Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-05-Speech-2-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060905.5.2-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, when the Doha Round ground to a temporary halt at the end of July, we had already taken small steps towards fair trade. It was agreed that all export subsidies for agricultural products would be abolished in 2013 and that the US and Japan would follow in the EU’s footsteps by guaranteeing free market access to the least developed countries for 97% of all products; there was agreement about an extensive package of aid for trade; and, finally, the Americans had said that they intended to start phasing out their support to the cotton sector.
That, after five years, was a hard-won result, but the signature is, of course, missing, and, as I already stated I do not believe that the poorest countries should lose out as a result of that. It is simply crucial that these measures be taken if we want to achieve the Millennium Objectives by 2015.
In response to my written request, the Commissioner has expressed his willingness to propose a frontloading arrangement with this package. Would it be possible for him to confirm his commitment to this here in this debate? Could he also confirm that the EU is prepared to abolish its export subsidies in 2013, unilaterally if need be?
At the same time, does he not share my view that a frontloading measure of this kind could also help get things back on track for the least developed countries? I still take the view that, if deals are done bilaterally, multilaterally, regionally or however else one would like to call it, among the strongest parties in other words, it is particularly the weakest countries that stand to lose out. This is something the Commissioner has said himself on many occasions, and that is why he has every reason to state that, since those countries should not be at the receiving end of those deals, we should as yet commit to this multilateral trade agreement.
Do not let the fight against poverty become the victim of deadlocked negotiations. If the world trade round cannot be saved, at least we should save the Millennium Objectives."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples