Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-11-Speech-2-294"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071211.37.2-294"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to quickly reply to the main points made, and then I intend to briefly discuss the economic partnership agreements (EPAs).
This is an asymmetric system, a transitional period. What else did we do? We drew up generic matrices with these countries, at their request, for it was they who provided the content for the agreements. What is this bureaucratic term? Generic matrices are a kind of plan containing all the projects, all the sectors, indeed the very nature of what they want to see as accompanying measures to go hand in hand with the gradual opening up of markets if they so wish: technology transfer, increased capacities, increased expertise, work on infrastructures, interconnection or improved access, all those aspects.
I also drew up a financing memorandum by regional economic community. This is a kind of undertaking, on paper and with figures, of the resources to be made available to them by the EU. There is only one thing I cannot do, and that is to promise them the money promised by the Member States at Gleneagles. They promised one billion euros, and at least half of this was for Africa. I hope they will come through on this. This money will be provided from 2010 and is intended as aid for trade. It is therefore extra money. We have doubled the regional funds I mentioned before. This is all on the table.
I must confess my great concern is ‘economic integration’, because I feel that in relation to the ‘development’ aspect, it is initially ‘economic integration’ that will allow them to create wealth, wealth they can obviously use for social services and to redistribute prosperity among their people. It is true we have made very little progress on this aspect, for the reason I mentioned previously.
We will therefore be discussing, probably all next year, this matter of regional EPAs to create, maintain and consolidate this dimension of economic integration. I therefore admit this, but this will only occur after having given everything ... A positive response was forthcoming on everything they asked us for. This was true on the financial front, or in any case within the budgetary limitations, and also in relation to technical-legal issues, institutional and even political issues. What is also true is that, when we have to negotiate in 2008 in an attempt to secure this regional integration, we must be extremely convincing, and we must of course have arguments. Do not worry, they will be heard, and we will listen to them ... I will certainly try to do my best to reply to their concerns, their uncertainties and their questions so that we can really specifically reassure them. I should tell you, however, that beyond this additional sum of one billion euros, half of which must be allocated to Africa, I do not have many more arguments. We will see what will emerge from this.
I am nevertheless a little hurt to hear we have been blackmailing our partners. There was never any blackmail of our partners for the very simple reason that we had no power to blackmail them. First and foremost, I would not have done this. We cannot just force our partners to sign agreements. Pardon me, but that is simplifying things too much. I can see the result. I even wish to inform you about the current status of countries that have signed up, to show you that there are many more countries than you think that have signed and have understood the mechanism.
The last item to round off concerns LDCs that now benefit from ‘Everything But Arms’ and thus have complete and unlimited access to our markets. In this case, I was asked what they stood to lose. They do not, in fact, lose anything at all, but gain the opportunity to benefit from particularly generous rules of origin. What are these particularly generous rules of origin? At the present time, for a product to be considered as originating in a partner state, the item must have undergone at least two transformations. Henceforth this will be a single transformation. For example, in the case of fish caught in their waters but imported here, this will be sufficient. That will count as one transformation, and so they may enter our markets quota-free and duty-free. This, then, is the big difference. There is considerable potential for opportunities of which they are currently being deprived.
I wanted to tell you all this, and I am obviously willing to repeat the experience whenever you wish. Ask me questions, or send me questions in writing. I promise I will attempt to answer you sincerely and in full. If it appears that my answer to one of your questions is not good enough or is wrong, I will gladly admit this and I will rectify it, of that you may be sure. To date I have heard all the questions, I have checked all the questions, and I have involved myself considerably. I have not yet heard a question that did not receive a precise, specific and honest answer.
Two Members spoke of their regret at the inadequate involvement of the European Parliament. I must say that perhaps we can do things better, but to be honest, with regard to other major international meetings in the past, I have the feeling that today, in any case, Parliament is fully involved in this process. What is more, as far as I am concerned, I always take great pleasure in debating with the Members and even contradicting them, since this helps hone my own postures. I regularly change my opinions because of you, not to keep you happy, but simply because you persuade me.
The second point is Darfur and Sudan. First of all I wish to say, like the President, that the priority of this summit was not to find a solution to this issue. We did, however, arrange a troika meeting with the Portuguese Presidency, President Barroso, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and myself. We met with the Sudanese President, and I can tell you that the tone and content of the message conveyed during that meeting more than amply reflected the tough words I have heard here. We told Mr Bachir quite clearly that he had to respond in a positive manner as soon as possible to the UN to allow rapid deployment of the hybrid force that is obviously necessary to improve the situation of the people in Darfur ever so slightly.
Mr Cornillet, I must tell you that I fully agree with your speech on international humanitarian law. As you know, yesterday, for instance, I had a meeting with all the ECHO partner operators. There was a great number of them, and I discussed this problem of international humanitarian law. I took up the proposal you had mentioned to me, and we have made arrangements to organise a major conference in April or May on this matter. I also told them, even though I have no power to invite, that I would invite the European Parliament and national parliaments to attend this conference, if this is possible and if Parliament is interested in such a proposition, because it is true that every day I observe the increasing banality with which respect for international humanitarian law is being treated, and this is extremely serious. To such a point, in fact, that while I was there, I talked to the person responsible for gaining access for humanitarian convoys. I said to him: ‘but you are not respecting international humanitarian law at all’, and he said: ‘but you must understand there is a war on’. It is obviously quite dramatic to hear that, because this attitude contradicts the very essence, the very origins of international humanitarian law. We will therefore move forward on this issue, believe me.
On the nuclear issue, Mrs Isler Béguin, I must say that this is a good question which does catch my attention. You should simply be aware that this was requested by our African partners, I think more likely due to a question of principles than as an actual issue. Otherwise, I do agree with your misgivings. They were first of all asked to talk about non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and they said: ‘all right, we can talk about that, but in that case there is no reason not to talk about civil nuclear applications’. Well, this is all part of the current climate. Like you, I regret it, but they did request it, and we can hardly refuse to talk to our partners about this. It was also very low-key, and nobody is talking about developing a nuclear sector in Africa. We agreed to discuss nuclear issues and we accepted that these are a subject to be debated between us, because it was made clear from the beginning that no subject was taboo. Therefore I feel we do have to be coherent.
There are two other issues I wish to comment on, and then I will finish up with the EPAs. I think it was Mrs Zimmer who said that there is particular interest in anything that can be used by major European investors. I will come back to this again with the EPAs, but I obviously do not agree with this argument. You can keep me here for another two weeks, day and night, and I will not accept this criticism. I will not accept it for a very simple reason. I have attended these negotiations for several months now, although I should say I do not negotiate, but I do attend the negotiations. At no time did it seem to me that the ultimate objective was to assist either the European economy or European businesses. Those who make these claims, I feel, are either mistaken or misinformed, or they do so in bad faith. I think they are misinformed, because one never acts in bad faith. I feel, however, that in relation to this issue the remarks are extremely unjustified.
Now I come to the economic partnership agreements. On the subject of the interim agreements, I wish to ask: what are their aims? Have they been devised in support of European businesses? Not at all: the objective is actually to provide protection for countries with average incomes which would otherwise, as you well know, fall into a system of generalised preferences. This is obviously much less advantageous than the system that they operate at present, which is the equivalent system for least-developed countries (LDCs), in other words, Everything But Arms. Therefore, if at the end of this year, despite all my goodwill, the countries concerned have no other agreement setting them on the same footing as they had until today, they will certainly lose markets, and I have already mentioned the example of the Côte d’Ivoire. This other agreement is the interim agreement. Who have we made these interim agreements with? In most cases, we have arranged them with countries with average incomes which would otherwise find themselves operating a much more unfavourable system than they had to date. Has this been done to protect our businesses, to open up channels for our companies to move into Africa or invade Africa? No, that is not true.
What, then, have we proposed? I am now coming to the heart of the agreements, because the truth should be heard. I am willing to listen to everyone, I am willing to understand everyone, and I am even willing to agree with certain remarks and criticisms from the House. Well then, what have we proposed? We have proposed transitional periods of between 15 and 25 years. Mr Wade claims his market will be flooded with subsidised European agricultural products. This is precisely my point. Agricultural products can offer him protection from the 20% that is not liberalised. I do not understand exactly what he means. What is more, Mr Wade is not directly affected. It is true that he is entitled to speak on behalf of all of Africa, but he is not affected because he is an LDC and he has the ‘Everything But Arms’ system. Mr Mbeki, who I admire very much and get on with very well indeed, likes to denounce the EPAs, but this is easy to do. He has a special association treaty with us. This means we can ask ourselves to what extent he is unconcerned about bringing in all the other countries in that region as his competitors. I do not speak in bad faith; all I am saying is that we could ask him that question. I do not think this is the case, but we could ask him.
As for Mr Konaré, the Chairman of the African Union Commission, he is a brilliant lawyer, and it is his vocation to gather up the concerns he hears from those around him. All this is legitimate. However, Mr Hutchinson, when you tell me ‘all the African leaders said …’, that is not true. It is not true of all the African leaders. It is true that a number of them did ask us some questions. For example: ‘what will happen, Mr Michel, when the tariff barriers are removed? We will obviously lose money and our ways and means budget. How will we pay our teachers, policemen, civil servants etc?’, and we said: ‘you can set up regional funds, and we will draw up what we call contribution agreements, which means provision of financial resources at least matching the net fiscal impact of removing the tariff barriers in order to offset the losses, and this will give you the means to finance state services etc.’"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples