Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-22-Speech-3-210"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060322.16.3-210"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank my fellow Member, Mrs Morgantini, for the excellent report that she has submitted to us today concerning the impact of Economic Partnership Agreements on development.
The general philosophy of this text is right. It advocates the necessity for Community solidarity in the face of regulation that carries the risk of uncontrolled liberalisation. This work was welcomed unanimously within the Committee on Development. It is my wish and hope that it will receive the same support in tomorrow’s vote.
One essential principle must guide our thinking: development in accordance with, and closely linked to, the Cotonou Agreement. It is a prime objective in all the negotiations and within the framework of the implementation of EPAs with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.
I understand the need to bring trade relations between the European Union and the ACP countries into line with the WTO rules; I am talking about unilateral preferential access between Community markets. Nonetheless, compatibility with the WTO rules must not take precedence over our international commitments to promoting sustainable development and eradicating poverty.
I share the fears of our ACP partners and of many NGOs with regard to the way in which negotiations are now conducted by the Commission and with regard to the logic underlying these negotiations. There is, indeed, a glaring asymmetry between the two parties. If we do not attend to this, the swift and harmonious reciprocal opening of markets that is being sold to us will be fatally unbalanced and, I fear, will lead only to disillusionment.
This liberalisation of trade between unequal partners, far from promoting development as intended, runs the risk of having devastating effects on the fragile economies of the countries concerned and on their vulnerable populations. And this at the very moment when, in our speeches, we are claiming to want to help these countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals which, as we already know, are out of reach.
I believe that if these agreements are conceived gradually and in a concerted manner, within a rational and predictable framework, in order to promote trade and investment in this area, they will represent a real opportunity for the ACP countries, an opportunity both in terms of economic diversification and harmonious regional integration and in terms of real and successful integration within the world economy.
A few priorities must be stated. The first of these is the exclusion of the Singapore issues and of essential public services, without neglecting the principle of the right of these countries to use safeguards to defend their sensitive strategic sectors. The second priority is to respect our commitment to seek out alternative trade systems to EPAs for those countries that request it, as is stipulated in Article 37.6 of the Cotonou Agreement. These alternatives must be based on the principle of non-reciprocity established in the generalised system of preferences (GSP) as well as on the introduction of a clause establishing special, differentiated treatment at the WTO. These priorities depend very much on the willingness of the European Union to give its full weight within the WTO to facilitating improvement in the rules in terms of development priorities.
Finally, stating a wish is no use without the means to achieve it. I should like to conclude by saying that, beyond the concern about the European Union’s financial perspectives, we must, on the one hand, keep the promises made by the President of the Commission at Gleneagles concerning aid for trade. On the other hand, we must envisage new financial commitments to compensate for the cost, to the ACP countries, of the removal of preferences and customs tariffs, strengthen technical support to ACP countries and, finally, ladies and gentlemen, reject the unacceptable reduction in the European Development Fund. Since, however, I am not convinced that these aims will be achieved quickly, I suggest that, where the reciprocal opening of markets is concerned, the Commission consider, as a token of its goodwill, prolonging the period of transition according to the specific needs of the ACP countries, as defined at the time of the negotiations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples