conference we shall have to reach a decision on WTO observer status for multilateral environmental agreements and on the deepening of discussions on other environmental subjects. You know our programme in this field: greater consistency between multilateral environmental agreements and the rules of international trade. That is why, for example, we have asked that the secretariats of the multilateral agreements and the UNEP, which acts as secretariat for some types of multilateral agreements, should be given observer status at the special sessions of the Committee on Trade and Environment devoted to this question that are held in Geneva.
We also think that the Cancun ministerial conference ought to decide to deepen the discussions on voluntary labelling for environmental purposes. There is a possibility of constructive dialogue in favour of trade in products that are kind to the environment, especially when they originate in developing countries.
I will end with a word about our working methods, by which I mean the relationship between your Parliament and the Commission in this field. As always, we are working closely with Parliament to prepare for the Cancun conference. We have in a way anticipated a number of favourable outcomes of the Convention in this field, since the text currently on the table proposes giving Parliament virtually the same rights as the Council in trade policy, namely codecision for the adoption of laws implementing trade policy, the right to be kept informed throughout the negotiation of international agreements and the right to give assent to the outcome of negotiations, which is the line those of you who have looked into this question were looking for. I therefore believe that our joint efforts have paid off.
There are no doubt grounds for thinking that, in some respects, the text is still rather convoluted and could be improved. I think there are still a few pockets of unanimity that a number of you have rightly continued to question. Progress has nevertheless been real and European democracy will clearly be the winner if the Intergovernmental Conference does not water down the Convention text on this point. It is therefore with this attitude that we are going to collaborate for the Cancun conference.
As you know, a delegation of Members of the European Parliament will be coming to Cancun with us, as they did to Seattle and Doha. I am personally delighted about that. Likewise, we are in favour of the idea of a WTO parliamentary conference, because the parliamentary contribution can only strengthen the negotiator’s legitimacy. To achieve the outcomes I have just described which, as I said, are both ambitious and feasible, we will have to work hard between now and the Cancun conference. We will do so with you. This dialogue and these debates are necessary because we know that, without them, we will not have your support. That is why we are waiting impatiently for the resolution on which, if I understood correctly, the vote will be taken tomorrow.
Thank you for asking me to bring you up to date on such an important event as the fifth ministerial conference of the WTO, which will be held in Cancun in September. Our basic position is well known: we want the Doha development programme to succeed by pursuing the European Union’s three fundamental objectives.
The first objective concerns support for economic growth, which we need in Europe as much as in the rest of the world. The second concerns the need for multilateral rules to govern more open markets, which will make for a better link between our trade interests and the values of our societies. The third objective is that the developing countries should be integrated into the international trade system, which has been the recurrent theme of this round of negotiations. We see it not as a matter of rhetoric but as something very specific. Each part of the negotiation programme must have added value in terms of development.
We are only a few weeks away from the Cancun conference; the time we have remaining to make the conference a success is therefore limited and the preparatory process must be stepped up. The necessary political impetus needs to be given in several areas, namely agriculture, access to industrial markets, investment, competition, facilitation of trade and public contracts. In all the areas I have just mentioned, details need to be decided in preparation for the final negotiations. In other matters, like geographical names, the link between trade and development and questions concerning the settlement of disputes, we are looking for initial results at the Cancun conference that will probably be modest and will have to be amplified in the final agreement.
There is still therefore much to be done. Our feeling is that these objectives can be achieved and that the issue is not the complexity of the questions but the political will. This is also true for a subject I have not mentioned but which will be important for the Cancun conference: the problem of the poor countries’ access to medicines. As you know, the United States prevented a decision being reached on this last December despite our having reached a balance around the WTO table. There seem to have been a few developments, but they are not confirmed and it is clear that the US position will have to change if a global agreement is to be reached at Cancun.
Without going into the details, let us consider each of these subjects.
Firstly, agriculture. We need a complete set of rules and a date for the submission of bids. From this point of view, the agreement reached in the ‘Agriculture’ Council last week strengthens the hand of your negotiators. That agreement clearly marks the start of a new era. This progress will make for a better use of resources, greater transparency and improved quality, environmental protection and animal welfare, which are all things that farmers, consumers and taxpayers have said they want. This reform also sends a clear signal to the rest of the world: we are very much turning our backs on an old system that created certain distortions of trade. The new agricultural policy is more favourable to trade, as the developing countries wanted.
Thus, after consulting your Parliament, the ministers of agriculture have given your negotiators, Commissioner Fischler and myself, a line of credit which we are not going to make public – we are not so naive – but which we will use to the extent that is necessary and justified. That line of credit will only be opened if we are certain of obtaining something in return. I am thinking, for example, of the disciplines that will have to be put in place for other systems of support, in particular the US system whose harmful effect on trade is known to us. I am also thinking of the protection of geographical names. For all these things we will want something in return, there must be no mistake about that. There is no question of unilateral disarmament, as my colleague Mr Fischler has rightly said. In agriculture, we have done our duty. It is now up to our partners to take initiatives, the US in particular, since in the last few years they have reintroduced a system that creates distortions.
The second point is market access for industrial products. This is a major objective of the Doha programme. The opening of trade must be as universal as possible so that these advantages benefit the largest number. Our aim is to see that the developing countries get better access to our markets, that is, to those of the developed countries, but also to make possible a significant reduction in the trade barriers that might exist between developing countries. We must not lose sight of the importance of the South-South dimension of market access."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples