What Bernd spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Diamonds have something special, sometimes something mystical. And diamonds have already made it to film fame. I remember James Bond, or the famous movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio, and I think that reflects exactly what this discussion is about: the two sides of these gems, the diamonds. On the one hand coveted and on the other hand associated with exploitation, coercion and environmental destruction. And I think it is worth reflecting once again that these diamonds have something to do with the colonial history of Europe. Until 1880, there were a few diamonds, but that wasn't a big story. And then with the industrial exploitation in the 1880s just by the company De Beers, exactly this run on the diamonds emerged, the unrestrained exploitation especially in African countries. Two thirds of all diamonds come from the African countries Angola, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe and of course from South Africa. And this company De Beers managed to manage demand and supply well, so that the price remained quite high. In this respect, as Europeans, we have a special responsibility in considering this process of extracting diamonds. In 2003, the Kimberley process was launched with a definition of blood diamonds, i.e. diamonds that support violent conflicts, rebellion, coup attempts, and these diamonds are then also to be removed from the market. This was once done with the Central African Republic, but with a very bleak procedure. During the embargo, diamonds were also exported from the Central African Republic. This means, however, that in this Kimberley process the issues of exploitation, of environmental destruction are not taken into account. And if you buy and give away diamonds for Christmas, you don't know if there is child labour, if there is environmental destruction. And that's why, I think, what we started with the Kimberley trial isn't enough. And that is why, Commissioner, we are asking you, we are essentially asking you five things: Firstly, how do you see the certification process – documents issued by the partners themselves? Is this sufficient to ensure that a reasonable process is monitored here? There are hardly any inspections, and certainly not by independent institutions. Secondly, what about working with partner countries when we know that the Kimberley process is a unanimous decision and that many unacceptable behaviours are not sanctioned at all? Looking at Zimbabwe or Venezuela? Are you actually satisfied with the behavior of the partners in this Kimberley process? Thirdly, isn't it also time to adjust the definition now that not only rebellion plays a role, but also human rights as a whole and environmental protection? Fourth, how does the Kimberley process relate to our legislation? It would be nice if this were included in the conflict minerals – it was also in the discussion. But above all, this must go into the due diligence legislation, so that we also have a duty of care in the entire supply chain. And fifth, we should also use new technologies like blockchain to have a truly digital imprint for the diamonds and not just a paper that is easy to fake. We need a digital transaction document so that we can really say at the end of the day: Diamonds should be human rights’ best friend.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The recent coronavirus figures have made it clear that we can really only be safe if everyone is safe. And a 4% vaccination rate in Africa is unacceptable, so we need to do more here. There is a whole bouquet of measures that we must take. I call on the Council and the Member States to release the promised doses for other countries. We have not yet reached the level that has been promised. Second, of course, we need more money for Covax to buy more. Above all, however, we need to strengthen the possibilities of production. And that means - and I think that's good, Commissioner - that we are dealing with the Team Europe also the hub support in some countries in Africa so that production capacity can be created. But what I can't understand at all is that there is no technology transfer and no production support from the companies that now earn quite well at the cans. I looked at all the contracts. There is no obligation to transfer technology, there is no obligation to set up production facilities in developing countries. That needs to be changed. Anyone who earns a lot of money with medicine must also take responsibility and invest in other countries so that vaccines can also be produced there.

Madam President, ‘No Time to Die’ is the title of the latest famous movie with James Bond, but I guess it’s also describing the situation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). No time to die, because we have a vital interest in a rules-based multilateral trading system – we as Europeans, and I guess the developing world as well – and therefore we have to deliver. This 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12) is really a critical ministerial conference. If we are not able to demonstrate that we can have some significant deliverables in this MC12, I guess a lot of people worldwide will be thinking that is the end of the multilateral system. Therefore, we have to concentrate really on the negotiation of unsustainable fish subsidies. After 20 years, it should be possible to find a result, and I am really hopeful that this will be one of the key elements of MC12 because this is the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into the trade regime, and this is also an important signal. Secondly, on trade and health. Nobody would understand if MC12 is not delivering something on trade and health. No export restrictions, we do a reduction of tariffs, and yes, let’s increase the production and let’s also discuss the question of intellectual property rights on a temporary waiver. Thirdly, we need also modernisation of the organisation. It is not possible that we have another five years of standstill. We need new ways of procedure, we need new ways also for the dispute settlement mechanism. Therefore, we need to push and this is my plea to all of you here. Let’s really try to adopt a resolution with a broad majority so that we can support the Commission, support all the forces which are trying to get a meaningful result, so please vote in favour of the resolution.

Mr President, I would say to the Executive Vice—Presidents that we indeed support the Trade and Technology Council. Let me make three remarks. One, this is a discussion forum, as Executive Vice—President Vestager said, to have an open and frank discussion. It is not a T—TIP reloaded. It’s a totally different child, and this is really important to have in mind and also to make public. Second, it’s really important to set the impact for the challenges of the future specific to the field of trade – so standards on artificial intelligence, the question of subsidies, the question of export controls. All this has to be discussed, to give also some input to global trade, to the World Trade Organization. Thirdly, we will scrutinise this process as a parliament in the Committee on International Trade and in Parliament in general, because transparency and the involvement of stakeholders is really important in this process. That’s also a lesson learned from the T—TIP exercise.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I believe that we have found a common ground with the United States, with President Biden’s government – especially in trade policy. When the President's commercial agent says: “We put labour rights at the heart of trade policy”, as we see it. We want to make sure that trade policy also serves the local people and not a few. In this respect, there is a common basis. And we have now also founded the Trade and Technology Council on 29 September, a platform where we can discuss such issues, where trade policy really benefits people, and where we can also ensure that there is a common approach: for example, on the question of investment controls, on the question of foreign subsidies, on the question of products produced by forced labour. These are all things we can work together. But we also all know that in a good relationship, the honeymoon is not always a reality. It also gets serious when discussing in a relationship: What color is the sofa? Where does the sofa go? And at this stage, we are natural. We also have disputes with the United States. The issue of illegal tariffs on steel products from the European Union remains on the agenda. And if we do not find a solution, we will double our countermeasures at the end of November. That's why I can only ask the American side: Like Airbus and Boeing, let's find a compromise here. There are other things as well – the disputes over the submarine deal certainly did not help to make the relationship more stable. So we have to work on it. But we also need to make it clear that we as Europeans have specific interests. This can also be seen in a good relationship.

Madam President, Commissioner! First of all, thank you very much to the rapporteur, Mrs Vautmans, for the good report and for the good cooperation with the Trade Committee, because, of course, trade policy plays a crucial role in relations with China. A Chinese proverb says: ‘It's better to stumble on a new path than to step on the old path.’ And that's exactly what it has to be about. We all know the situation in China. But we also know that we need to cooperate in certain areas. In this respect, it is right that we are thinking here about the question of a tool to safeguard public procurement, that we are making it clear that illegal subsidies are not acceptable in the internal market, that we want a supply chain law. But we also know that we need China in the context of the WTO and climate protection. In this respect: Both elements are in here. And that's just right. New thinking – yes, but also with the clear self-confidence of our interests. Therefore: clear edge, but no narrow-minded thinking.