Mr President, I think that, at Porto Alegre, we witnessed the emergence of a global civil society that had already begun to express its views in Seattle and on other occasions. It is essentially a civil society that is challenging current forms of globalisation and the forces that dominate it. I do not believe, however, that we can describe the majority in this movement as anti-globalisation. Quite the opposite. This is a movement that aspires to a different kind of globalisation, which is beginning to create a globalisation of solidarity and which is calling for a globalisation of rights. Secondly, this movement is diverse and, as previous speakers have said, we can make ironic comments as to its diversity, as we have done with other social movements. Ultimately, however, it is diverse because society throughout the world is diverse and this may be exactly why it is interesting in comparison to Davos, where one has the impression that the approaches taken are somewhat unilateral. It is diverse, but it increasingly expresses a convergence of views which are taking shape in the form of a number of common aspirations. These include an environmental aspiration versus the risk of the blind destruction of natural resources, the biosphere, biodiversity; an aspiration for north-south solidarity versus growing inequality in development; a social aspiration when faced with the submission of all economic and social life to a solely market-driven and financial logic, as well as an aspiration for democracy and transparency towards international institutions which play an increasingly important role in global affairs. Europe must lend support to this emerging civil society, to this movement, in order to put forward its ideas. After the events of 11 September, we were told that nothing would ever be the same again. And we thought that the belief would take hold that we should use the same energy and the same force to combat unbalanced development in today’s world that we used to combat the terrorist groups. Unfortunately, as you have said, many industrialised countries, including some Members of the European Union, will arrive in Monterey empty-handed – full of promises to finally respect their commitments – but without any new instruments. That is why I believe that we must look carefully at the new proposals. Let us take, for example, the taxation of international financial transactions. Professor Span of Frankfurt University, a former IMF consultant, has presented a study to the German government. I think that the committee which examined it should consider the possibilities which, according to this expert, would enable us to organise redistribution from a Tobin-type tax, which would make it possible to begin to finance access, throughout the world, to global state assets, the right to water, the right to clean energy for all, the right to education, the right to a future. I think that we should encourage the idea of global cohesion funds, as we do within the Union when we welcome countries lagging behind in their development. We do not simply tell them to participate in a larger market. We tell them to participate in a common undertaking. The vision of competition alone cannot prevail. There must also be the vision of ‘living together’, of solidarity between rich regions and poorer regions, and of access for everyone to a number of fundamental rights. This is what the European Union should be promoting, as well as a multi-polar world. We should help Mercosur to be a democratic entity and more independent of the United States, and establish this regulation for citizens in view of the risks of the abolition of civil societies crushed by sheer market forces.

Political group: PSE