Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-17-Speech-4-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051117.18.4-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission proposes a long-term strategy for achieving the Millennium Development Goals in Africa by 2015. This can only be applauded. We need a very ambitious plan to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and, above all, to get sub-Saharan Africa on track. The question is now whether the proposed strategy will help achieve this in the best possible way. The strategy clearly outlines the problems, and I share its cautious optimism as regards the development of the African Union and NEPAD.
The strategy has certainly come up with excellent ideas as to how problems may be solved, one example being the extremely important emphasis on the principle of ownership. After all, if Africans cannot take their fate into their own hands and take responsibility for further development, any strategy is doomed to fail.
The European Union is the world’s largest donor. For years, Europe has given money and aid, and yet there is more poverty than there was before. A new strategy is therefore needed. Unfortunately, the document cannot really convince me yet that it really represents a U-turn. Why not? There is certainly nothing wrong with its analysis or the goals, but the proposed ways and means leave a lot to be desired.
The Commissioner is right in saying that we must provide more and better aid more quickly. We cannot do this by giving more money alone, even if we are talking about a few billion extra. It is great that Europe wants to free up more funds, and the Commission wants to remind the Member States of their financial commitments, but we need more than that. I am thinking first and foremost of what we can do in our own policy, about the three Cs of coordination, coherence and complementarity. If they do not improve, then chances of more effective aid will quickly dwindle. Much will ultimately depend on the political will of the Member States. I hope that the Commission will find an effective strategy to promote those.
Secondly, the Commission acknowledges the fact that major differences exist between the African countries. The different situations and problems are described accurately, but clear, appropriate instruments that address those differences are lacking. In our view, a clear distinction should be drawn between aid to stable countries and aid to countries that are unstable socially and economically due to bad governance, corruption and mismanagement.
Whilst it is possible, as the Commission proposes, for stable countries to be helped under certain conditions, even via budgetary support and sectoral aid, unstable countries also deserve our support. We cannot turn our backs on those people. In those unstable countries, we should not call for aid to be granted via the governments, but for aid via social organisations, which must specifically involve religious communities, as these reach out to many people, after all, and can benefit health, education and other basic provisions.
Thirdly, the Commission proposes that our efforts for Africa be, from now on, grouped together under three strands. The first strand is promoting security and good governance, which is important. The second strand is that of economy and trade, and guaranteeing a better investment climate, which is also important. Only the third leg of the action plan concerns poverty reduction via the Millennium Development Goals, such as promoting basic health care, improving education, protecting the environment and creating jobs for as many people as possible.
We think that the latter, the Millennium Development Goals, should be central. Poverty reduction is critical in order to achieve structural stability so as to, in turn, allow further development. That is why, in our view, all policies must first and foremost be an instrument geared towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. That is why we feel that major infrastructural works in Africa or exchanges between twin towns and universities in the European Union and Africa are premature. They are valuable projects but would be more suitable at a later stage.
Finally, I should like to thank everyone who has contributed to this report, whether inside or outside this House, for their contributions to the thought process. I can look back on a pleasant and constructive working relationship."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples