Mr President, I should like to say first of all, in response to the comment made just now by Mrs Plooij, drawing attention to the large number of Dutch Members present, that it is not only because my first name is of Dutch origin – which it is – that I am taking part in this debate today, but because I believe that all of us are very concerned, as elected representatives of the European Union, about the relaunch of the multilateral trade negotiations. I believe, Commissioners, that the most striking aspect of the communication of 26 November that you tabled in the Council was indeed the U-turn on the Singapore issues. I am glad to have been one of those Members of this House to whom Commissioner Lamy referred who told you to what extent negotiations on the Singapore issues were pointlessly weighing down the whole enterprise. Like Mr Lannoye, I do not believe that the WTO is the right forum to deal with several of these issues. I should simply like to tell you what a shame it would be, today, to do too little too late. You had first-hand experience of this at the end of the Cancún Conference: on the last day, you wanted to indicate that you were prepared to withdraw some of these subjects, but by then the confidence had evaporated and this initiative was not enough to get the discussion back on track. In fact, today you are agreeing to exclude several of the Singapore issues – investment and competition – from the single undertaking, from the overall agreement, while nevertheless keeping them on the negotiating table for the multilateral agreements that you want to negotiate: in doing so, you will foster mistrust and hostility. I think that, on the contrary, every effort needs to be made to restore confidence between the European Union and the developing countries. This provides a hint of the problem that we have when reading your communication. The feeling is that you are trying to learn the lessons from the failure of Cancún, but at the same time you give the impression of only going halfway and of doing so backwards. It is as if you wanted everything to change provided that everything remains as it is, to use Lampedusa’s words. For example, you ask to keep your negotiating mandate, which dates back to before Seattle, requesting that modifications be kept to a minimum. You want to maintain your positions on agriculture. You want to keep the European Union’s initial objectives on the liberalisation of developing countries’ markets and on the liberalisation of services, with, on the latter, a very significant ambiguity on public services, as we have been reminded. You actually say that they should not be affected, but at the same time you state that you want to liberalise environmental services, which are amongst the most important public services. Obviously I am thinking of water. You even make a very questionable assertion. You say, and I quote, that in your view, ‘the WTO is not a structurally unfair system that needs to be rebalanced.’ I think that by making such a statement you are turning your back on the spirit of Doha, which was precisely to recognise in relation to our partners in the developing countries that since the end of the Uruguay Round the trade system had not kept its promises, that it had not worked fairly and benefited the development of all and that it needed to be rebalanced. In this sense, the Commission communication is marked by positions that threaten to delay resumption of the dialogue. I am thinking, for example, of the very severe criticism of the system of preferences or the system of special and differential treatment. The year 2004 must not be a forgotten year. I am glad that you have taken up your pilgrim’s staff to revive the dialogue with the countries of the G20 and G90. It is an attitude that is in stark contrast to the speech you made in Cancún, which was perceived as very contemptuous by some of these countries. We need to set a new agenda; we need to rebuild confidence around the Doha Agenda – but an improved Doha Agenda – and around a thorough reform of the WTO, of the way it works, its rules and dogmas, so that this organisation really is at the service of development for everyone. We therefore need to rebalance this international trading system and not continue to make liberalisation and free trade our sole priority, as these can only be unfair when the various players are so very different.

Political group: PSE