During the pre-Seattle debates, some of us in this House said that Europe should start by demanding an assessment of the previous rounds and a joint diagnosis with the developing countries, before embarking on a new round of liberalisation. We were told that time was short and that nothing could delay the start of the Millennium Round. Yet surely we would have saved time by beginning at the beginning. We should have been slightly more modest and slightly more receptive to the opinions of the people who are not particularly convinced by the results of the WTO or by the results of its work, given the ever-widening gap in development between North and South. Some of us warned against an impenetrable and over-greedy WTO trying to impose its decisions and its choices on everyone, in all areas, according to its own clearly unjustified criteria. We warned about the refusal expressed by numerous countries in this respect. Europe should have started by demanding a revision of the organisation and its operation and a clearer demarcation of its area of competence to ensure respect for other international bodies and conventions, on the environment and social rights in particular. We said that the WTO could no longer simply be followed without understanding the need to place the precautionary principle, cultural diversity, social rights, environmental protection and the reduction of gaps in development at the top of the agenda. We must now consider these issues. Seattle was a failure for those who wanted to continue charging blindly towards generalised free trade and global merchandising. It was a victory for the various branches of the popular movement, similar to the one which rejected the MAI. A powerful protest movement raised its voice against a WTO which, through its rules and structure, has favoured private interests at the expense of collective interests. The challenge was not against the existence of rules aimed at organising world trade or the existence of a world trade organisation as such. It was against the fact that the WTO claims to be the source of all rules, the arbitrator of all disputes and the supreme judge of tomorrow’s world. The social movement formed by many NGOs, civil associations and trade unions has demanded a new type of globalisation, one which is not dominated solely by the logic of blind profit with no regard for people and societies. Europe must support this movement and this new world public opinion in order to promote a different type of world economic regulation. This should be based on the redistribution of wealth and a new balance between markets and democracy and between free trade and cooperation. Europe must promote a multi-faceted view of tomorrow’s world. It must encourage the formation of large regional assemblies which are economically and politically integrated and which allow the people to control their future, to influence globalisation and not be subject to the domination of mega-multinationals resulting from mega-mergers. If Europe fails to become involved in this movement, in this refusal to treat the world like a piece of merchandise and in the hope expressed in Seattle, the only option to the people who reject this destructive globalisation will be to withdraw into nationalism. In this respect, the differences of opinion which arose on the subject of biotechnologies and which formed a potential challenge to the protocol on biodiversity are even less acceptable as they in no way corresponded to the European mandate and the position adopted by this House. A new balance between the international bodies must be developed. A world environmental organisation must be created with real powers. The ILO must be made the appeal body for decisions involving basic social standards. UNCTAD is the most legitimate framework for dealing with the issue of direct foreign investments while respecting the democratic right of countries to legislate on environmental and social matters. As for the WTO itself, it must be brought under the control of the people. NGOs, trade unions and parliamentarians must be able to exercise this control. Is it not natural and normal, in view of the ideas and beliefs which we all represent in this House, for the and the Right not to be able to completely agree on these issues? What is the point of aiming for convergence at any price when this ends up being artificial and is achieved to the detriment of clarity in our positions? It would certainly have been preferable for all the -wing groups to try and speak with one voice, while respecting their plurality, and I am convinced that a united European , whose voice is needed in Europe, could have been formed on these issues. Yet I regret the choice of a PPE­­ compromise resolution which allows nothing to be learnt from the lessons of Seattle and which prevents preparations from being made for the future. I will therefore vote against this text.

Political group: PSE