Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

It-Tnejn, 9 ta' Mejju 2011 - Strasburgu

19. Preferenzi kummerċjali awtonomi ta' emerġenza għall-Pakistan (dibattitu)

  Πρόεδρος . – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η έκθεση του Vital Moreira, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Διεθνούς Εμπορίου, σχετικά με την πρόταση κανονισμού του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου που αφορά την εισαγωγή αυτόνομων εμπορικών προτιμήσεων έκτακτης ανάγκης για το Πακιστάν [COM(2010)0552 - C7-0322/2010 - 2010/0289(COD)] (A7-0069/2011)

  Vital Moreira, relator. − Na verdade, este relatório não foi feito por mim. Eu sou um relator acidental e superveniente, visto que o relator primitivo deixou este relatório e que eu, como presidente da comissão e de acordo com as regras, o assumi. Além de ser o relator acidental, sou também um relator constrangido porque, na verdade, não votei nele e tenho as mais fundas objecções ao seu conteúdo. Mas as coisas são como são e não me resta senão assumir, com galhardia, esta incumbência que me foi dada.

Como sabemos, este relatório sobre a concessão de preferências comerciais excepcionais ao Paquistão teve a sua origem numa decisão do Conselho da União, que mandatou a Comissão para fazer uma proposta ao Parlamento e ao Conselho. Tratando-se de preferências excepcionais, que não são compatíveis com a regra de não discriminação positiva ou negativa, da Organização Mundial do Comércio, é necessário obter previamente um waiver, uma derrogação da Organização Mundial do Comércio, para que estas preferências comerciais possam ser concedidas. Apesar de tudo, a Comissão apresentou a proposta ao Parlamento, e a Comissão INTA, a que presido e a este relatório de que sou relator acidental, resolveu avançar com a discussão e a votação do relatório. É o resultado dessa votação que aqui trazemos ao plenário.

O tema, Senhora Presidente e caros colegas, revelou-se assaz contencioso na Comissão do Comércio Internacional deste Parlamento, quer quanto a saber se devemos utilizar preferências comerciais como meio de ajuda de emergência a um determinado país, e tal foi o pretexto que justificou esta proposta da Comissão, quer quanto à duração dessas preferências comerciais, quanto à sua extensão, quanto, finalmente, às condições a impor ao país beneficiário, ou seja, o Paquistão.

Embora a comissão tenha votado por maioria a proposta da Comissão, de concessão destas preferências excepcionais ao Paquistão, a verdade é que a Comissão do Comércio Internacional também votou várias alterações no sentido de limitar o impacto destas vantagens comerciais concedidas ao Paquistão, incluindo entre outras, alterações e aprovação de uma cláusula de salvaguarda, caso as importações do Paquistão tenham uma subida demasiado elevada em virtude da redução ou eliminação das tarifas comerciais de importação. Outras alterações referem-se, por exemplo, a exigir que o Paquistão não crie ou extinga as restrições que tem às exportações de matérias-primas.

Para concluir, importa ter em conta que o nosso esforço aqui pode revelar-se totalmente debalde, pela perda, se não for obtido o waiver da Organização Mundial de Comércio, que, neste momento, não sabemos quando ou se virá a ser concedido. Em todo o caso, mesmo que esse nosso esforço venha a revelar-se inútil, ele será, pelo menos, uma excelente oportunidade para debater o sentido, se algum tem, e os limites da utilização de vantagens comerciais excepcionais como meio de ajuda de emergência ou como meio de gratificação política de um determinado país como neste caso.

Pois corremos o risco de criar precedentes perigosos, ou pior do que isso, de instrumentalizar politicamente as preferências comerciais que talvez devam obedecer a critérios bastante mais objectivos, bastante menos discricionários e conjunturais do que neste caso.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, today we are discussing a legislative proposal for emergency autonomous trade preferences for Pakistan. This proposal was tabled by the Commission at the express request of the European Council in the immediate aftermath of the floods that hit Pakistan in the summer of last year and brought widespread devastation to the country and to its people.

I would like to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on International Trade for their hard work and their support for the proposal. The Commission proposal aims at the introduction of a unilateral and temporary suspension of import duties on 75 export items from Pakistan. These trade preferences would liberalise about a quarter of Pakistani imports to the EU and be available for two years, with a possible extension for another year.

The European Union is aware that such trade concessions, especially in sensitive sectors such as textiles, might have an impact on EU industry, and therefore we have ensured that a balance is kept between the needs of Pakistan and the interests of our own industry and other supplier countries.

The number of products selected is limited. We have set a ceiling on the liberalisation of very sensitive items, and liberalisation would only be of limited duration. In the meantime we have also requested the World Trade Organisation to grant us a waiver of the applicable WTO rules to enable us to implement the proposed measures. As you know, we are still discussing this issue with other WTO members and hope to come to a solution soon.

The images of people having lost their livelihoods might not be present any more in everyone’s mind, but we should not forget the immense cost of those devastating floods, both in terms of humanitarian needs and economic devastation. These trade measures are not ‘stand-alone’, and come on top of the significant humanitarian and development assistance – amounting to EUR 480 million – that the EU has granted to Pakistan. However, ambitious trade measures are essential for the sustained economic recovery of Pakistan’s economy and should be part of our medium-term response to those unprecedented natural disasters. I therefore hope that Parliament will support the proposal.

Let me now turn to some of the amendments that have been proposed. I will not go into detail on all of them, but let me highlight the most important ones. I know that there are requests for making the granting of autonomous trade preferences conditional upon Pakistan respecting certain fundamental principles. I understand the concerns that may exist in that respect, and you are aware that human rights issues are an integral element of our long-term relationship with Pakistan. However, given the temporary nature of the waiver to address an emergency situation, the Commission believes those conditionalities would not be appropriate.

Our human rights dialogue, in the context of our Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Pakistan, is the appropriate forum to address such issues with Pakistan and reach sustainable solutions. As regards provisions that would oblige Pakistan to abstain from maintaining, introducing or increasing duties or charges having equivalent effect, or any other restriction on the export or import of certain products, I believe that such conditions would seriously undermine the granting of the preferences and are contrary to the spirit, the nature and the purpose of our regulation. Moreover, we cannot prohibit Pakistan, through this regulation, from implementing measures that are consistent with its international obligations.

On the other hand, we could agree to the introduction of a mechanism allowing the imposition of limits to duty-free imports for Pakistan tariff rate quotas where volumes of imports of products liberalised increase beyond certain levels. I also agree that preferences should be removed for any product causing or threatening to cause serious difficulties to a Union producer of like or directly competing products, as determined by an investigation carried out by the Commission. We could also agree with mechanisms to establish customs surveillance on imports covered by the regulation, linked with quarterly reporting. However, a prior surveillance mechanism would create an undue burden in terms of administrations’ licensing requirements.

I note, finally, that there are requests to limit the duration of the trade preferences to one year from the date on which the waiver takes effect. I think that would be very problematic.

The Commission initially proposed applying exceptional measures for a period of three years. In its compromise proposal, which was reflected in the WTO waiver request, the Council limited the duration to two years, with the possibility of extending it by one more year. However, to limit the duration even further to one year would erode the advantages of the autonomous trade preferences measure, and they would become meaningless.

Let me also point out that a compromise reached in the Council on 10 November was based on subjecting seven textile and clothing products to tariff rate quotas rather than full liberalisation. This compromise became the basis for the subsequent request for a WTO waiver. However this is not reflected in the European Parliament amendments, and as a result of the consultation with WTO members it might be necessary to subject a few more products to tariff rate quotas.

The waiver, if granted, would constitute a maximum of preferences the EU could grant to Pakistan on those terms and, as a consequence, the regulation will have to reflect the content of the WTO waiver once it is agreed in the WTO. Let me also reassure you that the Commission will conduct an annual impact assessment on the autonomous trade preferences granted to Pakistan and present it to Parliament and the Council, and that is another reason not to reduce the duration of application of this instrument.

I thank the European Parliament for its cooperation on this sensitive issue. The Commission stands ready to work closely with Parliament in order to have this proposal adopted and show the EU’s determination to act responsibly towards countries in need.

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ ΛΑΜΠΡΙΝΙΔΗΣ
Αντιπρόεδρος

  Cristian Dan Preda, Raportor pentru aviz Comisia pentru afaceri externe. − Cred că e oportun că discutăm acest raport Moreira. De ce? Pentru că în momentul de faţă aşteptăm o decizie referitoare la derogarea cerută de către Uniunea Europeană la Organizaţia Mondială a Comerţului chiar pe tema abordată.

În ceea ce mă priveşte, consider că este important, în acest context, să adresăm celorlalţi parteneri comerciali ai Uniunii un mesaj clar: Uniunea trebuie să rămână în continuare hotărâtă să suplimenteze ajutorul umanitar de urgenţă generos acordat într-o primă etapă Pakistanului cu măsuri comerciale, care vizează relansarea durabilă a economiei pakistaneze. Consultările diplomatice la Organizaţia Mondială a Comerţului cer, desigur, timp, pentru că preocupările partenerilor comerciali ai Uniunii trebuie luate în seamă. Rezultatul acestor consultări este în momentul actual incert, însă, după cum ne-o reaminteşte actualitatea recentă, ceea ce este clar este faptul că avem nevoie de un Pakistan stabil şi prosper, care să nu alunece pe panta extremismului şi care să poată fi un interlocutor în lupta împotriva terorismului.

Ca raportor de opinie în AFET, aş vrea să le mulţumesc colegilor din INTA pentru preluarea principalelor elemente pe care le-am dezvoltat în aviz. Voi insista aici asupra a două asemenea elemente. Primul, care este poate cel mai important pentru Comisia AFET, l-a amintit şi doamna comisar, este necesitatea de a nu decupla condiţionalitatea legată de respectarea drepturilor omului, inclusiv a standardelor de bază ale dreptului muncii, de acordarea preferinţelor comerciale. Aici cred că avem o diferenţă de opinie. După cum drepturile omului sunt un element esenţial al acordului ce leagă Uniunea de Pakistan, preferinţele comerciale autonome propuse trebuie să depindă de respectarea drepturilor omului în această ţară. Pe de altă parte, o evaluare completă a impactului măsurilor propuse nu a fost efectuată în prealabil de către Comisie. Cred că ar fi fost important, în particular, efectul asupra populaţiei Pakistanului şi efectul asupra resurselor bugetare ale acestei ţări.

  Daniel Caspary, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Situation in Pakistan ist auch fast ein dreiviertel Jahr nach der katastrophalen Flut immer noch schlecht, und die Menschen in Pakistan brauchen unsere Hilfe. Deswegen war es auch richtig, dass die Europäische Union gehandelt hat und sehr schnell millionenschwere Hilfspakete auf die Beine gestellt hat, und es ist wichtig, dass die Hilfe auch wirklich vor Ort ankommt.

Ich persönlich war von Anfang an nicht besonders glücklich damit, dass die Kommission auf Druck des Rates vorgeschlagen hat, ausgerechnet Außenhandelsinstrumente zu nutzen, um kurzfristige Hilfe für Pakistan bereitzustellen. Ich habe das im Ausschuss auch mehrfach angesprochen und dabei insbesondere darum gebeten, dass auch diejenige, die in der Europäischen Union für die Außenpolitik zuständig ist, nämlich unsere Hohe Vertreterin, in den Ausschuss oder ins Parlament kommt, um uns darzulegen, warum denn der Außenhandel diesen Beitrag leisten muss, dass man uns grundsätzlich eine Gesamtstrategie der Europäischen Kommission präsentiert, dass man das in einen gemeinsamen Kontext stellt und uns vielleicht auf diesem Weg davon überzeugt, dass es wirklich sinnvoll ist – ich sage es nochmals –, den Außenhandel hier einen kurzfristigen Beitrag leisten zu lassen.

Ich bin sehr dankbar, dass es dem Kollegen David und anderen gelungen ist, ein Paket auf die Beine zu stellen, das im Ausschuss eine breite Mehrheit gefunden hat. Dabei hebe ich besonders die zeitliche Befristung hervor, die wir uns wünschen. Nur durch diese Lösung können etliche Fehlsteuerungen vermieden werden.

Aber wie ist denn die Situation in Pakistan im Moment? Bin Laden ist zwar ausgeschaltet, aber die Frage der letzten Tage, inwieweit Vertreter der pakistanischen Regierung wussten, wer sich in ihrem Land versteckt, bleibt bestehen. Viele Kollegen, auch in meiner Fraktion, sind darüber nicht glücklich. Und wir wissen immer noch nicht, wie sich die anderen Länder im Rahmen der WTO verhalten und ob sie dann am Ende ihre Zustimmung geben werden. Deswegen wäre es gut, wenn wir morgen über die Änderungsanträge abstimmen, jedoch nicht die Schlussabstimmung durchführen, sondern das Dossier zurück an den Ausschuss verweisen, damit wir noch einmal sehen, was letztendlich das Ergebnis der WTO-Gespräche sein wird und ob es überhaupt sinnvoll ist, dass wir am Ende diesem Paket unsere Zustimmung geben.

  Gianluca Susta, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, signor Commissario, sinceramente non comprendiamo perché la maggioranza della commissione INTA abbia voluto a tutti i costi portare in discussione questa questione per poi chiederne il rinvio, richiesta che non condividiamo. Sono sbagliate l'una e l'altra decisione ma, anche per ragioni di tempo, intendo soffermarmi solo sulla questione di merito, non prima di aver affermato la mia totale condivisione dell'intervento del presidente Vital Moreira.

In questo mondo complicato, attraversato costantemente da numerose tragedie naturali e no, introdurremmo un grave precedente se trasformassimo ogni emergenza umanitaria in una revisione delle politiche commerciali. È una strada pericolosa, che potrebbe portare a profondi squilibri e conseguenti ingiustizie nei confronti dei paesi più poveri che, per contro, solo da regole equilibrate, durature e oggettive possono trarre beneficio dalla politica commerciale, che non può sostituire la cooperazione allo sviluppo.

Sappiamo che i benefici che si vorrebbero riconoscere al Pakistan non andrebbero a vantaggio delle popolazioni colpite dall'alluvione ormai quasi un anno fa. E con altrettanta certezza sappiamo che principalmente, per non dire esclusivamente, solo il settore tessile europeo pagherà il costo di questo aiuto umanitario. Non possiamo accettare questa ingiusta deroga alle regole della politica commerciale, perché siamo consapevoli della necessità di tener conto anche di altri fattori nel nostro ragionamento.

Tutti sappiamo che, accanto alla solidarietà verso le popolazioni alluvionate del Pakistan, un'altra fondamentale ragione dell'aiuto risiede nella decisione di assecondare l'impegno del Pakistan nella lotta contro il terrorismo. Le zone d'ombra emerse in questi giorni tra le autorità pakistane e Al Quaeda e la stessa vicenda di Bin Laden dimostrano la scarsa affidabilità di questo paese. Ritengo se ne debba tener conto, così come occorre tener presenti le grandi questioni legate ai diritti umani emerse ultimamente.

  Niccolò Rinaldi, a nome del gruppo ALDE. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, c'è qualcosa che non va in un dibattito che ha luogo nel maggio 2011 e si riferisce a una calamità naturale dell'estate 2010, una calamità che ha lasciato 12 milioni di persone senza casa e devastato il 20 percento di questo paese.

Non condivido la posizione socialista, or ora espressa dal collega Susta. È anche a causa di queste esitazioni che ci stiamo ancora scervellando per capire quali strumenti possano essere adottati per aiutare fattivamente il Pakistan e alla frustrazione per non esserci ancora riusciti si aggiunge la consapevolezza della necessità di una visione della politica commerciale più matura sia politicamente che umanitariamente: la politica commerciale deve far parte di quegli strumenti atti ad aiutare le popolazioni in difficoltà.

Riconosco alla Commissione di aver agito bene e presto proponendo un pacchetto di misure, che andava ovviamente discusso e riequilibrato per non penalizzare un'industria europea già provata dalla crisi. È il lavoro svolto dalla commissione INTA, anche espresso da alcuni emendamenti, fra i quali il gruppo ALDE sostiene l'emendamento 37, che permette anche alle aziende di richiedere l'applicazione della clausola di salvaguardia. Tuttavia, sembra che questi non siano tempi fortunati per il Pakistan e sono in troppi a non assumersi le proprie responsabilità.

All'India chiediamo di cambiare atteggiamento, di ammorbidire il suo rifiuto in sede OMC per esprimere un gesto concreto di relazioni di buon vicinato. Certo, le relazioni sono difficili fra questi due paesi, dal momento che sussiste anche il trascorso dell'attentato di Bombay e la scarsa collaborazione pakistana nell'identificazione e nella cattura degli autori di quell'attentato. Ma questa vicenda potrebbe essere un elemento di rottura rispetto a cattive abitudini di cattivo vicinato.

Anche alle autorità pakistane chiediamo qualcosa, ovvero maggiore determinazione nel porre questa questione dal punto di vista bilaterale nei loro rapporti con l'India. Vi sono stati recenti incontri bilaterali, dai quali però poco è emerso, forse per una questione di orgoglio da parte pakistana. Certo è che la Cricket diplomacy – enfatizzata dai colleghi parlamentari pakistani, che abbiamo incontrato solo due settimane fa – finora non ha dato risultati significativi.

Infine, è soprattutto all'OMC che chiediamo – come abbiamo fatto a Ginevra nel corso della recente Assemblea interparlamentare – di avviare in tempi brevi dei meccanismi che permettano alle regole del commercio internazionale di rispondere rapidamente e con flessibilità alle urgenze di un paese colpito da improvvisi disastri. Questa storia delle riduzioni delle tariffe può finire in un nulla di fatto oppure aprire una nuova era nelle relazioni commerciali.

  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, this was the worst natural disaster ever to hit Pakistan. We, I am proud to say, reacted fast. Commissioner Georgieva was on the scene, and, when I met with Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, I was certainly able to discuss the EU’s response with him.

One thing was absolutely clear. We needed to think outside the box. We needed to come up with a new solution to provide help. Not only aid but trade was the answer, as a short-term measure to assist.

I am pleased that the committee has approved the report, after much deliberation, and I know, through colleagues from right across the committee, the painstaking work that was done to try and come forward with something that was acceptable. But I am afraid some of the amendments to which the Commission has already made reference take away from the spirit of our initial intentions and the initial way in which we reacted.

At WTO level, objections have been registered to our EU proposal. On the one hand, India says that this should not be a part of the EU-India FTA. I agree. There should not be a link. That is the right approach. But at the same time it is asking for relaxation in trade directly from Pakistan. There is a contradiction in its approach. I ask them to reconsider.

I believe this House should reaffirm the Commission position. We have the guarantee of annual impact assessments.

I hear what colleagues say about their security concerns, but I stand here as somebody who narrowly survived the Mumbai attacks and I say to those colleagues, this is not the time to turn your back on Pakistan. The credibility of the EU is at stake. Give the Commission proposal your support.

  Keith Taylor, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I, like many others in this House, share the concern for, and the sympathy with, the people affected by the terrible floods in Pakistan. I did so at the time and I do now. However, when I look at how the political will has been lacking, how the corporate interests have interfered and how the WTO has procrastinated, what I see before us are recommendations that dilute the original proposals put forward at such short notice by the Commission.

Mention has already been made of the short timescale for the trade preference relaxation, reduced from three years to one year: Pakistan is prevented from maintaining or increasing duties or charges within that time. Moreover, it is proposed to seek not only an annual report on a one-year programme but also quarterly reports on the application and implementation of the measures. This adds up to a huge bureaucracy being created, only to come to an end within one year.

So I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposal, which is Amendment 43, to send this back to the committee so that we can come up with something which will actually deliver the help we want to give to Pakistan. Finally, I think this really does point to the acute need to look at how the WTO works and to transform it into a properly democratic body whose proceedings are transparent and whose members are accountable.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist nun fast ein Jahr vergangen, seit die Bevölkerung Pakistans von verheerenden Überflutungen getroffen wurde. Wir sind ja alle mit den Menschen in diesem leidgeprüften Land sehr eng verbunden.

Der eigentliche Skandal ist doch, dass die Verhandlungen in der WTO sich immer noch hinziehen, und allein das macht deutlich, dass diese Form von Handelserleichterung als Maßnahme der Nothilfe nicht geeignet ist. Meine Fraktion hat die Kommission immer wieder aufgefordert, einen Plan B vorzulegen, um der pakistanischen Bevölkerung rasch und nachhaltig beim Wiederaufbau ihres Landes helfen zu können. Doch eine Alternativlösung wurde nie vorgestellt. Vielleicht ist die Kommission ja einfach nur ideen- oder auch hilflos, weil sie sich durch Widerstände im EU-Rat, die sie sehr genau kennt, gehindert fühlt. Denn sonst muss es ja so scheinen, als würden die schwierigen Verhandlungen in der WTO als Alibi für Tatenlosigkeit genutzt.

Dass diese Verhandlungen schwierig werden, wussten Sie und wir auch schon vorher, wahrscheinlich auch schon als einige Außenminister aus Deutschland und anderen Mitgliedstaaten Sie auf diese Mission geschickt haben. Denn Handelserleichterungen im Bereich Textil, Leder und Ethanol, die Sie Pakistan nun einräumen wollen, würden den APS+-Status unterwandern, den sich Länder wie Bangladesch erworben haben, und zwar im Gegensatz zu Pakistan durch die Ratifizierung wichtiger UN- und ILO-Konventionen zu Arbeiternehmerrechten und Umweltschutz. Gerade dieser Statusvorteil versetzt Bangladesch in die Lage, Vorprodukte aus Pakistan zu importieren, zu verarbeiten und nach Europa zu exportieren. Kein Wunder, dass sich das Land nun wehrt.

Wir können doch nicht allen Ernstes Zustimmung erwarten, wenn wir Pakistan auf Kosten eines der ärmsten Länder der Welt helfen wollen. Wir schaden damit letztlich auch uns selbst, und das am Vorabend der Präsentation des neuen Entwurfs der Kommission zur Revision unseres Systems der Handelspräferenzen.

Mein Fazit lautet deshalb: Stellen Sie direkte Hilfe für den Wiederaufbau nach der Flut in den Vordergrund, handeln Sie umgehend, statt sich in Verhandlungen in Genf zu verlieren! Denn gerade in Pakistan verlieren wir mit jedem weiteren Tag ausgebliebener Hilfeleistung als Europäer Vertrauen und zahlen dafür am Ende einen hohen politischen Preis.

  Claudio Morganti, a nome del gruppo EFD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ritengo questa relazione totalmente inaccettabile. Sono consapevole delle tragiche inondazioni che hanno colpito il Pakistan lo scorso anno e ritengo giusto aiutare questo paese. Mi risulta – e non mi pare poco – che l'Unione europea abbia già messo a disposizione circa mezzo miliardo di euro.

Queste nuove agevolazioni sono assurde poiché si concentrano in un settore – quello del tessile – dominante in Pakistan e distrutto invece in Europa proprio dalla sleale concorrenza dei paesi asiatici. Vogliamo dare il colpo di grazia definitivo al settore tessile europeo? Non è certamente questo l'auspico della Lega, né intendiamo accettarlo.

La concessione di queste deroghe, qualora approvate dal Parlamento, dovrà poi passare al vaglio dell'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio. Sembra che alcuni Stati – tra cui la già citata India, nemica storica del Pakistan – siano disposti a dare il loro assenso, certamente non gratuito ma in cambio della concessione di analoghe condizioni favorevoli da parte dell'Unione europea, orientata ad accogliere queste richieste.

Ho l'impressione che la politica commerciale dell'Unione europea sia dettata dal peggior autolesionismo possibile e mi auguro quindi che questo provvedimento venga totalmente respinto.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Im Jahr 2010 wurde im Nordwesten Pakistans das, was in einigen Regionen nicht durch Krieg und Terrorismus bereits zerstört war, von den Fluten mitgerissen. Neben der Zusage von 415 Millionen Euro Soforthilfe will die EU nun die Zölle für eine Reihe von Produkten aufheben. Nun wird Pakistan bald den langersehnten Status eines Entwicklungslands mit besonderen Zollvorteilen erhalten.

Die EU darf sich allerdings nicht der Illusion hingeben, mit der Gewährung von Handelspräferenzen könnte dem Vormarsch von fundamentalistischen Islamisten und Terroristen im Nuklearstaat Pakistan Einhalt geboten werden. Daran sind die USA schon trotz Milliarden an Militärhilfe gescheitert. Die Treue eines kleinen und überdies schrumpfenden Teils der politischen Führung Pakistans hat sich der Westen also teuer erkauft.

Die US-amerikanische Liquidierung Bin Ladens hat zudem eine Reihe von heiklen Fragen aufgeworfen. Selbst wenn in Pakistan der Aufenthalt des mit internationalem Haftbefehl gesuchten Al-Qaida-Chefs bekannt und somit eine Auslieferung fällig gewesen wäre, ändert das nämlich nichts daran, dass die gezielte Tötung die Souveränität Pakistans verletzt hat. Der Westen darf eigene Grundsätze wie Rechtsstaatlichkeit nicht über Bord werfen. Terroristen, Diktatoren und Massenmörder sind vor Gericht zu stellen und nicht durch gezielte Tötung zu liquidieren.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). - Em primeiro lugar, quero aqui felicitar, em particular, o trabalho do nosso colega do PPE, Mário David, que aqui represento hoje por estar absolutamente impossibilitado de comparecer a este plenário, e queria dizer que nós sempre considerámos que o apoio às vítimas das inundações no Paquistão era um imperativo ético e moral. Por isso, apoiamos fortemente todas as medidas que foram tomadas no sentido da tradicional ajuda humanitária. Consideramos mesmo que se deve continuar a trabalhar no sentido de ajudar a estabilizar a situação de tantos milhões de pessoas afectadas.

O que nós não podemos aceitar é que a política comercial da União Europeia seja agora considerada um instrumento próprio e adequado para a ajuda humanitária. A verdade é que isso traz duas consequências nefastas: uma consequência dentro da União Europeia, em especial para os países do Sul e para a sua indústria têxtil-vestuário, hoje altamente fragilizada por uma crise económica, social e financeira sem paralelo desde a entrada na União e, em segundo lugar, a nível global, nas negociações da OMC, onde esta abertura do maior bloco comercial do mundo, que é a União Europeia, a essas eventuais exportações paquistanesas, pode desequilibrar por completo as negociações. Não é por acaso que elas se encontram no impasse em que se encontram.

É, portanto, natural que perante uma situação destas nós tenhamos que dizer, a propósito da história deste Regulamento e da dificuldade que ele teve neste oito meses de negociações intensas para as quais colaboramos com as propostas mais construtivas, que teremos agora, infelizmente, de tomar uma posição que só é uma posição no sentido de apoiar a alteração que, no fundo, prevê o fim desta proposta de regulamento tal como a conhecemos. Teremos que o fazer neste momento, não por menos solidariedade para com o Paquistão, mas por considerarmos que a ajuda humanitária deve ser dada no local próprio e da forma própria.

  Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, tratar este informe del Parlamento ha sido complejo, principalmente porque ha implicado estas medidas que requieren el visto bueno de la Organización Mundial del Comercio, y así, la propuesta preliminar que la Comisión envió al Parlamento es distinta a la enviada a Ginebra.

Creemos que es necesario ayudar a Pakistán; entendemos que excepcionalmente se pueden conceder unas preferencias comerciales siempre que tengan en cuenta las sensibilidades de la industria europea, y de forma muy especial del sector textil, que en regiones como la Comunidad Valenciana, en España, sufre severamente las consecuencias de la crisis.

Pero este informe nos ha permitido comprobar que, probablemente, las medidas que se pueden tomar dentro del marco del comercio internacional no se pueden tratar con la urgencia que necesitan estos actos, por lo que deberíamos aprender para el futuro.

Ayudar a Pakistán, sí; pero no con la propuesta original de la Comisión, ya que no tiene en cuenta los efectos para la industria europea en cuanto a los plazos de aplicación para los productos sensibles, e incluso retrasaría la aplicación de estas medidas por no coincidir con el texto pendiente de aprobación por la OMC: estaríamos fuera de plazo.

Por lo tanto, consideramos que es inaceptable mantener esta propuesta y pensamos que tendremos que votar que no.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, com esta proposta de regulamento estamos, uma vez mais, perante um claro e lamentável exercício de hipocrisia por parte da Comissão. Um exercício de hipocrisia que consiste em trazer para o âmbito da ajuda humanitária o que se situa no âmbito estrito dos interesses comerciais de alguns, do negócio puro e simples. Um exercício de hipocrisia que utiliza a catástrofe natural que se abateu sobre o Paquistão para fazer vingar pretensões de há muito de alguns grandes grupos económicos das potências da União Europeia.

Hoje, a justificação é a ajuda humanitária ao Paquistão. Ontem, era a ajuda à luta contra o terrorismo. Ontem, como hoje, a verdadeira intenção é só uma: obter concessões comerciais que beneficiam sobretudo os grande importadores europeus. E assim é, por mais que o relatório da Comissão do Comércio Internacional queira vir agora dourar a pílula com vãs salvaguardas que não alteram o essencial.

Estas cedências comerciais, como reconhece o próprio relatório, irão prejudicar a indústria têxtil da União Europeia e os países e regiões dela mais dependentes. Se este impacto seria sempre grave num sector já muito debilitado – profundamente atingido como foi pela liberalização do comércio mundial – que se concentra em regiões com elevados níveis de desemprego, de pobreza e de exclusão e reduzida diversificação económica, mais grave se torna quando estas regiões se situam em Estados-Membros como é o caso de Portugal, confrontados com uma gravíssima crise económica e social que poderá ser agravada brevemente pela ilegítima intervenção do FMI e da União Europeia, em preparação.

Recordo que, em Portugal, a Assembleia da República aprovou por unanimidade uma resolução contra estas cedências comerciais. Exigem-se medidas de defesa do sector têxtil europeu e do respectivo emprego. Neste domínio nada vemos por parte da Comissão.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il regolamento oggi in discussione, sotto le mentite spoglie della solidarietà, consuma in realtà l'ennesimo tradimento dell'Europa ai danni dei suoi cittadini.

Non possiamo accettare che l'UE danneggi ulteriormente settori quali il tessile che – in paesi come l'Italia, ma non solo – sono di alta qualità e che dovremmo tutelare in tutti i modi dalla concorrenza sleale di paesi come Cina, Turchia, India, Vietnam e Pakistan, in cui la manodopera viene sfruttata a bassissimo costo e dove non esistono le garanzie minime di rispetto dei diritti sociali. È in questi paesi che molte grandi imprese europee hanno delocalizzato la propria produzione a scapito di posti di lavoro in Europa.

È per giunta incomprensibile che non si sia atteso nemmeno di conoscere il parere dell'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio su questo provvedimento. Intanto però l'Europa ha di fatto dimostrato di impegnarsi sempre al massimo quando si tratta di agire contro gli interessi dei suoi cittadini e delle sue industrie di qualità. Spero vivamente che il regolamento sia respinto in sede di votazione.

  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, προφανώς και υποστηρίζω την παροχή ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας εκ μέρους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο βαθμό του δυνατού. Αντιλαμβάνομαι το σκεπτικό της Επιτροπής για την παροχή βοήθειας με τη μορφή των μονομερών εμπορικών παραχωρήσεων υπέρ του Πακιστάν. Ωστόσο, δεν μπορώ να συμφωνήσω με τις προτάσεις της Επιτροπής σύμφωνα με τις οποίες, καλούνται να σηκώσουν το βάρος, ως επί το πλείστον, δύο βιομηχανικοί τομείς της Ένωσης, δηλαδή η κλωστοϋφαντουργία και η βιοαιθανόλη.

Επισημαίνω ότι η ευρωπαϊκή κλωστοϋφαντουργία δέχθηκε οξύτατες πιέσεις, τα τελευταία έτη, συνεπεία της απελευθέρωσης του εμπορίου στο πλαίσια του Παγκοσμίου Οργανισμού Εμπορίου.

Κυρίες και κύριου συνάδελφοι, υπήρξα βουλευτής, επί τέσσερεις θητείες, μιας περιφέρειας της οποίας μια περιοχή, η Νάουσα, γνωρίζει σήμερα ένα από τους υψηλότερους δείκτες ανεργίας σε όλη την Ευρώπη, και αυτό οφείλεται στις επιπτώσεις της παγκοσμιοποίησης στην κλωστοϋφαντουργία. Όσον αφορά τη βιοαιθανόλη, τονίζω τις σημαντικές επενδύσεις που έχουν πραγματοποιηθεί στην Ένωση για τη νεότευκτη αυτή βιομηχανία. Δεν πρέπει να μας διαφεύγει το γεγονός, ότι πρόκειται για δύο βιομηχανικούς κλάδους όπου το Πακιστάν εμφανίζεται ιδιαιτέρως ανταγωνιστικό. Επιπλέον, οι εν λόγω παραχωρήσεις δεν συνδέονται με μία ρήτρα αιρεσιμότητας (conditionality) όπως θα ίσχυε σε περίπτωση που αναγνωριζόταν στο Πακιστάν καθεστώς GSP+ (Σύστημα Γενικευμένων Προτιμήσεων+). Τέλος, θα ήθελα να ρωτήσω κατά πόσον οι εν λόγω παραχωρήσεις θα ωφελήσουν τους ίδιους τους πλημμυροπαθείς κατοίκους του Πακιστάν. Επιτρέψτε μου να αμφιβάλω! Και για να μετρηθούν οι αγαθές προθέσεις, εδώ μέσα, αντιπροτείνω να γίνουν παραχωρήσεις σε άλλα βιομηχανικά προϊόντα. Γιατί συγκεκριμένα στην κλωστοϋφαντουργία; Θα ήμασταν εξίσου χρήσιμοι έναντι των πλημμυροπαθών του Πακιστάν. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, θα πρέπει τουλάχιστον να περιορισθούν η χρονική διάρκεια και το εύρος των παραχωρήσεων και να προβλέπονται μέτρα διασφάλισης όπως προτείνεται με τις τροπολογίες της Ομάδας του ΕΛΚ.

  Bernd Lange (S&D). - Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Wir sind alle der Überzeugung, dass wir den Menschen in Pakistan helfen müssen, aber das Instrument, das Sie vorschlagen, Herr Kommissar, ist falsch – aus drei Gründen.

Zum einen ist überhaupt nicht nachzuweisen, dass Handelserleichterungen den von der Flut betroffenen Menschen zugute kommen. Im Gegenteil, man kann sogar feststellen, dass die Textilindustrie in Pakistan in anderen Regionen zuhause ist und in dem letzten Jahr sogar noch einen Zuwachs erwirtschaftet hat. Dieser Industriesektor ist also gar nicht real betroffen! Wie man dann mit Handelserleichterungen den Menschen, die von der Flut betroffen sind, helfen will, erschließt sich mir nicht.

Zweitens: Ich kann nicht nachvollziehen, dass man einem Land, das den Bedingungen von APS+ bei den Sozial- und Umweltstandards explizit nicht entspricht, jetzt diese Erleichterungen gewährt und anderen Ländern, die diese Bedingungen erfüllen, wie Bangladesch, signalisiert: Im Grunde sind eure Anstrengungen gar nicht erwünscht, es geht auch anders.

Und das dritte Argument, Herr Kommissar: Dies ist kein solidarischer Ansatz, weil die Belastungen in Europa nur einseitig von bestimmten Sektoren und von bestimmten Ländern getragen werden. Wenn wir etwas machen wollen, dann sollten wir das solidarisch mit allen Ländern, mit der Beteiligung aller machen, und das heißt, wir brauchen direkte Hilfe für die Flutopfer! Das wäre der richtige Weg.

  Paweł Zalewski (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Wyrazy współczucia należą się wszystkim ofiarom tej straszliwej katastrofy i dlatego dobrze, że Unia Europejska natychmiast pospieszyła z pomocą humanitarną. Przyszłość Pakistanu jest kluczowa dla świata i Europy, to ważny kraj w kontekście walki z terroryzmem, a także kraj będący źródłem istotnej emigracji do Unii Europejskiej.

Niestety do tej pory Unia Europejska nie przedstawiła żadnej koncepcji polityki wobec Pakistanu. Propozycja preferencji handlowych Unii nie realizuje żadnego celu. Komisja nie potrafiła uwiarygodnić zasadności jej użycia, w żaden sposób nie stało się to podczas posiedzenia Komisji Handlu Zagranicznego. Ta propozycja nie służy powodzianom, nie wpływa także istotnie na rozwój tego kraju. Unia Europejska ma dwa istotne, bardzo ważne interesy w relacjach z Pakistanem: po pierwsze, walka z terroryzmem; po drugie, rozwój gospodarczy tego państwa, którego podstawą powinna być, jak wszędzie, praworządność. Dlatego zamiast propozycji, które nie realizują żadnego celu potrzebne jest przygotowanie poważnej, bardzo szerokiej oferty współpracy gospodarczej i pomocy gospodarczej, która powinna mieć charakter warunkowy.

Jeżeli Pakistan chce pogłębienia współpracy z Unią Europejską powinien pokazać, że realnie współpracuje w walce z terroryzmem oraz rozwija rządy prawa. Wtedy szeroki program pomocy ma sens; szeroki, a nie ograniczony do jednej czy dwóch branż gospodarki. Przedstawiona propozycja – raz jeszcze powtarzam – niczego nie rozwiązuje, dlatego uważam, że powinna być odrzucona. Wzywam panią Ashton, aby przedstawiła przemyślaną, warunkową koncepcję współpracy z Pakistanem.

  David Martin (S&D). - Mr President, it is now eight months since the Council proposed a sensible package of measures to help Pakistan following the devastating flooding. I regret that, eight months later, we are still debating it and not implementing it.

Let us ask why we needed this package. There is a difference between aid and what is contained in this trade package. Aid, of course, is very important to Pakistan, but the idea of this trade package was to provide an incentive to entrepreneurs to start rebuilding factories and reinvesting in the textile and other industries that were literally swept away by the flooding. It is not true to say that the textile industry was not impacted by the flooding. It is true that the centre of much of the textile industry is elsewhere than the flooded area but a lot of the support packages for the textile industry were in flooded areas, as was a lot of the textile industry.

This would have given an incentive to rebuild the textile industry by demonstrating there was a market for their products. Unfortunately, our response has been very curmudgeonly. I can certainly support the idea of having a safeguard clause, but it would be better to do nothing at all than to do this for only one year. One year will not give the space for the investment that is necessary.

I also regret that India has been less than supportive in the WTO but I hope, as Mr Rinaldi mentioned, that the so-called cricket diplomacy is going to lead to a solution and that India will recognise that, both on humanitarian grounds and in the interests of security, it is important to help Pakistan create jobs and investment in the future.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Pán predseda, pán komisár, vidím, že na tejto téme je naša snemovňa rozdelená, ale napriek tomu a napriek názoru mojich kolegov ja súhlasím s tým, čo predložila Rada.

Ako členka Výboru pre rozvoj by som chcela zdôrazniť práve tento aspekt. Okamžitá finančná, humanitárna pomoc je pri katastrofách ako bola v Pakistane potrebná, samotná však nestačí. Najúčinnejšie podporíme rozvoj tak, že umožníme ľuďom, aby si pomohli sami. Vítam preto zrušenie colných bariér – aj keď len prechodné – a ja verím, že práve toto prechodné obdobie môže pomôcť vyhodnotiť proces, ktorý Komisia navrhuje, a možno následne, ak sa tento proces a tento prístup osvedčia, by som prehodnotila definíciu rozvojovej pomoci Európskej únie. Ak niečo ohrozuje textilný trh v Európe, je to predovšetkým Čína, a nie Pakistan.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Aşa cum au spus unii din colegii noştri, aţi observat că argumentează că acordarea unor preferinţe comerciale speciale acordate Pakistanului nu ar fi o soluţie potrivită pentru a ajuta victimele inundaţiilor, deoarece nu consideră comerţul un instrument potrivit pentru a reacţiona în astfel de situaţii de urgenţă. Sunt de acord, este posibil ca acordarea de preferinţe comerciale să nu-i ajute în mod direct pe oamenii care au suferit în urma inundaţiilor, însă, prin măsuri complementare ajutorului umanitar, putem să contribuim la redresarea economică a Pakistanului. De altfel, comerţul internaţional şi ajutorul umanitar nu sunt două domenii complet opuse. Există practic o complementaritate între toate politicile Uniunii Europene, iar atunci când oferim preferinţe comerciale ţărilor în curs de dezvoltare, nu facem acest lucru strict din motive pragmatice, comerciale, ci pentru a ne manifesta solidaritatea cu aceste state.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the images of last summer’s flooding in Pakistan were indeed shocking, and the European Union rightly sought to implement aid measures to assist the millions of Pakistanis whose lives were devastated by this terrible disaster.

Humanitarian aid should be disbursed without political strings. However, emergency trade preferences are a politically controversial measure, both in the context of Pakistan and the region. The presence of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan has now once again exposed Pakistan’s ambivalent approach towards fighting terrorism.

So, speaking personally, I am concerned that these emergency trade preferences will appear to reward the Pakistani Government for its lack of action in this respect. I am also worried that secular, democratic Bangladesh, also a country prone to flooding, will suffer as a consequence in terms of unfair competition, and it too is heavily dependent on textiles.

This is a well-meaning measure, and of course I fully accept that, but it is one we need to consider extremely carefully, given all the things that I have outlined in my brief speech.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Der vorliegende Entwurf ist ein Anschlag auf die europäische Textilindustrie, da brauchen wir gar nicht darüber zu reden. Aber lassen Sie mich auch einen humanitären Aspekt einbringen: Weitgehende Zollbefreiungen muss man zwingend an die Einhaltung der Menschenrechte koppeln. Ich denke dabei an christliche Minderheiten, an Frauenrechte. Besonders gravierend ist das Blasphemiegesetz in Pakistan: Wer Mohammed beleidigt, wird zum Tod verurteilt. Fundamentalismus breitet sich in Pakistan quer durch alle gesellschaftlichen Schichten aus, das ist sogar unter den Studenten der renommierten Islamic International University festzustellen.

Dem Argument, mit Handelsvorteilen Wohlstand zu fördern und Radikalismus zu bekämpfen, glauben Sie ja offensichtlich selber nicht. Die EU kann nicht einfach Handelsvorteile einräumen und dabei wichtige grundrechtliche Fragen ausblenden bzw. deren Einhaltung nicht einfordern.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I speak as Chair of the delegation which covers Pakistan, and I must say that some real crocodile tears have been shed here tonight by people expressing views which are about 180 degrees away from those they normally express.

When we have discussed this issue here in the past, we have been assured by the Commission that the items in question have been carefully assessed to ensure they do not clash with EU exports. Has this changed? We have been asked: why textiles from Pakistan? The answer is: because textiles are a major export for them. You cannot expect them to conjure up something within a few months.

We too had our doubts about the potential effect of this measure in the flood-stricken areas. We raised this matter when we were in Pakistan, and we heard directly from Members of Parliament there that the measure would be of benefit to industry in their constituencies, so I really think that we should consider the message we send if we do not support this measure.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would like to apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate, but I was only just arriving from Brussels by plane and you were – how shall I put it? – in advance of the schedule, which is very laudable, but which resulted in my being a little bit late.

I have taken notice of all the speeches that have been made on this report. I would simply like to stress a couple of points. First, we are not discussing an FTA. It seems to me that a lot of speeches start from the assumption that this is a kind of FTA with all the elements that go with it. For example, the problem of social conditionality, of sustainability as we call it, should not be considered here because this is very clearly a measure that is limited in time.

Secondly, we are not discussing the GSP either. We will do that in the near future and then there will be the discussion as to which countries can be included and which not.

No, this is a proposal that the European Commission has made with respect to the massive flooding in Pakistan, time-bound for two years, with the possibility of its being continued for another year.

Let me also say that the amendment to limit it to one year, honestly speaking, to my mind does not make much sense: it would be better for you simply to vote against it.

Why have we not yet come to a conclusion, and why is this argument being used now, when about a year has already elapsed since the flooding took place? It is simply because we have just introduced this request for a waiver with the WTO, but within the WTO we face serious problems with the neighbours of Pakistan. I do not think I have to name them. We tried to find a solution. I think we were moving in the right direction and we will have to see in the coming weeks what the impact may possibly be of what has recently been happening in Pakistan.

But there we are in the hands of the WTO as to whether or not we get a waiver, and this waiver can only be obtained by unanimity, so we cannot force this within the WTO. We can only try to do our best to get it through.

I would also like to say that I am not talking, as one of the previous speakers has done, about crocodile tears and hypocrisy and so on. That is not up to me to say, but let us say in a very neutral way that what has been said tonight is not necessarily consistent with what has been said in the past. It is not because time has elapsed and that we have not yet got a waiver that the argument as such has changed.

Since the beginning there has been a discussion as to whether or not this was directly in favour of the people struck by the flooding. It is partially, yes. Since the beginning it has been said that there should also be humanitarian aid. There has been humanitarian aid up to EUR 480 million so the arguments have not changed and I really do not see the merit in us now, all of a sudden, switching to another direction.

We have taken notice of the problems that can arise with the European textile industry, and with the ethanol industry. There is a safeguard clause proposed that is, I think, sufficient to counter possible problems that might arise, so this is fairly clear and you are either in favour of it or against it. The Commission is in favour of it and I think that, both from the point of view of the economic development of Pakistan and from the point of view of the security issues that are certainly linked with Pakistan, it would be a major mistake on the part of the European Parliament not to take up this responsibility and vote this down.

  Vital Moreira, relator. − Senhor Presidente, bem-vindo ao Comissário De Gucht, embora com um pequeno atraso que nós compreendemos, mas penso que ainda há tempo de exprimir as posições finais da Comissão.

Como relator acidental e, mais uma vez, malgré moi, deste relatório, permitam-me apenas duas observações. A primeira é que esta discussão mostrou tanta ou maior divisão sobre esta matéria do que na própria Comissão do Comércio Internacional, e a segunda é que o mérito das propostas aprovadas na Comissão do Comércio Internacional, algumas das quais a Comissão Europeia considera não concludentes... o plenário amanhã decidirá sobre o mérito dessas propostas e das objecções da Comissão.

Permitam-me apenas duas observações finais. Há duas coisas de que o Parlamento e a Comissão do Comércio Internacional não podem ser acusadas. Primeiro, de ter tentado bloquear esta matéria, apesar de estar dependente de um waiver da Organização Mundial do Comércio e de, na verdade, estarmos a votar sobre uma matéria que pode ser inutilizada por falta dessa derrogação. A verdade é que a Comissão do Comércio Internacional decidiu avançar apesar disso.

Em segundo lugar, nós tomámos em consideração todas as alterações supervenientes da Comissão, porque a Comissão – que é o órgão e instituição que tem a reserva da iniciativa legislativa – apresentou a sua proposta, mas depois os termos do pedido do waiver apresentado à Organização Mundial do Comércio não coincidem com a proposta que a Comissão apresentou no Parlamento. E depois sobreveio também o compromisso do Conselho, que também difere da proposta inicial da Comissão.

A Comissão do Comércio Internacional não fez questão de nenhuma dessas coisas como obstáculo a tomar nas suas mãos a discussão e a votação desta matéria e tomou em conta todas estas alterações supervenientes, quer por parte da Comissão quer por parte do Conselho.

  Πρόεδρος. - Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί την Τρίτη 10 Μαΐου 2011.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 149)

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE) , na piśmie. – Kwestie związane z Pakistanem nie należą do pozbawionych kontrowersji nawet w odniesieniu do udzielenia mu pomocy po klęsce żywiołowej. W przypadku nadzwyczajnych autonomicznych preferencji handlowych dla Pakistanu ważne jest wprowadzenie klauzuli zabezpieczającej na wypadek zakłóceń w handlu wynikających ze zniesienia taryf. Powinniśmy uwzględnić także nasze interesy handlowe i zadbać o nie w aspekcie długofalowym poprzez optymalne ustalenie ich okresu obowiązywania i warunków, jakie spełnić musi Pakistan. Powódź, która w katastrofalny sposób dotknęła Pakistan latem 2010 r., w bardzo negatywny sposób wpłynęła na gospodarkę tego kraju. EU chce wspomóc Pakistan poprzez przyczynienie się do odbudowy tego kraju w sferze gospodarczej. W związku z faktem, że Pakistan ze względu na swoje geostrategiczne położenie ma niezwykle istotne zadanie dla bezpieczeństwa EU, powinniśmy zrobić wszystko, co w naszej mocy, aby ustabilizować sytuacje w tym kraju. Zapobiegniemy w ten sposób radykalizacji nastrojów w Pakistanie. Stabilniejsza gospodarka zawsze idzie w parze z bardziej demokratycznym społeczeństwem i odwrotem od antydemokratycznych radykalnych ruchów społecznych. Nasza decyzja da jednoznaczny znak Pakistanowi, że chcemy pomóc i pragniemy, aby Pakistan stał się krajem stabilnym i bogatym, co zapobiegnie radykalizacji postaw na jego terenach. Jestem zdania, że taki Pakistan, jako nasz sojusznik mógłby również przyczynić się do rozwiązania patowej sytuacji w Afganistanie.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE) , par écrit. – Je soutiens le principe d'aider le Pakistan à relancer son économie suite aux inondations de juillet 2010. Toutefois, je considère que la proposition faite par la Commission n'est pas adaptée et ce pour plusieurs raisons. Tout d'abord, ce n'est pas une solution assez rapide : presque un an après le sinistre, nous n'avons aucun signe favorable de la dérogation que l'Union doit obtenir de l'OMC avant de faire entrer en vigueur sa proposition, nous n'avons pas terminé notre travail de législateur et il reste encore à passer l'étape des négociations au Conseil. Ensuite, aucune étude d'impact n'a été conduite et nous ne connaissons pas les effets de ces mesures, que ce soit sur l'économie pakistanaise ou sur l'économie européenne (en particulier les secteurs du textile et de l'éthanol, spécialement visés par la proposition). On ne sait pas non plus comment le Pakistan redistribuera les revenus des exportations bénéficiant de ces mesures afin qu'ils profitent véritablement aux régions qui ont souffert des inondations. Enfin, il faut noter que les mesures proposées n'imposent aucune obligation au Pakistan en termes de droits de l'homme. Ceci va à contre-courant de toutes les positions adoptées récemment et doit rester exceptionnel.