Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-24-Speech-3-369"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071024.40.3-369"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the Council for having responded so fully to the interventions, and would add that I endorse the points that have been raised.
The only alternative is therefore to use the Generalised System of Preferences. The least developed countries (LDCs) will have access to everything apart from arms, but for the non-LDCs – and I would just like to point out that there are 36 of them – this would represent a reduction in their current level of access. The EPAs will allow us to continue to guarantee this preferential access to our traditional partners, but more importantly they will help support the process of regional economic integration. I believe that this is where the real potential lies for trade to be able to contribute towards economic development.
We are of course aware of the problems that this will pose for our partners, we recognise their reluctance and, it has to be admitted, we understand their legitimate fears. It is precisely for this reason that we have initially proposed concluding staged agreements that in the first place will resolve the trade problem by including market opening on a reciprocal basis that is compatible with WTO rules. As I have always said, market access offers from our ACP partners will of course be based on the principles of asymmetry. Remember that we for our part are opening up our markets completely, we intend to be as flexible as possible and shall make use of all the leeway available to us to incorporate the concerns about development, particularly the need to protect the main body of agricultural production and fledgling industries.
We are at the moment continuing to work on this question. The real challenge is to prevent non-LDCs from slipping into a disastrous trading situation on 1 January. These countries clearly have huge commercial interests at stake. If by 1 January we have still not solved the question of market access it is obvious that they will be back with the Generalised System of Preferences, which means they will be on the sidelines and then they will be in a truly disastrous position. We therefore have to get a move on if we are even to have temporary agreements in place. This essentially is it as far as the EPAs are concerned.
Finally I would like to say that I am in complete agreement with the views that Mr Borrell expressed so clearly. The forthcoming summit and the EU-Africa strategy will be all about bringing a fundamental change to the nature of relations between Europe and Africa. Let us therefore try – and here I borrow his expression – to create a strong partnership between two sides that respect each other and have rights and responsibilities towards each other, and let us leave behind what we have at present – I would not call it banal, it is more serious than that – this outmoded, archaic and counterproductive relationship, this often humiliating association, of donor and beneficiary.
I too share many of the concerns that have been expressed. The Commission is endeavouring to apply greater coherence to its overseas activities and, as a matter of fact, the nature of the dialogue between Europe and Africa should gradually allow us to eliminate some of the contradictions, including those highlighted by Mr Rocard. It goes without saying that we sometimes pursue contradictory policies: you only have to think of the subsidies paid to agriculture. This is a contradiction. Unfortunately, a choice has to be made here between divergent interests and this sometimes just has to be accepted. I see that Europe is probably the only international actor that continuously self-corrects itself and manifestly tries, at any rate, to go in the right direction.
A second point that has been raised is that of Zimbabwe. I do not wish to go back over this question. Mrs Martens has responded better than I ever could. What we are dealing with is an EU-Africa summit, not an EU-Zimbabwe summit. This is element number one. Element number two is that I am well aware of calls for Mr Mugabe to be denounced. I could do that too, but it would change nothing. The decision to invite Mr Mugabe does not depend on us. I am sorry but we cannot stand in for our African partners. Speaking as the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, with special responsibility for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and for political relations and dialogue with Africa, I have to tell you – and I am sorry to have to say this – that we do not have the right of coercion that enables us to say to our African partners: ‘You can invite anyone apart from him.’ At the risk of being too forward I will also say this: if we are to judge things by the yardstick of dictators, or rather those whom we consider as being fit for this role, we would have problems with more than just Mr Mugabe. And let me just say something else on the subject: this is the reality.
What is important is that the summit takes place and what is also important is that during this summit we are able to discuss matters and raise the issue of human rights in Zimbabwe. This is what appears to be useful and important to me, and I do not mind saying so. The summit therefore has to take place. We have waited long enough. There has already been an Africa-China summit. What is more, an Africa-Japan summit is in preparation and we will be there when it happens, though I do not know exactly when.
I would also like to say that we have enlisted the help of South Africa. If there is one African country that has made considerable efforts to try to resolve this question in everyone’s best interests it is South Africa. Moreover, that country is now most likely engaged in generating, inspiring and working on a major agreement between the majority and the opposition in Zimbabwe, and this should result in honest and fair elections in March 2008. These talks are still ongoing, but in any case the last conversation that I had with President Mbeki seemed to offer real hopes of success. So let us not criticise South Africa, for it is doing what it can and it is not doing a bad job.
As regards the proportion of funding allocated to agriculture, I would simply point out that, between the ninth and tenth European Development Funds, the figure set aside for this sector increased from EUR 663 million to EUR 1.1 billion. It is true that, despite the increase in funds between the ninth and tenth EDFs, there was a reduction in absolute percentage terms, but as far as hard cash is concerned the actual increase was not insubstantial. In addition I should mention that I was delighted to hear the President of the World Bank announce several days ago in Washington, at a meeting that I attended, that there would be a much greater focus on agricultural development, and so I fully share the concerns that were raised just now.
As regards the role of civil society and the parliaments, and the Pan-African Parliament too, I can do no more than wholeheartedly approve of the approach taken in the report.
In a word, and to be brief because the allotted time is very short, I would again like to touch on the question of Economic Partnership Agreements or EPAs, which I promised to do. You will be aware of my position as regards these agreements. They are an essential condition for the integration of Africa into the world community. As experience from Asia has shown, it is not aid that is the most decisive factor for progress but rather economic development and integration into the global marketplace. I personally believe that EPAs represent an opportunity whereby the ACP countries can integrate gradually into the international trading community by first building up their regional markets. All the same, I would point out that 1 January 2008 will not herald the start of sudden and dramatic market liberalisation. So what will it mean? In fact it will mean the gradual opening up of markets subject to varying transitional periods depending on the products in question, with the assistance of regional funds that will provide financial support and will also help alleviate the problem of net fiscal loss as a result of liberalisation. Of course there is no shortage of interesting proposals that could be applied in this area.
What is more, we will also be able to mobilise quite substantial resources in a whole series of areas that could create optimum conditions whereby this process of liberalisation could in fact be made progressive, and this gradual opening up of the markets rendered useful, positive and productive. I understand only too well the apprehensions that some have expressed. However, as regards the call to extend the date for concluding these Economic Partnership Agreements I must say to you that I do not see any advantage in this. The WTO will not grant us an exception for the ACP countries – and it is all very well pretending that they might – because our current system is harming other developing countries that are asking to be treated in the same manner as the former colonies."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples