Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-16-Speech-1-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060116.17.1-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this was supposed to be called the development round, but frankly I think we can sum it up like this: the winner is the self-interest of the Northern countries of the world. The interests of US and European multinationals – effectively sponsored and represented by the work of the European Commission – have won yet again.
How can one talk about demolishing protectionism or defending the free market when every one of the 25 000 cotton growers in the United States receives an average of USD 114 000 a year in subsidies? That results in a 15% cut in the price of cotton on the world market. The 20 million African growers are thus reduced to hunger: they include the peasants of Mali, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Niger, all countries ranked at the bottom of the UN Human Development Index.
How can one talk about development policy, when a policy based on the dumping of agricultural produce has been extended until 2013? The result of that is further destruction of the economies of developing countries, and we must not forget that 70% of the world’s population lives off the land. The European Union and the United States blamed each other, but in practice neither one is prepared to cut agricultural export subsidies on cotton straight away. That means continuing to create a monopoly system dominated by the agribusiness multinationals.
We did not hear a single word about the need to include social clauses and to respect them: there was absolute silence on that topic. Not only that, but the developing countries have been forced to open their markets to industrial goods from the North, as they must cut their customs duties substantially. The result of that is unequal competition, which will further destroy what little industry has so far developed in Africa and the poorer regions of Asia. To the unthinking public, 97% may sound a lot. We know, however, that the problem will be the 3% of products that will not be allowed to freely access Northern hemisphere markets.
In addition, the development aid promised has not been confirmed in precise figures, and it has not even been specified whether it will consist of actual aid or loans: it is pure window dressing that is being exposed for the sham that it really is. The services market is being opened up: education and social and health services will increasingly become less of a right and more of a commodity available only to those who can afford it. There is also the risk that even water may be included on this market as a commodity, one that in the near future will rival oil on the market. That is not to mention the situation of access to medicines, which are in practice denied to the 30 million people with HIV in Africa.
I should like to know how one can talk of a development round when faced with such a reality."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples