Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-03-Speech-1-188"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060403.14.1-188"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I should like, first of all, to take my turn in congratulating our rapporteur and to say, following your presentation and the one that Mr Lamy, on behalf of the WTO, came here to make before the Committee on International Trade a few days ago, that we can see that, after Hong Kong, London and Rio, the Doha Round remains in abeyance and that it is even in jeopardy.
Admittedly, the round is making progress, but it is not keeping pace with the clock counting down to the moment when the US administration’s negotiating mandate will expire and, unlike in the case of the previous rounds, we do not have the opportunity on this occasion to extend the debates by two or three years, unless we jeopardise the entire multilateral structure. I believe that, if we are enthusiastic about this multilateral framework, we now need to call on each of the parties to make one final effort. After the computer simulations in London, and after the spring-like beginnings or preliminaries in Rio, it is now time to act.
In particular, industrialised countries, Europe and the United States must make decisions and commitments and they must make the necessary gestures, because this round is a development round. Admittedly, the G20 countries - the emerging countries - will themselves also have to make a number of concessions in the area of industrial tariffs, but we know that there will be less than full reciprocity. We cannot demand that they jeopardise a number of fragile economic sectors or industrial or service sectors that are still not necessarily ready to be opened up to international competition.
I therefore believe that, despite everything, this round deserves to be concluded and I perhaps differ in that regard from some of my friends, such as Mr Agnoletto, who was pointing out its inadequacies a short while ago. There are certainly inadequacies, and the European Union’s energy must be focused on making sure that the commitments made to promote development are respected. Yet, there is also the question of the abolition of export subsidies. The implementation of this process must start before 2013 and, above all, it must be accompanied by a commitment and monitoring mechanism that guarantees that the other industrialised countries, and not just the European Union, move in the direction of abolishing all export subsidies.
Developing countries will, all the same, have greater access to the market of wealthy countries for their agricultural produce, and the list of sensitive goods must be reduced. The least developed countries must be able to access the market free from duties and quotas, but a proportion of the 3% of tariff lines that will enable some countries, such as Japan or Australia, to avoid making this effort must be abolished; the TRIPs agreements on access to medications must be amended; and provision must be made for a development package including trade aid that must not be substituted for the aid already provided for in the context of the official development aid earmarked for the Millennium Development Goals."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples