| 
| 
| 
| 
|
State visit to Brazil Statements made by M. Jacques CHIRAC, President of the Republic, during his joint press briefing with Mr Luiz Inacio LULA DA SILVA, President of Brazil - excerpts -
State visit to Brazil Statements made by M. Jacques CHIRAC, President of the Republic, during his joint press briefing with Mr Luiz Inacio LULA DA SILVA, President of Brazil - excerpts -
Brasilia, 25 May 2006
(···)
WTO/CAP
Q. – My question is to both presidents: you talked about the dispute over agricultural subsidies which is pitting our two countries against each other at the WTO. M. Chirac, you talked about "give and take" in the interview you gave to "TV Globo". What are each of you willing to concede to break the deadlock? Is Brazil willing to open her market more to European industry and services?
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you for that question. People have a habit of saying that we've got a dispute at the WTO. There are a few differences of view, I wouldn't really call it a dispute. There are three parties here each defending their own interests: Europe, the emerging countries – and notably Brazil, but also others with her – and then the United States who, in fact, holds the key to the problem. That key isn't in Europe or Brazil or the emerging countries.
I'd like to remind you of one or two things. Firstly, so that there's no ambiguity, I repeat, it's wrong to say that Europe is a closed market. It's to a very large extent an open market. To take just France, every year she imports from Latin America, not Brazil, $2.5 billion worth of [agricultural] products. And she exports to Latin America $400 million worth. You see the difference. So you can't talk about Latin America having difficulty in exporting to Europe. Europe is a very open market, particularly for agricultural goods.
So, since it exists, where does the problem come from? Europe has taken a whole series of steps forward. It has carried out two successive reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, with the decoupling of subsidies from production, which – and I understand this – a number of countries, and particularly the emerging countries, wanted. It has significantly cut subsidies. It has made formal commitments to reduce them by around 45%. I had said 46, but President Lula's Foreign Minister, a shrewd expert, pointed out to me that it was in fact 40. At all events let's call it around 45% for customs tariffs.
Europe has done all it had to and could do and, honestly, doesn't feel able to take a single step further so long as other things haven't changed. So? Now, there's of course the fact that the countries involved haven't made any significant step towards Europe either on industrial goods or services. And we could have expected some shifts in this sphere in exchange for everything Europe has already done. But that isn't the nub of the problem.
The nub of the problem is that (···) the United States has absolutely not agreed to shift on anything at all. The Americans continue to have by far the largest domestic subsidies and domestic market support in the world, without accepting to change this situation in the slightest way. They have a system which very largely finances, including indirectly through food aid, US farm exports without, here either, there being any intention to take the smallest step forward.
I said to President Lula that as regards the WTO issue, our American friends' masterstroke has been to make people believe this was a problem between the emerging countries and Europe, which is absolutely not the case. If there were only problems between the emerging countries, particularly Brazil, and Europe, they would be resolved without any difficulty and with much smaller concessions than the ones Europe has felt the need to make. The fundamental problem is the situation of the Americans.
So I said to him, let's first try to join forces and exert friendly pressure on the Americans so that they become more reasonable on domestic support, i.e. reform their 2002 Farm Act, so that they become more reasonable on their totally excessive support for exports. When that's done, we'll resolve our internal problems with a very small effort, on all sides, without any difficulty.
BOLIVIA/GAS
Q. – I'd like to put a question to President Chirac. I'd like to know how the European Union sees events in Bolivia, the case of gas in Bolivia, and if that can change in some way the region's investment attractiveness. Do you believe there's no longer any risk?
THE PRESIDENT – President Lula has spoken wisely, I've nothing to add. In particular, I've no comment to make on the political changes which have taken place in any particular country. Personally, I've already had two official meetings with President Morales, and I got the feeling that he was absolutely determined to take account of all the interests involved and was fully sensitive to the arguments which could be made by the different countries involved, starting, of course, with Brazil.
So I have no comment to make on this point. And I have confidence in the two presidents' ability to find a harmonious solution to this little difficulty. On the other hand, I want to say that my talks with President Morales have led me to the view that he was, all the same, a man who had restored honour to a bruised and battered people.
IRAN/NUCLEAR
Q. – My question is to both presidents. It concerns the Iranian nuclear issue. France and Brazil are arguing for a diplomatic solution, for a multilateral approach on this issue, but the diplomatic efforts seem to be beginning to be exhausted. Iran's repeated refusal to give up uranium enrichment, don't you get the feeling that the international community has gone down a blind alley on this, one fraught with threats. Also, regarding the regional situation here in Latin America, what's your reaction to President Hugo Chavez's support for the Iranian nuclear programme and statement that Iran faced an imperialist threat from the United States?
THE PRESIDENT – I believe that President Lula has again spoken wisely. It isn't a question of contesting Iran's right to have nuclear technology. It's one of respect for an international decision which is binding on everyone, in this matter. And it's binding on everyone, not in order to upset anyone, but simply because the risks are considerable, both as regards the use of a nuclear weapon with the consequences that may entail, and the very serious risk of proliferation this involves.
Those are the reasons why I totally approve what President Lula said. (···).
|