Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-11-Speech-3-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050511.3.3-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Mrs Frassoni for having clarified in such a direct manner the issues brought to the table.
I believe that the appointment of Mr Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank has once again highlighted the lack of democracy and transparency that characterises the process of selecting and appointing the head of the world’s most important financial institution for development. It has also put the Committee on Development of this Parliament under the spotlight. We would like to think that the President of the World Bank had a positive approach to resolving intercultural conflicts, in addition to an unquestionable commitment in support of multilateralism, together, of course, with a personal involvement in ensuring social equality and in the fight against poverty.
Aside from passing judgment on the person, however, who is well-known in any case for being one of the most effective proponents of the doctrine of preventative war, not to mention exporting democracy through weapons – one never knows, even Saint Paul converted on the road to Damascus – it would seem that the World Bank has not evolved much from the framework established at Bretton Woods, now more than 60 years ago. That is also the case as regards the system of votes and seats, which needs to be reviewed, partly in response to requests from countries of the South and movements that have been calling in recent years for a different South and for involvement.
The European Union has pledged to guarantee and to facilitate a greater level of co-partnership from developing countries in global economic decision-making processes, including international financial institutions. Leaving aside those agreements and the commitments undertaken by the EU – in Monterey, Barcelona and Johannesburg – however, it would be correct and logical to ensure good governance in the running of an institution that requires co-partnership as a foremost condition for gaining access to financing.
The lack of compliance with the criteria of democracy and transparency undermines the foundations, the legitimacy and the credibility of international institutions, in a world in which we feel the need for strong and legitimate international institutions that promote involvement: one only has to read Aminata Toure’s book, which uncovers her tragic experience of the conduct of the World Bank in Mali.
The European Union can play a fundamental role in ensuring this legitimacy; indeed, the European Union must carry out this very role, but in order to do so, it must speak with one voice: greater coordination among the European directors must be developed, given that Europe holds 30% of the votes on the Boards of the World Bank and of the International Monetary Fund.
The European Union, let us repeat, is the largest donor in the world, and yet it often forgets to supplement the donations with effective political action. A significant role can be carried out by Members of the European Parliament, and in a meeting held in New York that has already happened. Clear responses are needed: democratic reform of the processes must, however, also aim at overturning the asymmetry between the economies of North and South.
I believe that we must bring about development; in contrast, the policies of the World Bank have very often had devastating effects on populations. This refers in particular to privatisation and basic needs, given that it would appear futile, as Mr Watson said, for the markets of developing countries to be full of goods that the people cannot buy because they have no jobs or money with which to buy them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples