Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-11-Speech-3-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050511.3.3-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Wolfowitz, in a past life, adopted a rather unilateral stance and was known to us as a hardliner; he has now become the Chairman of the World Bank, a multilateral development institute. This is surely – to put it in money terms – a remarkable example of laundering. This has also been embarrassing for Europe; as someone said a moment ago, there are new procedures in which we have a say, but all it took was a few phone calls from the US to get him in the chair. We had not agreed beforehand on a joint candidate, unlike in the case of Mr Lami for the WTO. As far as the World Bank was concerned, we came too late and were not united. I think that that was our failing, and a report by the Council and the Commission has been honest enough to say so.
Needless to say, it is not just about a joint candidate, but also about policy. Everyone knows that, where Washington consensus is concerned, the international, multilateral financial institutions have lines and priorities that are often at odds with development and poverty policy which we in Europe would like to adopt at international level. It is not necessarily about having it all one way or the other. What we need is a balance. In order to strike this balance and to be able to place social objectives, poverty reduction and millennium objectives on the centre stage in the World Bank, it is necessary to speak with one voice. This requires joint action. I agree with what was said a moment ago: the new Constitution may give us more scope and a duty, in a way, to act in those institutions as Europe and to speak with one voice.
It is quite something: we provide 60% of the loans under favourable conditions and have a much greater share of the votes, but are, to all intents and purposes, absent at the same time. We would never tolerate this in the area of trade. I think that this is at the heart of the matter. We also need coherence. In Africa, for example, the World Bank has been involved in the priority initiative on education. The Commission does not want to have any part in this, though, because the national strategy documents for that area provide for roads and infrastructure and not for education. We are therefore not delivering, while in this House, we are crying out for coherent, joint action.
There is therefore a problem on both sides. Can the Council and Commission not reconsider whether, on the basis of the new Constitution, an initiative could be taken, at least in political-economic terms, on behalf of the World Bank? We must also occupy a stronger position than is currently the case in terms of the way we cooperate. The position at the moment is very depressing indeed. Neither the Council nor the Commission is prepared to occupy it. After all, both have spoken very convincingly and sounded pessimistic at the same time. Let us head for the future
."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"allegre"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples