Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-138"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030602.9.1-138"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, this own-initiative report by Mrs Mann on regional free trade areas addresses two central aspects of the Union's trade policy. The first is the issue of trade policy being used as a strategic tool within external relations, particularly where development policy is concerned. The second concerns the relationship between the multilateral approach and the bilateral approach. Before addressing these specific points, I should like to thank Mrs Mann for her excellent report and for the spirit of cooperation in which she has worked, which has made it possible for us to exchange ideas and information over a considerable period of time now, something which I believe has enabled us both, Parliament and the Commission, to move forward in our thinking.
As Mrs Mann has just said, our approach continues to be based on the Amsterdam Conclusions of June 1997. The Union's trade policy works on two complementary levels: the multilateral level first, that of the World Trade Organisation, and the bilateral level next, which is now increasingly regional. These two levels are justified, firstly by the fact that unilateralism is not an option for the European Union, and this is something that we have known for a long time. Secondly, since our priority is multilateralism, regionalism – or our bilateral agreements – complement this multilateral choice, the second level being as it were subordinate to the first. Seen in this light, regionalism is not a kind of ersatz multilateralism, but complements a fundamental choice, which is that of the World Trade Organisation. We actually believe that the globalised markets need common rules and global institutions to regulate them. The Union's faith in the multilateral approach, which it had ten years ago, is even stronger today. We want to manage globalisation; we want to reduce the destabilising effect of a number of factors. That is why an approach based on a multilateral trading system is our priority, as moreover is reflected by the agenda that was adopted in Doha. On this basis, I think that there is a very broad consensus between the position expressed by Mrs Mann and that of the Commission.
For the time being then it is the multilateral approach that is our number one priority, and that is why we have postponed any decision to launch new negotiations on free trade areas until the round that we began in Doha is completed. In addition to this time constraint, we think that any new initiative in this field should be duly justified and meet a number of conditions. Firstly, it must be compatible with the WTO, and Mrs Mann reminded us of the rules in this respect. Secondly, a bilateral agreement should provide added value compared with the WTO, and when I say that I am thinking of the value of the WTO at the end of the Doha round. Thirdly, and finally, a new initiative should not distract us from our multilateral priority.
Does this mean that we are neglecting free trade areas? No. The Union has been a major user of these regional negotiations. Moreover, we are working very actively on a number of them, with Mercosur and with the Gulf Cooperation Council, and we recently concluded agreements with Chile and Egypt, amongst others. These agreements, both the ones that we have concluded most recently and those that we are in the process of negotiating, have some characteristics that are rather new compared with the traditional concept of a free trade area. We have as it were moved on a generation.
Moves to liberalise trade in goods and services now increasingly go hand in hand with the adoption of new bilateral rules that go beyond multilateral rules. A second characteristic of this new generation of agreements is that the Union is increasingly seeking to develop region-to-region relations. Examples are Mercosur and the Gulf Cooperation Council, but also the Andean Community, Central America and South-East Asia – I will come back to this in a moment – or even the regional negotiations that will shortly be getting underway in Africa. We actually think today that it is this regional approach, bringing together several of our partners, that may bring greater economic benefits, since as it were the regional integration of our partners increases the market potential and makes the regulatory work more cost-effective. This is what Mrs Mann a moment ago called deep integration and it is initiatives of this kind that we are in the process of launching, including with South-East Asia in the form of the very recent cross-regional EU-ASEAN initiative launched just over a month ago in Laos, in Luang Prabang. Our intention is to start an action programme focusing on the main regulatory priorities of the two sides. This is also the approach that we have adopted in our relations with Canada and it underpins our work with the Andean Community and Latin America.
To summarise the Commission's position on this point, I will say that the fact that President Prodi has not launched any new initiatives for free trade areas is not a sign of passivity but a deliberate choice. This is clearly explained by the priority that we have accorded to Doha, but also by our conviction that free trade areas in the traditional sense of the word are not really the right instrument for opening up trade in the twenty-first century and that we now need to modify this format. This, by the way, is also what guides us in our relations with developing countries, something to which Mrs Mann devotes considerable space in her report. We think, like her, that although there are advantages to opening up trade, these advantages only become a reality if several conditions are met. Firstly, market access is necessary for developing countries, but it is clearly not enough on its own to bring direct benefits in terms of growth and employment. A decisive ingredient needs to be added, which is aid to strengthen trade capacities. That is what we are providing at multilateral level. We are also providing it in the preparations for the negotiation of regional economic partnership agreements with our ACP partners.
Are we entirely in agreement then? Not quite. And since we do need to identify a few areas where we differ, I have looked very hard and will mention two before concluding. The first concerns the idea mentioned by Mrs Mann of opening negotiations with Singapore with a view to creating a free trade area. We are not convinced at this stage that such an initiative would indeed boost momentum in the region. For the reasons that I have just given, Mrs Mann, our preference is therefore still for a joint approach with the ASEAN countries. We are also hesitant about the idea that you put forward in your report that the Union should undertake to fill the gap in the budgets of developing countries caused by the reduction in customs duties. For the time being there is no proof of customs duties being lost, especially if the volume of trade were to increase as we hope it will, both in a South-South direction and in a North-South one. We are not ruling out this idea, but in the light of the data that is currently available it does seem premature.
These are the two minor reservations that I should like to voice on behalf of the Commission. Nevertheless, it is clear that our reaction to your report is dominated to a very large extent by areas where our views converge. I would add that it is a great advantage for the Commission to have its strategy and positions supported by the European Parliament in international negotiations. For all of these reasons, I see this report as confirming the high quality of our working relations and would like to thank Mrs Mann once again for her excellent report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples