First of all, the very fact that you asked that question shows how close together we are. The questions people ask say a lot about the kinds of concerns that they have. Your question could have been composed by a member of the European Parliament, whereas politicians in other parts of the world simply would not ask it. I say that to underline the extent to which the Weltanschauung, as the Germans say, the world view, that is, of this Parliament is similar to that of the European Parliament.
How do we try to bring all those elements together? Really, this is the role of the different voices in Parliament. Our multilateralism requires us to make it possible for all the concerns that you mentioned to be on the agenda. Then we follow it. This is the role of Parliament each time that European Union signs an accord.
For example, we are presently right in the middle of a political debate where the language can at times become acrimonious. The European Union has to deal with the list of topics that must be on the table: sustainable development, the role of women, human rights, multiculturalism, and so on, as it works towards an economic partnership agreement, an EPA, with Africa.
Things are at a standstill. There are different visions within our Parliament and even sometimes within the Development Committee and the International Trade Committee. During the negotiations, there are different ways of seeking balance. Clearly, we must not sacrifice our values, but, at the same time, everything cannot come first. It is the different notes in a piece of music that make it sound right. That is what we do; that is part of our goal.
Let me give you a very clear example. Using the texts on the table and the amendments that the European Parliament brings forward, we try to address the question of strengthening multiculturalism. Take South Korea as an example. We are right in the middle of free trade negotiations with South Korea. There is a camp in the European Parliament, led by some highly respected members, that opposes the agreement on the issue of cultural diversity. We believe—and I know that we and Canada think alike on this—that culture is not a factor that has a place in trade in the same way as shoes or steel. So the language is different, even in the treaties of union.
Some of us in Parliament feel that, in the trade negotiations with South Korea, culture and broadcasting are dealt with in exactly the same way as the other items on the agenda. There is a very strong reaction in Parliament, and we will see where it leads us. In the case of Africa, culture is not on the table, but other things are.