Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-11-Speech-3-295"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050511.21.3-295"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like straight away to endorse the sentiments of the last speaker. I know exactly the point he is making about water and other essential public services. Nothing that will be done in this round, and certainly no part of the policies that the Commission pursues, will infringe or endanger those basic interests and requirements of life. I can assure you of that.
To those who attack the WTO more sharply, I would say this: I do not know of an international institution, I do not know of a better form of global government that exists in our world today that matches the WTO in its democracy – yes, each Member of the WTO, big or small, powerful or weak, has the same vote and it is one vote. And it takes decisions, and it makes findings against the most powerful in the world. It is the only international institution, it is the only organ of global governance that I know that can challenge and compromise the sovereignty or the United States and get away with it. It is the only organisation I know that can enforce its decisions, arbitrate between countries, however mighty and powerful they may be in the international community. I think that is something to celebrate and applaud and it is something, in my view, that we should build on rather than condemn.
I am sorry I have not responded to all the questions that have been raised. But I want to emphasise this point in conclusion: there is a genuine need for us to put development at the heart of this round; it is absolutely central to Doha and its founding values. Those who argue, as some have done in their contributions tonight, that the capacity to trade is crucial, I wholeheartedly agree with you. It means overcoming barriers at ports, enabling trade to be facilitated. That is why that part of our negotiations, in my opinion, is so important. It is about the ability to get goods to market and to meet standards, which is why aid for trade is so important. Yes, our SPS standards, those standards that protect the health and safety of European citizens and consumers, are very important and we should uphold them; our citizens – people you represent – would expect us to do so. But, equally, we have to understand that for many in developing countries, these standards look like barriers. These high standards of health and consumer protection look like protectionism to the outside world. They are not, but it places a great obligation on us, not only to maintain the integrity of our standards, but actively to go out and help and deliver assistance to poorer countries to enable them to meet those standards, meet those requirements, rather than simply shrink away from them and in the process, taking their goods and what they offer to our markets with them.
Let me finish on this point. I agree that the common agricultural policy is a bit of a problem in some ways, it is a great necessity, a source of life and livelihood and very important in sustaining our rural communities in very many ways. But what are the problems we have in the common agriculture policy? The CAP is really not responsible for the problems of world poverty today. Europe offers the most open markets in the world. The tendency of some to turn the common agricultural policy into some sort of devil incarnate, as far as developing countries are concerned, is misconceived and misplaced. Of course it needs reform, and if I can just make the point about family farms to Mr Ó Neachtain, I want to protect small farmers, too, but let us remember in the context of our discussions about the future of the common agricultural policy – and I think I am right in saying this – that 75% of CAP payments go to farmers with above-average incomes. So when we are talking about protecting small farmers and when we are talking about protecting the incomes and livelihoods of some of the less well off people you represent in Parliament, let us also remember that they too need reform of the common agricultural policy. Yes, preserving the European model of agriculture, but not preserving the CAP in aspic for all time. It can, and should, work even better than it does for the people who are most in need.
In conclusion, if we can reach broad agreement at Doha, at Hong Kong and after, it will be a huge achievement for the world. It will enable us to complete a round that has stretched over the life, not just of one or two, but of three Commissions. It is a huge prize, a great prize that is in our grasp. That is why, in my view, however taxing and however vexing this round is, we certainly should not give up, and nor will we. There is a huge amount to achieve for the most needy and the most deserving in our world, as well as countless millions of our own fellow citizens. There is a lot at stake, a lot to play for and we are going to proceed on that basis towards eventual success.
If I can go back to something that Mr Rübig said earlier when he talked about the need for the round to end in a sound minimum compromise, he is right. It sounds as if he is looking forward to a round that ends without ambition. That is not what he meant. To achieve a sound minimum compromise is the hardest thing. Standing here responding to this debate tonight, that end looks a long way off. But it is coming towards us. I say that for two reasons. First of all, the negotiating authority and mandate of the United States will not continue indefinitely to sustain the life of this round. That is something we need to bear in mind. Secondly, there is such a thing as negotiating fatigue. I am beginning to see some signs of fatigue creeping in, an impatience, a desire to get to the end in order to move on. I think that impatience is healthy. I hope it is healthy, and I hope that the sort of negotiating fatigue that we are starting to see will encourage people to show their cards a little bit more, to project to the end game in this round, to see how, when all the parts are fitted together, we will see a round that ends genuinely in wins all round for people, but not least and in particular, for those members of the WTO who are most in need of a successful and ambitious end to this round.
Bearing in mind some of the contributions that have been made, for example, by Caroline Lucas and Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, I respect entirely where you are coming from in the remarks that you make, but I profoundly disagree with you in your rejection of the premises and basic principles of the international trading system. I hope you will forgive me when I recall the enormous benefits that the richer and well-off countries have derived from the international trading system. Now that we have done so well, now that developed countries are so well off, and now that we in Europe are doing so well after decades of open trading, your approach seems to me simply to want to knock the ladder away for the rest of the world to catch up. And I reject that. I think it is a rather self-defeating approach to make. Of course trade is not some magic wand. Of course trade is not the answer to the development needs and requirements of every poor and vulnerable country. But equally, we have to recognise that no country has made itself prosperous or better off by cutting itself off from the rest of the world. That is at the heart of your prospectus.
I agree that access to markets is not enough in itself. You have to help poor countries produce products, increasingly higher value-added products, to enable them to trade profitably in the global economy. Simply opening your markets is not an end in itself. Enabling people to produce and supply into those markets is the crucial point, and was at the heart of Mrs Martens’ remarks at the opening of this debate. I strongly agree with her when she identifies preference erosion as such a problem for many single commodity-dependent developing countries. It is a very difficult thing and is a huge challenge for us in Europe to deliver effective help and assistance to countries which are highly dependent on single products.
When we talk about the reform of sugar, raised earlier in the debate, we know that we have a responsibility not only to manage and bring about that reform in the interests of the people we represent, or the people you represent in this Parliament and whose interests I reflect also, but we also have to make sure that the assistance in adjustment and restructuring that we deliver to poorer, less well off developing countries, for whom sugar is absolutely central, not only to their economy, but to the fabric of their society. Such commodities are a lifeblood for countries and we know the obligations and responsibilities that we have to such countries.
Agriculture is without doubt the most complex and challenging subject of negotiation in this round. I agree with Mr Daul that we cannot place all the weight of this round on agriculture. I think I made that clear in my opening remarks and I certainly accept his view that agriculture must not foot the bill for the all the other sectors. I want to ensure that we look to the long term in this round – yes, including after I have ceased being a Commissioner. I do not look forward to that as an early prospect, but one day others will take over and you are absolutely right. The actions we take now and the negotiations we undertake in this round, have to ensure that there is a sustainable future for European agriculture. We must not put that at risk, we must not put it in jeopardy and nothing that I or the Commission do in the course of this round will create such a risk. That means, too, that adjustments have to be managed and reform and change embraced; of course, we must. Of one thing I am sure: you cannot just leave agriculture to the free market. You cannot do that in terms of the security of the food supply, but also the importance and the weight you attach to sustaining rural communities, which are an essential feature and component of our way of life, of European civilisation.
When we talk about agriculture and the interests of people who live in rural communities, their interests in this round, for me it highlights the importance all the time of explaining, justifying – I think you used the term ‘advertising’ – what we are doing in this round. Advertising in the literal sense is what we need to do. We have to advertise the huge potential benefits and prize that is in our grasp in the successful and ambitious completion of this round. We have to advertise the rationale for our negotiations; they are complex, they are difficult for the ordinary citizen to grasp – heaven knows, I find them difficult to grasp sometimes and I am the Trade Commissioner. It should not be taken as a given, as an assumption, that what we do in this round we can simply deliberate on and decide behind closed doors and pass down to a grateful public at the end of the day, as if that is the beginning and end of involving civil society.
I say this, too, not only because I am very conscious of the sensitivities, fears and anxieties that these negotiations highlight – trade is a very political subject indeed – but because it also highlights the important role of parliamentarians: Members of this Parliament, but not just this Parliament, members of all national parliaments are involved as well. That is for two reasons, first of all, parliaments in their work, and the scrutiny offered by parliamentarians, puts pressure on people like me to explain and justify what we are doing. I think that is very important. But, secondly, what you are doing is representing civil society in a representative and authentic way, in ways that non-governmental organisations do not always do entirely faithfully. When you offer that scrutiny and when you offer that representativeness, what you are doing to this process is conferring legitimacy on it. Legitimacy that it would not otherwise have if it were simply conducted in secret without any transparent way of working, without any accountability for what we are doing and saying during the course of these negotiations. So I agree with those Members who have emphasised the need for Parliament and parliamentarians to have a role. It is true that if we had a constitution, the role and access of Members of this House to this process would be formalised. Nonetheless, without the Constitution so far, we still have a very good relationship, we were able to achieve across the range of what we do informally what in time I hope and predict we will be able to cement formally as well.
When it comes to issues like services – water and other public services – which, in particular excite anxieties amongst the general public, then it is right that the general public, the citizens, are able to see in their democratic forum, in this Parliament, their anxieties and their concerns being properly aired and properly represented. That is why I am grateful to those tonight who have raised the issue of services and have done so in such a constructive way. I hope that meets the point of those who have emphasised, quite rightly, the role of civil society in this. It also touches on, and I fully accept, the future role and performance of the WTO itself, as Mr Papastamkos has raised in his own contribution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples