The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The second observation concerns the increasing importance of the international dimension in our reflections upon the policy issues surrounding agriculture. We have already raised the importance of this by underlining the necessity to guarantee food security, particularly for developing countries, and by highlighting the dangers inherent in an aggressive EU export policy. But since the events of Seattle, it has become abundantly clear that the rise of liberalism is going to provoke much wider mobilization which, in turn, would once more shine the spotlight upon the food question - global governance, the role of international institutions and, beyond this, a sense of the future and of the ability of people to influence the course of history. What future is there in a process of globalization orchestrated by the United States, in which the collective interest adds up to the sum of certain private interests? This question is of concern to all continents, including our own. Then we witnessed the tragic events of September 11 2001. We should not overestimate the scope of the grand resolutions made in this context. But we should take stock of the risk of instability which characterizes the new century. We must reassert the need for global co-ordination of economic policy, for the democratization of negotiation processes, and for the respect of collective interests. We explain below that the emergence of a multipolar world is a matter of urgency. We should encourage the development of regional groupings seen as policy integration areas within which exchanges are stimulated and regulated. Like the European Union, these groupings made up of countries of similar status will participate in the construction of stabilized markets. As for international trade negotiations, they must be organized around one priority: the reduction of inequality between countries, between territories, and between individuals. The fight against poverty rests upon the ability of the countries of the South to preserve markets for their farmers. The European Union must guarantee them this right which it has claimed for itself. And that is where agricultural policy comes in again. The growing importance of concerns about the environment, rural development and food security do not excuse us from renewed reflection upon the organization of markets, mechanisms of trade and protection, and the place of farmers in the world.
Seriously: WTF??
Barroso said that he had distributed jobs according to the talents and interests of the individuals, not according to country.
distributed jobs according to the talents and interests of the individuals, not according to country.
It would be fun if the EP would foil the Oettinger nomination... but why expect it from the same EP that re-elected Barroso. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Bruges Group
The Bruges Group is composed of about thirty individuals from different European countries. Created in 1995 at the suggestion of Mr. Edgard Pisani, it is independent of any organisation or institution.
I can see a number of differences with standard French agricultural policy there in the excerpt you quote. What's your WTF referring to?
The EU should focus on stopping the harm it's doing with its export subsidies before considering agricultural policy as a cog in arranging a new world order.
nanne:
the necessity to guarantee food security, particularly for developing countries, and by highlighting the dangers inherent in an aggressive EU export policy.
As for US-orchestrated globalisation, I'm dead against, but perhaps that's just me.
Seems to me the EU project is part of a multipolar movement?
The rest of the recommendations are fair enough, and for the record I'm also happy to have Cioloş. I just thought the bit on multipolarism and encouraging EU clones was weird in a text on agriculture.
I think this is above all the reference in that text. They do after all say:
We must reassert the need for global co-ordination of economic policy, for the democratization of negotiation processes, and for the respect of collective interests.
As the EPAs seem less harmful than the Doha round this is not a bad thing on account of getting a global arrangement. Better nothing than Doha. But the accompanying construction of regional trading blocs in the service of the EU market is a questionable matter.
in the service of the EU market
I agree.
Of course it's all rather more complicated and IMO the best thing we can do is not interfere more, since we Europeans have a long history of screwing things up. Which is sometimes remembered!
Should the EU really be doing that? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
For accounting purposes (who pays and who gets what) those boundaries still exist. But for people (culture) they are far less important. You can't be me, I'm taken
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 55 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 91 comments
by Oui - Feb 13 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2731 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2555 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1219 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1034 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments