Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-217"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.6.3-217"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is most disappointed with the outcome of Cancún. We were sat there and followed the negotiations between a number of protagonists, including the United States, the European Union, the G-21 and the ACP countries. We followed the discussions on agriculture. We made concessions and ended up receiving nothing in return. I think this is quite a bad omen. We are witnessing a hesitant global economic recovery. We are increasingly questioning the functioning of multilateral organisations and in the final analysis, it is the least developed countries that are the victim in this. So there is no reason whatsoever to celebrate the outcome of Cancún. This raises questions that have already been addressed by the Commissioner and the President-in-Office of the Council: why has Cancún failed and where do we go from here?
Allow me first of all to thank the two Commissioners and the President-in-Office of the Council on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party and – however strange this may sound – to congratulate them on their huge effort. The failure was certainly not their fault, and my group therefore emphatically refuses to vote against, even in this House, as if the European Union and especially our Commissioners were responsible for the stalemate. On the contrary, I would say that they are not to blame in any way. I should like to extend warm thanks to the President-in-Office for his openness and his cooperation with Parliament.
We should, however, go over a number of points of assessment with each other. First of all, there is the question whether the EU position and the EU negotiation results were sufficiently clear for the various delegations? We have met plenty of people in the corridors, including MEPs and Ministers, of whom we had the feeling that they were insufficiently informed of the EU position on agriculture. In addition, they often had insufficient knowledge of what the European Union precisely had to offer. We therefore wonder whether the ambassadors of the EU countries and our own ambassadors could not have made more of an effort in the run up to the conference, and even if the Council and the Ministers present had pulled out all the stops in this respect. Mr President-in-Office, you will certainly remember that we expressly asked you in a meeting with yourself to adopt a more pro-active role.
Then there is the G-21. It is actually with good reason – many have noted this and it has transpired once again – that Brazil, in particular, has claimed a position in the Security Council in the United Nations during the general debate. This illustrates, of course, that this was a geopolitical move more than anything else. However, the interests of the least developed countries have badly suffered as a result of this. I therefore think that the G-21 bears a very considerable responsibility all on its own. Furthermore, my group has expressed some surprise at the behaviour of some NGOs – sadly also funded by the EU – in connection with what we see as their not very constructive role concerning the WTO. Perhaps we need to talk to them again about this.
Finally, an assessment should naturally also include an evaluation of the functioning of the WTO itself. Where do we go from here? The rules of the game should be broadened. We should, I think, also check whether our ambassadors in Geneva should be galvanised a bit more. We will need to prepare the ministerial conference that is to take place early next year more effectively. We will need to proceed more quickly with the GATS, but we will also be able to do more as a Parliament, and the resolution is, in that sense, also an invitation. What I would like to say to the Commissioners is this: we will persist with a multilateral approach, for we have no choice. Bilateral relations only lead to the suffering of the weakest. Furthermore, I think we must think very carefully about whether, and when, we will be making concessions again, for if we receive nothing in return, then I think we are negotiating on a virtual plane, which does not benefit the interests of the European Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples