Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-10-Speech-2-450"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070710.60.2-450"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to be able to introduce this subject on behalf of the Committee on International Trade. I would like to begin by thanking Commissioner Mandelson and his services, who have dramatically improved the flow of information sent to our committee regarding the various bilateral and interregional trade negotiations. The committee hopes that this style of cooperation will continue for international negotiations on partnership and cooperation agreements in which, as in the case of China, trade is a significant factor.
Our trade relations with the People's Republic of China are of great importance for both sides. Last year, China took over from the USA as the largest exporter to the European Union. At the same time, the European Union's trade deficit with China rose to EUR 128 billion. The Committee on International Trade has been monitoring China's growing importance in international trade for some time now. As early as 2005, our committee chose to produce an own-initiative report on the subject: the first report ever produced on an individual trading partner. A second report looked at the consequences of the expiry of the quota system for the Chinese textiles and clothing industry. We should congratulate the rapporteurs – Caroline Lucas and Tokia Saïfi – for their foresight two years ago.
In the European Union and developing countries, concerns about the textiles and clothing industry and the impact of opening the market to China have still not been allayed.
This uncertainty has been increasing as the 2005 Memorandum of Understanding is now due to expire. We need a clear statement about China's market economy status in order to investigate allegations of dumping in this area.
The Lucas report looked at the issue of Europe's strategy in terms of optimising the value creation chain and increasing production of high-tech goods. The belief that the European Union can continue to offer cannier solutions in the long term and set the pace for scientific and technical progress has to be called into question in view of the incredibly high numbers of well-qualified Chinese school leavers. We do, of course, recognise and welcome the reduction in poverty that China's meteoric rise has brought about in the past 20 years. At the same time, it is reasonable to expect China to comply with the WTO rules that it accepted when it became a member. This includes provisions on intellectual property and the principle of non-discrimination for imported goods. Nor can we afford to ignore the ecological and social consequences of China's growth. We should be prepared to support those who are addressing the problems on the ground.
Commissioner Mandelson, I believe I read that last month at a trade union conference in the United Kingdom you said that in international and bilateral trade talks, we seek to set fair environmental and social standards. I only hope that this applies to our major trading partners, not just the small ones. So we expect the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement that you are currently negotiating with China to incorporate all these elements, and that the interests of all affected parties will be considered, instead of focussing solely on market access. Commissioner, perhaps you could tell us to what extent this message is being conveyed through the EU's stance in the negotiations on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with China, and also how China has responded to our position.
Another, more general, question is that of the relationship between international and bilateral negotiations. The European Union's trade strategy sees national bilateral and interregional trade relations as complementing the multilateral efforts made within the WTO. The WTO negotiations seem to have stalled. Could you, Commissioner, explain what is the basis for conducting bilateral discussions, given that it is currently unclear what shape the global framework for future negotiations will take, and therefore what the agreements will need to look like.
Lastly, I would like to ask you whether it is really necessary, before we reach an agreement in a multilateral framework, to negotiate individual WTO-plus agreements containing provisions that we know many developing countries are not happy with. Would this type of conduct not make concluding a multilateral agreement – which is the solution that our committee favours – even more complicated than it is at present?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples