Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-11-Speech-3-288"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050511.21.3-288"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since its launch, the WTO has been heavily criticised. Today, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of this organisation, we could take stock and ask the following question: do we need the WTO?
In the context of the relentless growth of globalisation, we unquestionably have no option but to acknowledge our need for a multilateral organisation. To the other question, ‘do we need this organisation the way it is currently run?’, however, my response would be far more cautious. Indeed today, the world is still not managing to distribute its wealth in a balanced way. Trade has a significant role to play in creating this balance, but its existing rules have until now remained largely indifferent to the demands and needs of a large part of the planet. Faced with this observation, I sometimes harbour the naive hope that the Hong Kong Conference, which will take place at the end of the year, will alter this undeniable fact and will, above all, finally fulfil the hopes raised by the launch of the Doha Development Programme.
Last month, on 10 and 16 April, hundreds of NGOs and associations made their voices heard throughout the world in support of fairer trade. I share their opinion that trade based on the sole and simplistic principle of casual
will not result in greater distribution of wealth; quite the opposite.
Our priority must be to reorient international trade in order to equip it with a genuine economic and social justice dimension. If we really hope to help the poorer countries to benefit from globalisation, we must re-evaluate all world trade rules in a more equitable manner, by considering the link between trade and sustainable development. In my opinion, members of the WTO should therefore include these principles amongst their objectives, but above all they should draw on the outcome of the practices and the rules enacted so that they are then in a position to adapt the policies conducted in a more fair and equitable way.
I also hope for a transparent WTO, and a credible and legitimate organisation, whose decisions could be upheld by its members and civil society. As a European Member of Parliament elected by European citizens, I can only state, and above all regret, the current lack of information of which I have fallen foul, to enable me to satisfactorily carry out my democratic control function. Yet more regrettable is that we, as European Members, have no say in the Commission’s negotiation mandate. The same applies, however, to our future.
Whilst I am anxious about the consequences and repercussions of the Directive on services for our European public services, I am easily annoyed when faced with incidences of the liberalisation of services at international level, which could threaten – often public – services linked to citizens’ basic needs in countries that often have the most urgent need of them. If we are widely agreed that services linked to healthcare, education, and cultural and audiovisual sectors have exceptional status in the negotiations, we must not, however, forget the services that relate to basic needs such as water and energy, since we cannot call on developing countries to liberalise these services when this would lead to their being dismantled.
I should like to point out that we made a commitment in New York, in 2000, in support of the eight Millennium Development Objectives. These development objectives cannot be dissociated from the Doha Development Programme and the negotiations taking place. We cannot make promises one day and then quickly forget them the next. The case of the Philippines is one example amongst many others of the harmful effects of liberalising water distribution services. In fact, following the liberalisation of this service in 1997, the price of water not only increased by 600%, but the very quality of the water also dropped to such a degree that it today causes illness.
I am most fearful that, by the year 2015, we will not succeed in halving the percentage of the population that lacks permanent access to water. If we cannot have access to water, we cannot live."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"laisser-faire"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples