WRITTEN QUESTION E-2637/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Democratisation and the changing of priorities at the World Trade Organisation.
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, common commercial policy, democratisation

C 303 E/86

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

The Commission shares the Honourable Member(cid:146)s view that failure to wear a belt makes it impossible to
derive the full benefits from the additional road safety provided by such retention systems. Recent studies
carried out in the Member States have shown that, even with a rate of use of seat belts close to 85 % in the
front seats, half of accident victims are among the 15 % who did not fasten their belt.

However, the solution proposed by the Honourable Member is likely to be difficult to implement at the
moment. It would require a system which is able to detect which seats are occupied, which could not be
bypassed, e.g. by fastening the belt without passing it around the body, and which did not in itself pose a
serious accident risk, e.g. by causing the engine to switch off automatically if the belt is unfastened while
the vehicle is in motion.

Manufacturers are studying other ways of increasing seat belt use, notably through the use of particularly
irksome visual and audible warning systems, which could be widely introduced within a relatively short
period of time.

The Commission does, however, believe that, as Directive 91/671/EEC indicates, the Member States already
have the legislative instruments necessary to ensure stricter control of the wearing of seat belts throughout
their territory.

(1) OJ L 220, 29.8.1977.
(2) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.

(2000/C 303 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2637/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Democratisation and the changing of priorities at the World Trade Organisation

A constantly growing movement (1 200 organisations, from an original 85) is opposed to the Seattle talks,
and considers that the structure of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is particularly undemocratic,
damaging for the environment and runs counter to employment law etc. In the view of this movement,
human rights, multilateral agreements on the environment and employment law should not be subordi-
nated to (cid:145)free(cid:146) market trade, but vice versa.

the European Union(cid:146)s embargo on beef containing hormones,

The WTO(cid:146)s practice to date and the decisions of the Dispute Settlement Body (the United States(cid:146) appeal
against
the appeal of Venezuela oil
companies against environmental protection bodies, and others) do indeed raise question marks over the
body(cid:146)s democratic nature. The same is true of the agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights
(TRIPS), on the subject of which this year(cid:146)s UN report on human development states that after signature of
the agreement, traditional production methods are subject to strict international rules, with negative
consequences for Third World countries and to the benefit of multinational companies.

Does the Commission intend to place the democratisation and the changing of priorities at the World
Trade Organisation at the forefront at Seattle?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2000)

The Honourable Member raises the issue of
the opposition from a number of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) to the World trade organisation (WTO). The Commission is well aware of the
concerns expressed by parts of civil society regarding the impact of WTO rules on sensitive issues such as
the environment, social standards, or health. This is why the Community has proposed a broad agenda for

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/87

a new round of trade negotiations, encompassing the issues specifically mentioned by the Honourable
Member, including a clarification of the relationship between the WTO and multilateral environmental
agreements, and joint work by the International labour organisation (ILO) and WTO to take forward the
issue of core labour standards.

Unfortunately, the WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle did not agree on launching this new round of
negotiations so progress in the areas identified above will have to wait. The Commission is committed to
pursuing the objective of a comprehensive round, an objective endorsed by the Council and the
Parliament.

As regards the Honourable Member(cid:146)s view that the WTO is undemocratic, the Commission would recall
that the WTO takes its decisions at the General Council, in which each WTO Member has a vote. Most
decisions are taken by consensus and therefore have to carry each Member(cid:146)s agreement. The representa-
tives in the General Council represent the Members(cid:146) sovereign governments. The WTO is therefore no
more (cid:145)undemocratic(cid:146) than the United Nations (UN) or other similar international organisations.

Regarding the Honourable Member(cid:146)s comments on dispute settlement, the Commission would point out
that dispute settlement in the WTO is primarily intended to settle differences between WTO members on
the basis of their commitments. In principle, therefore, dispute settlement panel conclusions only assist in
the implementation of WTO agreements to which the Members have signed up following the above rules.

As far as the Agreement on Trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPs) is concerned, it does not
allow for the patenting of traditional production methods. It only provides intellectual property protection
for inventions that meet the very strict criteria of novelty, industrial application and inventiveness.

The Commission does, however, agree with the Honourable Member that the functioning of the WTO
needs to be improved. It submitted a series of proposals concerning transparency and public scrutiny of
the WTO and other reform issues before the Seattle ministerial conference. The Commission is in favour of
holding meetings of parliamentarians from WTO Member States, as a means to facilitate democratic
control of WTO activities, as proposed by the Members of the Parliament present
in Seattle. The
Commission is in the process of preparing a further set of proposals which it intends after consultation
of Member States and discussion with the Parliament, to transmit to the WTO in the near future.

(2000/C 303 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2638/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: The health sector and the new millennium

(12 January 2000)

The American representative at the World Trade Organisation, Charlene Barshefsky, referring to the Seattle
Ministerial Conference, emphasised that the public sector was responsible for health services in many
foreign countries and that US private firms active in the health sector therefore had difficulty in
penetrating those markets.

Given that views which favour further privatisations and the facilitation of the entry of foreign capital are
diametrically opposed to the welfare state approach and structure as found in most European Union
countries, what position does the Commission intend to adopt on this proposal?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2000)

Health services are already covered by the General agreement on trade in services (GATS) and will
therefore be part of the forthcoming negotiations which are foreseen to start this year. The Community
has undertaken very limited commitments under this sector.