Mr President, we are all aware that in Seattle the stakes are high and of exceptional importance for the lives of the world’s citizens. It is not a question of technical matters that might concern groups of specialists from ministries of foreign trade. This is also evident from the fervour of the debate underway in Parliament, although it is still weak in decision-making power, but there have been new events in recent years that are taking supremacy away from the specialists. In Seattle, at the same time as the governmental meeting, thousands of NGOs will meet, thousands of men and women from civil society who are calling urgently for the WTO not to become one of the seats of that global government, based on the growth and supremacy of the most unbridled free trade, which does not take into account the growing poverty of the population of the least industrialised and weakest countries, the destruction of the environment, the protection of natural and human resources or the differences and diversities within each country, all in the name of globalisation, which is continuing to create wealth for a few and poverty for many. It is an exceptional fact of democracy that thousands of men and women have debated together and demonstrated in favour of a different kind of economy, directly linked to daily life and democracy, because the fact that 134 governments are members of the WTO does not in itself guarantee transparency or democracy in decision-making processes because, over and above formal statutes, what really exists is the contractual power exercised by the strongest governments and multinationals. Because of these fundamental considerations, we do not agree with the Schwaiger report, although we acknowledge his thoroughness. We would like the European Parliament to adopt a clear, firm stand to the effect that the right to dignity, health, a home, freedom and the elimination of poverty is more important than free trade and profits. With regard to the United States’ frantic rush to defend its own interests, we of course recognise that Europe is maintaining a position concerned with the defence of more human traditions, but we do not feel this is enough: it is not enough to state high-sounding principles – we must put them into practice. Many things in the Schwaiger report are positive: the defence of our agriculture, cultural diversity and more besides, but I will limit myself, because of time restrictions, to only mentioning some of the fundamental issues. The issue of agreements on intellectual property rights is very important. We agree with the NGOs and many countries which have suffered through these agreements that there should be a moratorium to renegotiate them. Just think of India, whose legislation does not provide for copyright on medicines or foodstuffs; yet India produces herbs that are used by multinationals and ourselves to treat illnesses; or Mandela’s South Africa, where, in retaliation for his attempt to make treatment for AIDS victims more accessible, the WTO imposed a withdrawal of cheaper medicines. We support the south African countries’ request not to negotiate whether plants and animals or human cells can be genetically modified and patented, which would take money from the weak and make multinationals bigger. We also consider the precautionary principle and the principle of food safety fundamental, because we do not want to be overrun with genetically modified food, and we therefore think it necessary to reverse the burden of proof and we consider that the experts must really be independent of the interests of governments or multinationals. We want to safeguard workers’ rights, the right to strike, and apply codes of conduct that this Parliament... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL