EU member states and the EU itself have significantly increased measures to monitor and rationalise their spending and help fight against waste. In the United Kingdom an austerity policy clearly applies. Elsewhere, the term austerity is avoided but the situation speaks for itself. Why hasn't a similar orientation applied to external funding? The question is, in fact, being more frequently posed, as I can testify myself, but it is done so either indirectly or surreptitiously, so as not to upset the countries concerned or certain groups that consider that they have been conferred with the task of protecting what was once called the “Third World”. There is obviously no question of Europe reneging on its commitments or halting aid to less developed countries but there is a demand that the destination of its funding, and how it is used, be monitored at the very time that sacrifice and efforts are being demanded of its citizens.
Austerity in Europe. For domestic spending, controls on the use of Community funds are becoming increasingly stricter; this is a positive development. Cases of waste have been discovered on numerous occasions, as well as cases of abuse and inappropriate use. The bodies responsible have strengthened and improved monitoring, and results have been published! The European Parliament has blocked funding to the European Police Academy due to doubts about the inefficient way in which this funding was used. Bulgaria is at risk of losing a considerable amount of European funding for which it is eligible because of the lack of valid projects and instruments to guarantee appropriate use. At a national level in all member states, reforms which are sometimes painful make spending conditions harsher or change their criteria (health and pensions). Sacrifices are being made by people everywhere.
Supervision must be just as strict for external spending. Symptoms in this connection are beginning to appear. On the eve of the international conference on aid to Pakistan, heads of delegations from the EU and US have all underlined the demand that the Pakistani tax regime be radically revised so that the richest sections of society be subject to taxes, “at a time when taxpayers from Europe, the US and other countries are having to pay” (EUROPE 10236). Is this all demagogy? Possibly, but if it is the case, it's not coming from me - it was co-signed by Hillary Clinton and Catherine Ashton. No one can ignore the fact that Pakistan has the atomic bomb and this column has already expressed doubts about funding going to countries that have the atomic bomb or are preparing to have it. I am not judging the political aspects of the question, I am talking about European funding.
Almost all the opium in the world. In this context, how can we avoid mentioning Afghanistan? This column is not the appropriate place to discuss the line taken by the US. The mass media and illustrious commentators do this every day. Nonetheless, the economic dimension in itself raises a number of concerns. UN bodies and a number of serious reports by journalists indicate that 92% of all the opium in the world is grown in southern Afghanistan. Production fell in 2001 but took off again to create a heroin market valued at $15 billion a year, which is managed by the most powerful criminal organisations in the world. Projects aimed at controlling opium cultivation for health and medical reasons, by setting aside the rest of the land for more appropriate food production, have failed. Opium production has been relaunched and the experts are asking whether criminal organisations are directly funding and arming the Taliban. How can we fail to understand the attitude of European countries that seek to withdraw from the Afghan adventure as soon as possible, with all the astronomical costs related to it (not to mention the loss of human life), as well as the wish expressed by the US president to get out of the country as soon as possible?
Sharing the cost burden. The EU also assumes spending that could, at least partially, be covered by other parties. The funding of Palestinian refugees is a responsibility that the Community budget should never abandon, with regard to health care, children's education and so on. Other parties, however, could participate in this and assume responsibility for other sources of aid. Gulf countries that invest billions of euros to buy football teams and luxury hotels, or who become shareholders in European companies, could also more actively contribute to helping Palestinian organisations, beyond providing aid of a purely religious character.
European aid to associated African countries and other countries that have close links to the EU should be assessed separately. This will be the subject of a forthcoming column.
(F.R./transl.fl)