For exposing the gulf between the rhetoric of European democracy and the reality of predatory trade relations with under-developed countries, Joe Higgins has been labelled a “fair politician” by the NGO “Fair Politics”. Read their account on the debate on “Policy Coherence” here.
Reposted from: www.fairpolitics.nl
“In the meeting of the European Parliaments Committee on International Trade (INTA) that took place Wednesday the 27th of January 2010, Policy Coherence for Development was on the Agenda. This was without a doubt a special occasion for Fair Politics, because the INTA Committee had never discussed the subject this seriously before.
At 10:20, Joe Higgins, member of the Confederal Group of the European United Left-Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL), presented the Draft Opinion of the INTA Committee for the Committee on Development (DEVE) on the EU Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) and the Official Development Assistance plus concept. He started by stating that there is simply no coherence between the EU practice of trade and the fine EU words of democracy, justice and fair play. He criticizes the Commissions strategy paper Global Europe for undermining and understating the detrimental damages that international liberal trade is causing, especially concerning global inequalities. The EU should listen more carefully to Trade Unions who understand the realities of EU trade on the ground. Furthermore he discussed the absurdities of the TRIPS Agreement, especially concerning medication and healthcare and the controversies of the European Partnership Agreements (EPAs) and how they do not contribute to the EUs commitments towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
After Joe Higginss short introduction to the draft opinion the floor was open to questions and comments by other members of parliament (MEPs). In the INTA Committee, such an opinion is of course extremely controversial. The Europeans People Party (EPP) reacted very strongly, stating that they cannot accept such an opinion because it is not in line with earlier reports. Pablo Zalba Bidegain, speaking on behalf of the EPP, gave examples where liberalization of the world market has led to extremely high economic growth rates, like China and India, which enjoy an annual 20% growth rate. Furthermore, he explained that EPAs are extremely complex, and cannot be simplified to saying that they have been harmful. Despite the critiques on MEP Higgins, there was an agreement that the TRIPS concerning medication need to be revised.
David Martin, who spoke on behalf of the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) believed the spirit of the draft opinion was good but could not agree with most of the content. Liberalization of the market, cannot be said to be all bad. With the correct management and conditions it is good for development. Furthermore, he brought up the importance of raw materials when considering trade agreements. Currently countries are not able to benefit from their own raw materials, or to move up the value chain. Finally he also agreed on the controversies around the TRIPS Agreement.
Jadot Yannick, spokes person of the Green Political Group, spoke of lack of reference to MDGs in the draft opinion and hope for more concrete examples. Some that they mentioned were the Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs), the reintroduced Milk subsidies due to the Crises and future Free Trade Agreements with South Korea for example.
William Darthmout, member of the Freedom and Democracy group (EFD), also strongly disagreed with the negative affect of liberalization of the global market, comparing India, a country of a billion people to Hong Kong, a country of four million and how their economic policies have affected their development in the past years.
The representative of the Commission, emphasized that liberalization is not the only factor with incoherence. Other areas like climate change, security and migration are also key areas, and they all overlap.
Finally, Joe Higgins, the draftsman of the opiniono to the DEVE Committee, reacted to the critiques and suggestions that were given, explaining that the breaking open of markets affects countries with different bargaining powers, differently. China and India are therefore extremely different from smaller, more dependent economies.
Overall the INTA Committee discussed PCD for over half an hour, discussing many of the Fair Politics Cases, including Economic Partnership Agreements, Raw Materials, TRIPS and Medicines and Fisheries. Although not all political groups have progressive opinions concerning PCD, this meeting is a good step forward for more coherence and development. Amendments towards the draft opinion can be sent till the 2nd of February, and the vote for adoption of the opinion will be held on the 23rd of February. Fair Politics hopes for amendments with more concrete examples on incoherencies, like suggested by some MEPs during the meeting, we therefore look forward to these amendments and we hope we can award more MEPs for being fair politicians.
For his effort in PCD, we recognize MEP Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL) as a fair politician.”
To read it at their website fo to: http://www.fairpolitics.nl/europa/cases/policy_coherence_in_general/2010_01_27_a_special_day_for_pcd__inta_draft_opinion?term=joe%20higgins&p;=1
CHECK OUT OTHER RELATED ARTICLES:
- Response to claim of ‘balance’ by senior counsel and Dail Committee
- Video: Impact of trade agreements with Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries
- Joe Higgins MEP highlights the ongoing strike at Tekel and human rights abuses in Turkey
- Video: Human rights and trade agreements under Spanish Presidency of EU
- Joe Higgins MEP condemns the use of preferential trade agreements to dominate developing countries
