Istungi stenogramm

Teisipäev, 27. september 2011 - Strasbourg

5. Infotund (komisjon)

  President. − The next item is Question Time. This is the second new format Question Time, an experimental process, and I am going to read a brief instruction. The topic is EU trade and third country relations. I will interpret this topic as widely as possible but I should warn you that if your question is off topic and deals, for example, with the common agricultural policy, you are liable to be cut off. I would also like to remind you of the ground rules which have been agreed for this new formula. Each Member has one minute to put his or her question, and 30 seconds for a supplementary after the Commissioner’s reply. The Commission has two minutes to reply if only one Commissioner is to be responsible for answering, and if more than one Commissioner is to reply, each Commissioner has one minute speaking time.

We welcome this morning Commissioner De Gucht, our former colleague, Mr Piebalgs, Mrs Georgieva and Mr Füle.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE). - Herr talman! Jag har en fråga till De Gucht. Jag vill veta på vilket sätt han tänker utnyttja relationer mellan länderna, alltså handelsrelationer, för att försäkra sig om att det främjar även säkerhetsfrågorna.

Vi ser att handeln ibland utnyttjas både i krigssyfte och som ett sätt att säkra freden. Det har vi sett i vissa delar av Europa och även i Östeuropa. Har vi någon plan för hur vi kan utnyttja handeln för att främja demokrati och säkra freden i oroliga konfliktområden?

  President. − Before Mr De Gucht answers, could I suggest to colleagues and to my colleagues here on the bench that, once a questioner has been identified, the staff acknowledge this so that you do not have to keep waving.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − I thought they were waving at me.

I believe that trade can contribute to peace but of course more trade does not automatically result in a more peaceful environment. We believe, for example, that trade could play a very important role in the next stages of the Arab Spring, and we will consider next month negotiating directives for free trade agreements with the four countries concerned: Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt, so we will continue in that way.

You could say exactly the same about the African countries. For example, I firmly believe that the EPAs could contribute a great deal to regional integration in Africa; regional integration is probably one of the important factors also for more peace and stability in Africa.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE). - Herr talman! Jag håller fullständig med kommissionsledamoten.

Detta är precis det svar jag ville höra: ni pratade om främjande och hur handel kan främja en säkerhetssituation, men har ni också planer på att införa någon form av straff för att avskräcka från handel med vissa länder som betyder en säkerhetsrisk för vissa områden?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − We keep that in mind, of course, when we negotiate free trade agreements. Obviously we would not continue negotiations with a country where there is, for example, a revolution. To give you a very recent example, we had negotiations with Libya on a cooperation agreement and, as soon as the problems occurred in Libya, we immediately stopped those negotiations. We are now considering how we can take up those negotiations again now that the situation in Libya has changed.

  Thijs Berman (S&D). - Voorzitter, ik heb twee vragen. De eerste vraag is aan commissaris De Gucht. Er zijn nog steeds buitengewoon verontrustende berichten uit Colombia, over de mensenrechtensituatie in de regio's in Colombia. Nog steeds worden mensenrechtenactivisten, advocaten, vakbondsmensen vermoord in dat land.

Ik zou denken dat er hier, voordat we overgaan tot ratificatie van het vrijhandelsakkoord met Colombia, eerst werkelijke verbetering moet worden geboekt. Ondanks beloftes van president Santos, met wie we vorig jaar gesproken hebben – of sommigen van ons – is de situatie nog steeds niet echt significant verbeterd. Ik zou willen dat u daar iets over zei, een toezegging kon doen.

Mijn andere vraag is aan commissaris Georgieva over linking relief, rehabilitation and development (?). Ik zou graag willen dat u ons uiteenzette hoe u nu de verbetering ziet in die essentiële verbinding tussen aan de ene kant noodhulp, aan de andere kant ontwikkelingsbeleid. Misschien kan de heer Piebalgs daar ook iets over zeggen, je weet nooit.

  Karel De Gucht, Lid van de Commissie. − Collega Berman, u weet dat wij een akkoord hebben gesloten met Colombia. Ik schat dat dit ergens in het volgend jaar aan het Europees Parlement wordt voorgelegd en dat u zich dan daarover zal moeten uitspreken.

Het is mijn persoonlijke overtuiging dat dit akkoord kan helpen om de vrede in Colombia te stabiliseren, dat, met andere woorden, de economische vooruitgang die eruit zou moeten voortvloeien, een positieve bijdrage kan leveren. Ik weet dat er problemen zijn met mensenrechten. Trouwens in het akkoord staat uitdrukkelijk dat de naleving van de mensenrechten één van de substantiële elementen is van het akkoord en dat wij, wanneer wij tot de vaststelling zouden komen en ú tot de vaststelling zou komen dat deze mensenrechten op een systematische manier worden geschonden, het akkoord onmiddellijk kunnen stopzetten, zelfs zonder daar een verdere motivering voor te geven.

Samengevat, ik denk dat dit akkoord een positieve bijdrage kan betekenen. Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat de regering van Colombia te goeder trouw is in haar pogingen om de mensenrechtenschendingen te beperken en uit te roeien. Ik ben er ook van overtuigd dat wanneer zich problemen zouden voordoen, wij de juiste middelen in het akkoord hebben opgenomen om daar iets aan te doen.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. − We have made linking relief, rehabilitation and development a priority for cooperation with Commissioner Piebalgs. The way we approach it is at three levels: a strategy level, an operational modalities level and then a country-specific level.

Strategically, we launched a high-level dialogue on humanitarian action in development in Washington just a couple of days ago, and made a commitment to link the work we do in protracted-crisis and in disaster-prone countries – some 30 countries in the world fall into this category – in order to make that a strategic area for collaboration.

In terms of instruments, we are looking at how we can better align the instruments we have on the humanitarian side, which work fast, with instruments on the development side, which sometimes require more time. We will be making appropriate proposals in this area.

I will give two examples at the country-specific level: Côte d’Ivoire, where after the crisis we committed EUR 60 million for relief and EUR 180 million for development, viewing those operations in synergy; and the Horn of Africa, where very clearly we need to do more to build resilience in the countries concerned.

  Thijs Berman (S&D). - Commissaris De Gucht, ik had vorige week een dame in mijn kantoor. Zij had vijftien jaar geleden met zestig andere mensenrechtenactivisten in haar stad een NGO opgericht voor de bescherming van de mensenrechten. Van die zestig mensen zijn er in die vijftien jaar 42 vermoord. Zijzelf heeft drie kogels in haar lichaam gehad en heeft dat overleefd. De anderen zijn gevlucht. Ze is nu nog de enige in haar stad. Tegen zo iemand kun je niet zeggen: we moeten dat akkoord maar gewoon tekenen. Je zult de leverage moeten gebruiken die je hebt voordat het akkoord werkelijk wordt geratificeerd.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Actually it was about linking relief and development. When we talk about Somalia we should remember that Mali and Niger have also been affected. We have actually already used this cooperation between the humanitarian aid services and development services to anticipate that challenge. In Mali and Niger, because of our common work, we can manage or diminish considerably the risk of famine there.

As regards Colombia, I think the question Mr Berman has asked is very challenging because when you commit you need to analyse all elements of the relations with the country and the processes of the country. For this reason I think that, when we enter into relations of whatever kind in the future, all the aspects should be analysed before we go in. We are doing this in development policy with regard to which aid modality to use.

  Fiona Hall (ALDE). - Mr President, I understand that the Commission is currently challenging Canada at the WTO over Ontario Province’s use of local content requirements for renewable energy sources. I very much welcome that, because an open global market for green goods is vital for EU manufacturers, but I am concerned to hear that Ukraine recently ratified Law No 8231, which also introduces local content requirement of 50% for wind and for solar.

Will the Commission also be challenging this at the WTO and will it be raising it in the context of the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement? Surely this move by Ukraine contravenes the competition and regulatory convergence chapters which are in that agreement?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − It is a fact of life that Ukraine has been introducing legislation under which the local content for wind turbines would go down to 15% as of 1 January 2012 and then rise again to 30% in 2013, and to 50% in 2014.

Obviously, this is unacceptable to us. We are, as you know, in a negotiating round with Ukraine on a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement (DCFTA), and one of the main elements of that agreement is that policies would be modelled on EU directives. The EU directive concerned relates to public procurement and says very clearly that, unless justified by the subject matter of the contract, technical specifications shall not refer to a specific make or source or a specific origin or production with the effect of favouring or eliminating certain undertakings or certain products. This means that once the DCFTA is concluded – in any case as regards the European Union – Ukraine will not be in a position to uphold that legislation.

  Fiona Hall (ALDE). - Thank you for that helpful response. I wonder whether Commissioner Füle has anything to say on the Ukraine agreement, given his recent comments about the charges against Tymoshenko.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − I have nothing to add to what I have said already on that particular issue. Of course the DCFTA negotiation is part of the association agreement. It is ongoing, not in a political vacuum but very much based on the values that are at the centre of our relationship. In my recent discussions with the Ukraine authorities, I used the opportunity to make that link between the new contractual arrangement that we are ready to engage in, on the one side, and, on the other side, Ukrainians delivering on fundamental rights: freedom, the rule of law and justice.

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). - Mr President, Commissioners Georgieva and De Gucht will recall putting forward a very comprehensive package to assist Pakistan following the flooding which took place there some time ago. We are, of course, now witnessing a repetition of what happened previously, but the initial package that we put in place is still blocked at the WTO. I note that there is a trade delegation from Pakistan visiting India today for official negotiations and I understand that the Indians are due to put forward a proposal whereby they would withdraw their objections at WTO level.

Is that something that you would push for and congratulate the Indians on and welcome their support if that was to happen today?

Secondly, in the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday, the EU-India Free Trade Agreement was due to be raised. Was it raised and if it was, what was said?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − As you know, we have asked the WTO for a waiver with respect to the measures that we have proposed to alleviate the serious problems that Pakistan faced last year and is facing again. We also have ‘information’ whereby India would now be prepared to lift its veto. I hope this will come about. Then, of course, the discussion would have to be pursued here in this Parliament as to whether or not we vote on the proposals that we have put forward, because there will still need to be then a decision from Parliament.

On the FTA, yes, we discussed this yesterday in the Foreign Affairs Council. I mentioned that we are facing quite a lot of problems with these negotiations, be it with respect to wine and spirits, services or cars, but I also stressed that we are continuing to negotiate and that we will insist in our contacts with the Indian authorities at the highest level – this will of course be through Mr Barroso – that the negotiations are completed by the next summit.

I do not know whether Ms Georgieva wants to add anything.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. − I would just like to confirm that the floods this year are very severe. We have increased humanitarian assistance from EUR 76 million to 86 million because of these floods. In my meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, she did bring up the question of alleviating constraints to free trade as another way to help people in a very difficult situation. I would of course welcome that from a humanitarian perspective.

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). - Mr President, I thank the Commissioners for the rather comprehensive answers that they have provided. The EU-India Free Trade Agreement has now been ongoing for some considerable time. Whilst we are extremely ambitious about what we are seeking to achieve, what sort of time frame can this Parliament now start to expect? Is there a fuller role that we, as parliamentarians, can play to try and bring about a successful conclusion to those negotiations?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − At the last EU-India summit, Prime Minister Singh declared that his vision was for an accord by the next summit, which will be next February. I hope that by then we will be in a position to conclude the negotiations, but of course it will be very important to achieve the necessary level of ambition.

  Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE). - Two weeks ago the plenary held a vote on the Doha resolution, in which the amendments of the ALDE Group were rejected. Those ALDE amendments were the very reflection of the position of DG TRADE, namely to regard any kind of LDC package delivery at the December WTO Ministerial as a mere down payment and to ask WTO members to agree on a roadmap for reaching agreement on all outstanding Doha issues. Instead, Parliament’s resolution gives a clear message to close up the Doha negotiations now in order to pave the way for WTO reform. Can you tell us how the Commission will adjust its Doha strategy in light of those Parliament positions on how you will take our position into account?

I have a second question on the FTA with India as well. Since it now seems it will continue for the next year, will you have any new strategy, or any change in strategy, in case a conclusion cannot be reached by February? Are you just going to continue or are you going to come up with an alternative package?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Firstly, I will consider the latter question next February. I will then see what happens and what our next steps should be. It is very difficult to answer hypothetical questions. It is certainly very dangerous in politics.

With respect to Parliament’s resolution of last month, we tried to find a solution for Doha. We have repeatedly tried to make proposals so that we could have a final decision on the Doha package. We have made interim proposals with respect to the industrial sectors, chemicals, machinery and microelectronics, but you need two to tango. We simply could not reach an agreement. I have to come to the conclusion that, for the time being, the US are out of business with respect to the Doha negotiations.

Pascal Lamy has been putting forward an interim package for December. Unfortunately, I think that there again we will fail, not because we have not been making proposals – we have been making numerous proposals – but simply because we cannot reach an agreement on that. That is where we are. We tried to find a way out and it is extremely difficult.

  Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE). - Sorry, but you did not really answer my question. The question was: how will the Commission adjust its Doha strategy in the run up to the December Ministerial to take account of Parliament’s position as expressed in its recently adopted Doha resolution? How will you take account of our position in your new strategy, which you will now have to revise, because we did not apparently agree with your original strategy?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − That is what we have been doing ever since. We are trying to find a way out and have been putting proposals on the table for a package in December as a step up to a final conclusion on the Doha Round. We cannot find agreement around the table, although I think you would agree with the measures that we have been proposing such as, for example multilateralising the ‘everything but arms’ legislation that we have already had for some time in the European Union. We have of course taken note of Parliament’s resolution, but we also have to adapt our strategy regarding the evolution on the international scene.

  Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL). - I have a question for Commissioner De Gucht. I have just been appointed as a European Parliament standing rapporteur on trade relations with China, as well as on relations between the EU and Ecuador and Bolivia. I would like to ask you two questions regarding these two complexes.

Firstly, what is your projection for the development of trade relations between the EU and China by the year 2020, and what are the current issues, or even agreements, in EU-China trade talks?

Secondly, you informed yesterday’s Council on Foreign Affairs and Trade that the multiparty agreement with Colombia and Peru remains open for signature by Ecuador and Bolivia. Do you want those two countries to simply sign the negotiated text which is, as you well know, subject to well-founded criticism from trade unions and a number of economists?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Members will understand that it is difficult to reply in two minutes on what our trade relations with China will be in 2020. Having said that, I believe that you will see a situation evolving between the European Union, China, the United States and the other emerging economies – and by 2020 there will also be other emerging economies – that is more and more multipolar, with everybody then having to take up their responsibilities. You cannot be one of the biggest economies in the world – and by 2020 we could very well be the biggest – and not take up responsibility for the global functioning of the world trading system. So I am not desperate about this, or even negative about it. I think we can find a way out.

Secondly, on the agreement with Colombia and Peru, it is true that the agreement is open for accession by Ecuador and Bolivia. We realised that if they were ready to do so – and at least for one of them we have signs in that direction – some further discussions would of course be needed. However, I am sure that Mr Scholz will agree with me that we cannot change the structure of that agreement. We will have some specifications for the countries concerned, but we are certainly not going to restart the whole process.

  Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL). - I can agree with your remark concerning the last issue but that means that if Ecuador wants to have a chapter on trade and cooperation included, as is just now under discussion, and also the specific needs of the new raw materials and public services policy pursued by Bolivia are to be included, then I think we have to come to the point where we have to add this point to the negotiations as well; so not just to simply sign or not sign but to reopen the understanding of the agreement itself.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, we will consider that once we have a concrete request from one of those two countries.

  Νίκη Τζαβέλα (EFD). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να υποβάλω μια ερώτηση στην Επίτροπο κυρία Georgieva. Στο σημείο 7 της έκθεσης αναφέρεται η συγκρότηση μιας δύναμης πολιτικής προστασίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Τι δύναμη είναι αυτή ακριβώς κυρία Επίτροπε γιατί δεν μπορώ να την καταλάβω;

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, my apologies but I did not understand the question. I mentioned a clash between civil protection and ... what? I apologise, may I just ask for clarification?

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). - Point 7 of the report mentions the establishment of a civil protection force. What will this force look like? I would like to have some details on this.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. − The proposal for building the civil protection system of Europe in a more predictable manner in order to act when a country is overwhelmed by disaster either inside Europe or outside Europe requires countries to identify modules, civil protection modules, which they are willing to deploy in a disaster outside of their borders.

As of today, we have 124 such modules registered at European level, plus eight coordination modules, and the proposal means that we will be able predictably to match the needs of a country in a disaster, whether this be floods, forest fires or summer or winter storms or an earthquake, and then bring help from those pre-identified and pre-committed modules to the affected population. We already have examples of how this can be achieved.

The proposal will take one step forward by having Member States commit these modules to be available, provided they are not needed at home, for immediate deployment inside the European Union or at the request of a third country outside of the European Union.

That brings the capacity of the European Union together, to respond to disasters with a stronger force than we could provide for our citizens and the citizens of the world without this pre-commitment.

  Νίκη Τζαβέλα (EFD). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να υπενθυμίσω σε όλους ότι, με τη νέα στρατηγική αντίληψη και τις αρμοδιότητες του ΝΑΤΟ, πολλά από αυτά που περιέχονται στην έκθεση θα υπαχθούν, όπως είχε αποφασιστεί από τα ίδια τα μέλη της Βορειοατλαντικής Συμμαχίας, στην ευθύνη του ΝΑΤΟ. Στην έκθεση δεν αναφέρεται συντονισμός ενεργειών ή συνεργασία με το ΝΑΤΟ. Ποία είναι λοιπόν η σχέση αυτής της μονάδας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με το ΝΑΤΟ το οποίο, σύμφωνα με τη νέα στρατηγική αντίληψη, έχει αρμοδιότητες σε αυτόν τον τομέα;

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. − The civil protection systems of our Member States are organised somewhat differently, but they have one thing in common, namely that they bring together firefighters and first responders for action inside or outside – primarily for action inside, but with coordination with the Union it could be action outside.

The way in which we cooperate with NATO is through the EU military staff. In other words, we make our capabilities known and available, and then the EU military staff are our link to NATO. The defence policy of the Union is the responsibility of the High Representative. If there is a complex emergency – as we had with Libya – in which NATO takes a role, our contribution is as a building block bringing our assets to bear as needed.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). - Két kérdésem van az Európai Bizottság itt jelenlévő képviselőihez. Az egyik, hogy felmerült-e Önökben, hogy az élelmiszert és a mezőgazdaságot ki kellene vonni a globális szabadkereskedelem hatálya alól, és helyébe az élelmiszer-önredelkezéshez való jogot mint alapelvet állítani, amelynek lényege a helyi termelés, helyi értékesítés, helyi feldolgozás.

A második kérdésem, hogy hajlandóak lennének-e, hogy ha én ezt megszervezem, leülni a legérintettebbeknek: a gazdáknak a képviselőivel – egyfelől Európából, például a saját országomból, Magyarországról, de más Európai Uniós országból is, illetőleg a harmadik világból, az úgynevezett fejlődő országokból, szegény országokból, ahonnan szintén kistermelők képviselőit hívnám meg. Kíváncsiak-e Önök az ő tapasztalataikra azzal kapcsolatban, hogy hogyan teszi egyre szegényebbekké és kiszolgáltatottabbakká a kistermelőket, kisgazdákat a globális szabadkereskedelem, amelyet az Európai Unió továbbra is annyira éltet.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − I think that trade plays a very fundamental role on the markets, because markets provide price signals and the need for investment. Having said this, in development policy we have clearly seen the need to go towards more sustainable agricultural investment.

In many parts of the world, there is not sufficient infrastructure to access the market. Farmers in developing countries do not have sufficient means or knowledge to produce more food. In Africa, we will need to nearly triple yields over the next 40 years. That is why development policy will, in particular, be focusing on supporting farmers.

I would definitely discourage a sub-culture of working towards self-sufficiency methods. There have been such attempts in the world. They always failed.

We should also take a very important factor into account. There are good and bad years in agriculture. If a region has a bad year, what should we do? Humanitarian aid can give the chance of surviving for a certain period, but basically we very much need to have global trade systems in agricultural commodities.

I believe that the right answer is that one of the pillars of EU development policy should be to support sustainable agriculture, with a special focus on smallholder farmers, who are in the majority women.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). - Várom a választ arra a kérdésemre, hogy hajlandóak lennének-e leülni egy konstruktív eszmecserére az európai, illetőleg úgynevezett fejlődő országokbeli gazdák képviselőivel, akik megosztanák Önökkel az ezzel kapcsolatos saját tapasztalataikat.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − We are in contact all the time, but it is definitely a very important point to consider when we design the next step for our next financial framework – how to achieve this goal in the best possible way.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). - My question is to Commissioner De Gucht. I would like to raise an issue that has caused significant controversy in this House, namely that of ACAA, an agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products between the EU and Israel.

This agreement has already been kept on hold in this House for more than a year, even though it is purely technical in nature and concerns mutually accepted standards that will facilitate trade in pharmaceutical products. We have seen the swift acceptance of trade agreements with some third countries that are not always the most democratic or respectful of human rights. At the same time Parliament – or at least some political groups in this House – have been effectively boycotting our relations with Israel. I would like to ask what political consequences such behaviour in one of the institutions – namely the European Parliament – will have on EU-Israel relations and the EU’s influence in the wider region?

Secondly, is the Commission monitoring and assessing the damage to European pharmaceutical companies, and the additional costs European consumers of pharmaceutical products are experiencing, owing to the deliberations on this agreement in the European Parliament?

My supplementary question will be that I would appreciate the comments of Commissioner Füle on this issue.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − As the Honourable Member rightly mentioned, this agreement was initialled, I would think, a little more than a year ago and you have not yet come to a decision. But once an agreement is in your hands, we are also in your hands and it is up to you to ratify or not to ratify this agreement. It is not for me to pronounce on what Parliament should have done, does or does not do. Yours are the powers to ratify or not to ratify.

Secondly, regarding the impact, we consider this to be limited at this moment in time, but obviously when we conclude an agreement with a third country, the idea is that it should also be ratified. So we will continue asking you to do so, but finally it is up to you.

I give the floor to Mr Füle.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − This House has a very important role in monitoring that human rights are observed and Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are no exception to that. This House also plays a very important role in helping the Commission and Council to uphold a balanced sectoral cooperation with our partners. It is within that context that I plea for the early adoption and consent of this House to the respective agreement as mentioned earlier.

Let me add that we decided some time ago not to upgrade the relationship between the European Union and Israel because of the current state of the Middle East peace process – or rather the lack of that peace process – but let me make absolutely clear that this agreement and proposal to adopt it is very much within the current action plan we signed with Israel six years ago.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, on a point of order: you mentioned that 49 people had submitted questions and that approximately eight would be taken. I think it would be helpful if you could read out the names of those likely to be taken. There is no point in 30 people sitting around if their turn will not come.

  President. − Mr Higgins, I am glad that you made that suggestion. I am sure that all colleagues would agree and after this next question I will read out those who have been put on the list.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Domnule comisar De Gucht, unul dintre dosarele de comerţ internaţional pentru care am fost desemnat raportor priveşte extinderea Acordului de parteneriat şi cooperare între Uniunea Europeană şi Uzbekistan în domeniul textilelor. Problema muncii forţate a copiilor în recoltarea bumbacului face însă dificilă abordarea strict tehnică a protocolului. Practic, la început lunii octombrie sute de copii vor fi obligaţi să culeagă bumbac manual pentru a suplini lipsa unei forţe de muncă adulte. Aceasta reprezintă o formă extremă de muncă a copiilor care, potrivit ONG-urilor, sunt pedepsiţi de către autorităţi dacă nu îndeplinesc cotele impuse. Ratificarea de către Uzbekistan a convenţiilor Organizaţiei Internaţionale a Muncii privind vârsta minimă de angajare şi eliminarea celor mai grave forme de muncă forţată a copiilor reprezintă un semnal pozitiv, însă există un real deficit de implementare.

Întrebarea mea este: Cum vede Comisia Europeană deblocarea acestei situaţii, având în vedere că Parlamentul nu poate să ignore nerespectarea drepturilor fundamentale ale copiilor în Uzbekistan?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − The Honourable Member did not really put a question but I imagine that he does not agree with the practice, just as I do. He is probably trying to mention the case of Uzbekistan as he is known to be somebody who follows it very attentively.

We are of the opinion that, at the present moment, we should not launch a special investigation on Uzbekistan because we are in the ‘extra time’ of the current GSP regulation. Obviously we are going to address this in the new regulation and it is also clear to me that the situation in Uzbekistan is one that has to be followed attentively. We continue to insist that the authorities should take the necessary measures, but we have no intention of launching a separate investigation now because by the end of next year the GSP will also be over.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Apreciez şi vă mulţumesc pentru răspuns. Cred însă că e necesar să se înţeleagă, cel puţin de către partea uzbekistană, că un prim pas de deblocare a acestei situaţii este acceptarea unei misiuni de monitorizare din partea organizaţiei internaţionale ILO, pentru că altfel eu nu văd o soluţie pentru deblocarea dosarului.

  President. − We are now half way through and I am going to read out the names I have on the list in front of me here: Theocharous, Guerrero Salom, Aylward, Kelly, Leichtfried, Schmidt, Albrecht, Deva, Murphy, Morganti, Brons, Kukan and Flašíková. It is highly unlikely that we will get to the bottom of that list but that is the situation.

  Ελένη Θεοχάρους (PPE). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρίες και κύριοι επίτροποι, η Κύπρος είναι μια μικρή χώρα που στηρίζεται στο εμπόριο, στη ναυτιλία, στον τουρισμό. Ελπίζω να γνωρίζετε ότι αυτή την εποχή η Κύπρος βρίσκεται ουσιαστικά σε αποκλεισμό από την τουρκική πολεμική μηχανή, από τα τουρκικά πολεμικά πλοία που περιπολούν πολύ κοντά στις ακτές μας, από την τουρκική πολεμική αεροπορία που πετά πάνω από την Κύπρο και τις θάλασσές μας. Νομίζετε ότι αυτό προάγει το διεθνές εμπόριο, το εμπόριο με τις τρίτες χώρες; Θεωρείτε ότι αυτή είναι συμπεριφορά υποψήφιου προς ένταξη κράτους μέλους; Θα περιλάβετε, κύριε Füle, αυτή τη συμπεριφορά της Τουρκίας στις εκθέσεις σας: Και για πόσον καιρό ακόμη θα γίνεται ανεκτή μια τέτοια συμπεριφορά απέναντι σ’ ένα μικρό και αδύναμο κράτος; Πρέπει να καταληφθεί ολόκληρη η Κύπρος για να αντιδράσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση;

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Needless to say, we are following the developments in and around Cyprus very closely. As far as I know, later today in this plenary there is going to be a discussion on the issue specifically relating to the drilling and hydrocarbon project in Cyprus, which has an exclusive economic zone around it.

The first point I would like to make is that the very first priority there is to reach a comprehensive settlement. Both parties, both leaders, made a commitment to the Secretary-General of the United Nations – if I am not mistaken – on 7 July not to be distracted and to focus solemnly on reaching a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue.

It was in that regard that we made a very clear statement on behalf of the Commission. We also made it absolutely clear, on behalf of the Commission, that it is the right of Cyprus to delimit its exclusive economic zone and to conclude treaties with third countries if that is in accordance with the acquis and international treaties. That commitment to Cyprus was repeated in the Council declaration last year.

Following on from this, we have taken a number of steps to calm the situation around the drilling, which started just a couple of days ago. Because of that we have not seen some of the threats by Turkey actually being delivered. Needless to say, our line is very clear. All the problems need to be solved through peaceful means, and if necessary through arbitration before the International Court of Justice. Any threats of the use of force need to be rejected. We are continuing to monitor the situation.

  Ελένη Θεοχάρους (PPE). - Βεβαίως κύριε επίτροπε. Ακόμη και χθες υπάρχουν δηλώσεις του τούρκου πρωθυπουργού στο τουρκικό πρακτορείο ειδήσεων «Ανατολού», τις οποίες και επικαλούμαι, όπου χαρακτηρίζει ολόκληρη τη Μεσόγειο τουρκική λίμνη και ότι η Τουρκία θα κάνει ό,τι θέλει εκεί πέρα. Αυτό το αναφέρω απλώς ως μία προειδοποίηση για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, για το τί έχει να αντιμετωπίσει, γιατί αυτήν τη στιγμή θίγονται οι αρχές, οι αξίες και τα συμφέροντα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − I would just add that what really matters is action. I do not want to speculate on this, and would just refer Members to the statement.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). - Quería preguntar de qué manera se están tratando de integrar los principios y los objetivos de la política de desarrollo de la Unión Europea en la reforma del sistema generalizado de preferencias, fundamentalmente para conseguir que la coherencia de las políticas de desarrollo, como nos encomienda el Tratado de la Unión, sea compatible con esta reforma del sistema de preferencias.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − We have recently been proposing a new scheme for the GSP that should come to fruition, and for decision in this Parliament, by the end of next year. Obviously, in drafting the GSP proposal, we have duly taken into account the development aspects of this specific tool.

The idea is that we would limit the number of countries so we can concentrate much more on those which are more in need of these unilateral deductions. However, there are also a lot of other schemes which are sometimes, by the way, much more advantageous – for example the ‘Everything But Arms’ scheme for LDCs.

We also believe that at a certain moment in time it is very important to have reciprocal arrangements and obligations so that you can really develop trade. We certainly bear this in mind, and already did so when drafting the proposal. We will certainly do so when discussing it with you further.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). - My question relates to the Mercosur trade deal. According to the Commission’s preliminary assessment, it is estimated that European Union beef prices will fall by 8% and that meat production in the European Union will fall by EUR 3 billion in value if this deal goes ahead, with an estimated loss of 33 000 agricultural jobs in the European Union. How does the Commission respond to claims that European agriculture, farmers and the agrifood sector are to be sacrificed in order to secure the Mercosur trade agreement? Can the Commission clearly outline what specific benefits this trade deal will bring to European farmers, particularly beef farmers?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − We are not sacrificing anything. What we are trying to do is to negotiate a balanced deal with Mercosur, taking into account the interests of the farming community, as well as our very important export of industrial products to Mercosur, the markets with respect to services, and European investments in the Mercosur countries.

We are by far the most important investor in those countries and we will try to get to a balanced deal. We cannot make much progress at the present time because, as a result of – let us say – internal political agendas in Mercosur, we have decided to wait for the exchange of offers. This will take some time but, in the meantime, we are already addressing the problems that you have raised. For example, there is the Commission proposal that the Globalisation Adjustment Fund would also be eligible for farmers.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). - Another supplementary. Our competitors are outstripping us in agricultural trade in the growing and new markets of China, South Korea and Japan amongst others. What action is the Commission taking to instigate and develop trade deals with third countries that will be advantageous to European farmers, and what framework is being developed to put in place trade deals which would suit agriculture in European farming for greater access to the growing markets of China, South Korea and Japan, where European agricultural produce is in high demand?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − This is not really a supplementary question but a completely new topic. We are doing this, for example, in any trade deal that we are pursuing, we try to introduce the protection of geographical indications, indications that are very important for European agricultural exports.

For example, we have been opening new markets for farmers with respect to South Korea. We are not yet negotiating with Japan but we are in the scoping exercise. With China, this is part of an overall trading relationship that is not governed by any specific arrangement or by a specific treaty.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Like my colleague, Mr Aylward, I want to ask a question about the proposed Mercosur trade deal, but from a different angle.

The Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden published a report this year which showed that beef coming from Brazil has carbon emissions of 700 kilograms per kilogram of beef, taking into account deforestation, etc. The corresponding figure for grass-based production in Europe, especially in my own country and others, is 20 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of beef. That is 35 times higher for Brazilian beef.

Bearing in mind this fact, and our commitment to reduce CO2 emissions in the 2020 Strategy, how can we even countenance a proposal to have agriculture included in a Mercosur deal, especially beef products?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Honourable Member, we do, of course, keep in mind the environment when we negotiate trade deals. I understand why this kind of remark is made.

I am not aware of the specific study carried out by the Swedish University. However, when you compare farming in Mercosur and in Europe, there are of course huge differences. What we have to look at, and what is also our limit, is what is enforceable within the WTO. For instance, the example that you gave – provided that it is completely correct, which I do not doubt but cannot confirm either – does certainly not come within the scope of the WTO.

We should also look at the global balance with respect to climate change. The Commission and Ms Hedegaard are taking a leading role in this respect and are making the most advanced proposals by far at international conferences about climate change, for example at the Club 17 in a couple of months.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - I have a supplementary. Is the Commissioner aware of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth in Paraguay? Would this not also cause us to rethink a proposed deal, including agriculture, given the laxity of controls across borders, etc., and the difficulty of monitoring those? Or would this not cause us, at the very least, in terms of the Latin phrase festina lente, to hasten slowly?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − I was in Paraguay some months ago, but the disease had not yet broken out then. Having said that, you know very well what the framework is. If there is a connection with health, then we can enforce against first countries. That is part of WTO case law. If that is the case, we will certainly do so.

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). - As everybody is speaking English here, maybe in honour of the President I will try to do so as well, so I hope it works. Mr De Gucht, I have a question regarding the WTO case concerning China and the rare earth problem. I think nobody would say that China is right in this case. I think what the WTO did in this case is the right step, but I have one concern. If the tendency in general is to make countries export rare materials, as the WTO is doing now, do you not think, if a very small country or a developing country or a very weak country is involved, this tendency of the WTO might allow big companies to force these countries to do as they want them to do? Or do you think that will not be a problem?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − The case before the WTO was about dual pricing, namely that China obtained prices for local consumption and production that were different from the prices for exports, by imposing export duties and enforcing a quota. What the WTO panel has been deciding – the matter is now before the Appellate Body, so we will have to wait for the final decision – is that the justification that China was giving was not correct. The justification was for environmental reasons. The panel said that, if the environmental reasons were valid for export, they were also valid locally, so this was not a valid answer to the questions put by the European Union, the United States and Mexico.

That is what we have been enforcing. I hope this will have an impact on the rare earth materials. We already see that: quotas are not going down and prices are going down.

Regarding your specific question with respect to weaker countries, first of all we have launched this case against China because the trade with China in raw materials is of paramount importance. I do not think we would immediately start such a case against whatever small country you might have in mind because what we are worried about is of course the global balance in the trade in raw materials.

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). - Mr Commissioner, I do not want to be misunderstood, I completely support the action of the European Union and yourself in this question. What I am just a little bit fearful of is that there might be a tendency, if the direction taken in this case continues as it is now, that maybe we will go further, from rare earth to raw materials. Ultimately states will not be able to fulfil their obligations towards their own people with their own raw materials.

Do you think that this is a possibility or not? I personally think it will not happen but I would like to hear you say this as well.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr Leichtfried, I do not think that will happen. I explained what the judgment by the panel was about. It was about abusing the environmental elements in it – the environmental explanation.

However, if a country were to say, for example, that it could not export because it only had that kind of production and had a traditional industry which was using it, I see no reason why if ever there were a case before the WTO then the WTO would take the same kind of decision. You have to look at the specific case of course.

Let me assure you that this is not on our minds, and is not what we are going to pursue. What we want to secure is that China treats on an equal basis their internal production and world production. That is all.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). - My question is for Commissioner Piebalgs and it concerns Eritrea and Dawit Isaak. As of Friday last week, this Swedish/Eritrean citizen has been imprisoned for ten years, ten years in these prison holes in Eritrea. Is it not time to act now, Mr Commissioner, to link development aid to the constant suppression of human rights in Eritrea? Last week in the UN General Assembly President Isaias Afewerki was there; I saw him on television. Did anyone from the EU delegation try to contact Mr Afewerki, to have some contact and get some reactions? And what have you been doing in the last year, Mr Commissioner?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − It is a very serious case and the Commission is definitely doing everything possible. I have written letters and I am trying to get an official visit at which I could meet the President and raise this issue.

As concerns our development cooperation, at this stage practically nothing is moving. There is no positive response to our initiatives from the Eritrean side. We will continue to pursue the case because it is very clear that the Eritrean people are our target for development aid. We should not let them down, but political issues also need to be handled with the Eritrean Government.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). - This is now 10 years and probably Dawit Isaak is dying in prison. I have a proposal: could you and I go together to Asmara and try to get in contact with the leadership, with President Afewerki? At least try to make it possible to visit the prisoners, Dawit Isaak and the other prisoners of conscience. He is the only prisoner of conscience from the European Union. We have to do something, Mr Commissioner. I am willing to go, are you willing to go?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I have always said that I officially wanted to go to Eritrea, but at that stage none of the leadership was ready to meet me, stating continually that they were out of the country. We are continuing to pursue these attempts to visit the country and I will be going as soon as I have a definite guarantee of access to the leadership of the country. That is an absolute precondition so that my visit could have some type of result. I have not stopped activities, but you need two to tango. I would first need a positive response that President Isaias will agree to meet me before arranging to visit Eritrea.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE). - Sehr geehrte Mitglieder der Kommission, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar De Gucht! Immer mehr Handelsabkommen in der Europäischen Union regeln ganz andere Fragen als die Handelspolitik. Ein Beispiel dafür ist das Übereinkommen zur Bekämpfung von Produkt- und Markenpiraterie (ACTA). Anstatt sich auf den Kern der Marken- und Produktpirateriebekämpfung zu beschränken und beim Handel entsprechende Grenzen zu ziehen, wird dieses Übereinkommen genutzt, um nun umfassende Regeln zur Durchsetzung geistigen Eigentums in den Vertragsstaaten zu harmonisieren. Das ist allerdings mitnichten Ihre Aufgabe als Handelskommissar – das wäre meines Erachtens wohl eher die Aufgabe von Frau Reding –, noch ist es im Sinne des EU-Vertragsrechts und der Vertragsgrundlagen auch inhaltlich ausgestaltet worden.

Meine Frage an Sie lautet also: Wie wollen Sie eigentlich erreichen, dass gerade Grundrechtsfragen bei der Rechtsdurchsetzung international demokratisch diskutiert werden und verpflichtenden Einfluss auch in die Rechtsgrundlagen finden?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − We have repeatedly discussed the ACTA agreement and the ACTA negotiations over the last year. We will, of course, continue to do so. Within a reasonable time, the agreement will come to you for ratification. Let me repeat what I have already said a dozen times before this Parliament. This is not about changing the material law on intellectual property rights in Europe. It is about enforcement. It is about creating the possibility, on a wider scale, to enforce intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights are important, especially for a very mature economy like ours. I know that there is opposition. I know that we will have to face that opposition, but I trust that, in the end, you will agree.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE). - Es ist ja nun so, dass wir gerade z. B. bei den Revolutionen in Nordafrika beobachten können, dass ein offenes Internet und ein Zugang zum Internet eine essenzielle Frage ist – die Frage also, wie Sie als Kommissar für Handel die Grundrechte z. B. den Zugang zum Internet in solchen Handelsübereinkommen positiv schützen wollen. Wenn Sie sagen, Verletzungen finden nicht statt, darüber kann man streiten. Aber man könnte auch präventiv verhindern, dass diese Verletzungen in der Weiterentwicklung stattfinden. Da wäre ich für eine Antwort dankbar.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − We can build all kinds of things into trade agreements and we do so, provided that both sides agree. We are presently discussing trade agreements with a number of African countries – the so-called Economic Partnership Agreements – and one of the general reservations – if I may say – is that most African countries ask that services not be discussed because the first one to put their act together ... and if they do not want to do so, we do not discuss services with them. If they want to do so, we discuss services with them. We do this with a view to the development of those societies.

By the way, there is no direct link with ACTA because ACTA is a plurilateral agreement which is only binding upon the signatories and there are no developing countries that are signatories to this agreement.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). - I was wondering whom to address this question to because my question has development implications but it has also got financial implications. Are the Commissioners aware that EUR 800 billion worth of funds come from the developing countries to European banks and European offshore banks every year? It was recently reported that USD 1.3 trillion, which is the entire debt of Italy, has come from India into Swiss and European banks as black money.

These are staggering figures that we are talking about and they have huge development implications for developing countries, because if that money were to work and remain in those countries, and were a part of those countries’ economies rather than sitting around outside them in our banks, that would have huge implications for development. What are we doing in our trade relationships to prevent corruption from being a part of our trade interaction and our bilateral relations?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − This is a very general question indeed. I believe that, when you make trade agreements, you make trade relations more transparent and, to the extent that trade relations become more transparent, the playing field for corruption shrinks. I believe that well drafted and balanced free trade agreements help to eradicate this very difficult topic of corruption that is very widespread throughout the world. We try to contribute to that.

I cannot answer the specific question that you are posing because I am not aware of the figures that you have mentioned. By the way, not all money that is wired into a bank account is necessarily the result of corruption; it could also, for example, be the result of making a profit.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). - Quite so, but could we in future start the process of negotiating with our interlocutor partners on the basis of their being corruption-free? After all, India is in flames at the moment over corruption.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Just one sentence: if we can only negotiate with those countries that are corruption-free, then from tomorrow I will have a part-time job. I pass the floor to Mrs Georgieva.

(Interjection from Mr Deva: ‘I said “Start!”’)

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. − I would like to add that the European Union and our Member States have been very active in supporting the stolen assets recovery initiative. These are initiatives that bring this issue to the forefront. They enforce more transparency in developing countries. We will continue to support actions and initiatives of this nature.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Commissioner De Gucht, earlier on you said that the Colombian Government was acting in good faith in the human rights field. You also said the same about the former Colombian Government of Uribe. However, the Colombian High Court of Justice has now established definitively that that government was working hand in hand with the death squads responsible for killing hundreds of trade unionists, including by directly fingering trade unionists to be murdered.

I would like to ask you: how many more trade unionists and how many more human rights offenders have to be killed before your attitude is changed and before the FTA is halted?

Secondly, I would ask you for a response to the decision by the British Trades Union Congress to campaign against the EU-India FTA and Mode 4. It decided to oppose it on the grounds that it will be almost impossible to enforce employment rights for Indian workers. In effect, it leads to a race to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions, and will act to undermine collective agreements and trade union organisation.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − I think it is very important, when you want the rule of law to be respected, that you have an independent judiciary. That is why I think, as a politician, that we should not comment on decisions by the judiciary. We should take note of them and we should put them into practice. Obviously there the Supreme Court has rendered a judgment that we will keep in mind in further discussions with Colombia. On the other hand, I must say – and of course I may be mistaken, I am only a human being – that, from what I have seen with the Uribe Government and now again with the Santos Government, they are making real efforts to advance the cause of human rights. I can only say that and I think I have enough arguments to defend that case.

But of course, Mr President, I would then need a little more time on Mode 4. Mode 4 is about exchanging personnel within an organisation and it really means that a number of Indian workers could be active in the European Union. These are not enormous figures and, as it is within the organisation of a company or within the organisation of a multinational, I cannot see why this would infringe on workers’ rights in Europe.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - I find it hard to see how you can say that real efforts are being made in Colombia when the killings of trade unionists continue at the same pace that they have continued. Between 2000 and 2010 over 60% of all trade unionists killed in the world were killed in Colombia, yet we are supposed to believe that real efforts are being made somehow. Yes, we should take note of the decision that has been made by the Colombian court. The key people surrounding Uribe are now in jail because of this collaboration. Does this not have any impact in terms of your assessment that these people are operating in good faith when it comes to the question of human rights?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Let me give you just one example: under the Uribe presidency, a brother of the Minister of Foreign Affairs was suspected of having links with the death squads. The following day he and his sister also – although she had nothing to do with this – were no longer in the government. This is one example of the action that has been taken, and I could give you many more.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei rivolgere una domanda al Commissario De Gucht.

Recentemente ho ricevuto una sua risposta a una mia interrogazione sulle difficoltà di approvvigionamento delle materie prime sul settore della concia. Molti paesi infatti pongono grosse restrizioni all'esportazione di pellame grezzo e per le nostre aziende sta diventando sempre più difficile operare sul prodotto. In questo periodo si sta realizzando un accordo con l'Ucraina che sembra prevedere una clausola transitoria di dieci anni prima della completa liberalizzazione del settore. Non ritiene che dieci anni siano un periodo eccessivamente lungo? Forse tre o cinque anni possono già essere sufficienti.

In Toscana (Italia) patria storica della concia, ci sono molte aziende in difficoltà che hanno bisogno di un aiuto il prima possibile. Dieci anni sono troppi e possono creare un precedente negativo anche per altri accordi futuri.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − I imagine that you are talking about the export duties on some raw materials. The export duties are on a very limited number of products and they will disappear within a period of 10 years, which means that it is going steadily down and will be zero at the end. I think that we will probably be able to make quite a good agreement in this respect because the safeguard clause too, with respect to those materials, will disappear and will go down to zero over a period of 15 years. This is creating quite an additional amount of space for trading in these materials with Ukraine.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). - Signor Presidente, ho un'altra domanda, una curiosità: volevo sapere cosa sta facendo la Commissione per il problema della contraffazione.

Ci sono sempre più prodotti contraffatti che girano per l'Europa, soprattutto a Prato con la concorrenza sleale cinese e questi prodotti che continuano ad arrivare alle nostre dogane e ai nostri mercati creano veramente difficoltà e soprattutto problemi salutari.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − We are taking measures on the demand side within the European Union and, of course, there is also the supply side. As you know, China is responsible for the most part. About 60% of all counterfeited goods that are halted at borders are of Chinese origin so we are taking the necessary measures at our borders. We are also discussing with China that they should do much more to combat counterfeiting and to implement intellectual property rights. We are having an intellectual property rights dialogue with them, but I must say that up to now the results have not really been convincing.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - My question is for Commissioner De Gucht and it concerns EU trade with the Western Balkan countries, I mean those countries which are waiting either for a date to start accession negotiations or to get the status of a candidate country. My question is: does the Commission have any plans – because strategy would be too strong a word – to increase or to strengthen trade with those countries in order to emphasise the positive aspects of European integration or the European perspective for those countries?

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − As regards the Western Balkans, the Commission has a very useful instrument. The overall enlargement policy is giving us an opportunity, through a number of the chapters, not only Chapter 30 which relates to trade, but also other chapters, rules of law and so on, which also benefit the more appropriate business and investment climate in those countries, to work quite efficiently. I think the results prove that too.

As regards the Western Balkans and the European Union, you can see that trade exchange between those countries and the European Union has actually increased every year by 10%. We are not only keen to develop bilateral relations between the EU and those countries – although our first priority is to bring those countries closer and closer to the European Union and make sure that there are no flaws in the approximation to the EU’s rules – but we also support the regional aspect of trade. The Commission supports CEFTA financially and through various projects, which include the Western Balkans and also Moldova. Very recently it supported Cathy Ashton’s efforts to find a solution to the remaining issues between Serbia and Kosovo over custom stamps.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Whilst free trade might be shown in economic textbooks to make the world as a whole richer, would you not agree that trading with countries like China, with an artificially low exchange rate, deliberately depressed wage rates and a brazen disregard for patent rights, leads to unfair competition, job losses and destruction of industry in the developed world, particularly Europe? Indeed, the conditions and pay rates in China’s factories are inhumane and allow China and its collaborators and multinational companies to use Chinese goods to compete unfairly with goods produced in the developed world. Has the Commission raised the question of working conditions in China with that country and with multinationals?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, of course our relations and our trade relations with China are a very vast topic. Let me just say that, as far as we can see, the biggest problem with China is more with subsidisation than it is with wages. Subsidisation in all kinds of ways: cheap loans, cheap land for plants and so on. What we do see is a very rapid wage rise in the coastal area, which is the developed area of China.

So the idea that it is merely because of low wages that the Chinese can compete on the world market is certainly not correct. There are many elements in play and what we should do instead is look at how we can integrate the Chinese development into the world economy and there we have obligations on both sides. We have them on our side. They should also realise that they have their obligations and that they should live up to the WTO obligations. When they do not do so we question that, and once we have a decision we also want to see this implemented, but it is a very complex matter and it certainly cannot be reduced to a discussion on wages.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - I did not of course attribute it just to depressed wage rates. I mentioned the artificially low exchange rate, also the brazen disregard for patent rights and working conditions generally.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − On the currency issue, it is true that the currency of China is undervalued and it is not good that a currency does not reflect the strength of an economy, so they should adapt. But on the other hand, there are always two sides to every coin. You should realise that two thirds of what we import from China we re-export, to the extent that if the Renminbi were to suddenly rise, a surge would also certainly harm our economy. So, let us try to look at it from both sides.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - Pokúsim sa byť veľmi stručná, aby sme už pani komisárku a pána komisára mohli uvoľniť. Hovorili sme v predchádzajúcej debate o obchodnej politike a asi sa zhodneme na tom, že každá politika Európskej únie vrátane politiky obchodnej by mala byť koherentná s našimi európskymi hodnotami, ale mala by mať aj globálne ciele.

A práve obchodná politika by mohla a mala byť účinným nástrojom na podporu spravodlivého obchodu, ktorý bude okrem ekonomických benefitov zohľadňovať aj sociálne, pracovné a environmentálne štandardy. Pred rokom sa nám v Parlamente podarilo presadiť, aby budúca spoločná obchodná politika Únie bola ohľaduplnejšia k ľuďom, aj k životnému prostrediu. Konkrétne každá medzinárodná obchodná zmluva by mala obsahovať klauzuly ohľadom transparentnosti, zodpovednosti korporácií a podobne.

Mám len jednu otázku na pána komisára De Guchta: Či v rámci stratégie Európa 2020 má Komisia stanovený konkrétny merateľný cieľ na posudzovanie pokroku v oblasti vplyvu obchodnej politiky Európskej únie na ľudské práva a sociálne a pracovné štandardy, ako aj na životné prostredie?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Between now and 2020, you will have numerous occasions to ask questions about the progress we have been making. We have no specific statistic tool, but we have a Parliament that is very anxious to get all the information. I will do everything possible to get you that information.

  President. − That concludes Question Time to the Commission. We have had this morning questions to all the External Affairs Commissioners. Thank you Mr De Gucht, Mr Füle, Mrs Georgieva, Mr Piebalgs. The other Member of the Commission responsible for external affairs will be answering Question Time in Brussels.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. GIANNI PITTELLA
Vicepresidente