Open-handedness and controls. Austerity measures are, for now, inescapable in Europe. The EU and its member states are forced to keep an eye on what they spend. All governments, some more than others, are committed to national budget rebalancing programmes and, when it comes to the Community budget, net contributor countries are opposed to expansion that exceeds the rate of inflation (see yesterday's column). This is a difficult situation, albeit comprising a positive aspect - it compels governments to counter any misuse or wastage of resources available, thus calling for such resources to be managed with constraint and good judgement, not only for internal spending but also for third country funding. At first sight, this might seem very banal but, in reality, it is revolutionary.
On the domestic front, the main role is incumbent upon member states, as the Community budget is only a little above the 1% of total public spending, but the link between national and joint spending becomes increasingly effective thanks to progress made in economic governance, which not only means there must be analysis in common but also uniform disciplines and rules for national budgets, defined together at European level. On the external front, Europe quite rightly highlights the sizeable effort that it makes. Commission President Barroso points out that “we are the ones who put the most money on the table” for developing countries, and European Council President Van Rompuy pointed out when addressing the G8 that the EU provides neighbouring countries with nearly €7 billion in donations, to be added to the loans from the EIB and the EBRD.
Revolutionary innovation. In this context, the most significant document is the new Neighbourhood Policy presented last week by two European commissioners (one of whom was Catherine Ashton who, for once, acted in her capacity as Commission vice-president). Let me remind you of the three key points: (a) this policy covers not only the southern neighbours (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia) but also eastern neighbours (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine); (b) its budget has been considerably increased for the period 2011-2013; and (c) the former breakdown (two-thirds for southern countries, one third for those in the east) has become more elastic, as funding will not simply be attributed to the different countries but will depend on the political evolution of beneficiary countries concerned.
The last point is where revolutionary innovation comes in. Financing will be subject to progress made by each country on the road towards freedom and democracy. The EU has thus corrected the former method whereby: (1) it did not give itself the right to intervene in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries; and (2) the ill-fated Union for the Mediterranean awarded presidencies, honours and support to figures who were later deemed to be corrupt tyrants. The new criteria comprise: free elections, freedom of the press, action against corruption, and an independent justice system. If no reform is made along these lines, then aid to defaulting countries will be reduced or transformed into subsidies explicitly intended for the civil society. On the other hand, progress would open up the road to various forms of partnership, including labour mobility and the free trade of goods (though it must be said that, for agricultural products, some member states are reluctant about this). The development of the economy of “neighbouring countries” would contribute to the creation of jobs in those countries and therefore resolve the sticky illegal immigration situation by replacing it with controlled immigration, which some EU countries are at any rate in need of (in Germany, for example, it is estimated that 350,000 immigrants will be needed annually - but they would have to have high professional qualifications …).
Giving back the spoils. I would add one more thing. It is hallucinating to learn of the plunder of public goods by the former tyrants of Egypt and Tunisia, and also by the sinister Colonel Gaddafi. In addition to abuse that has already come to light, one continues to discover wealth deposited by these people and their families in European banks - always so ready to be obliging. Restoring this wealth to the people that created it through their hard toil would make it possible to meet a considerable share of the urgent financial needs of the countries concerned. Would it not be possible to imagine a little pressure being put on a number of banking establishments in Europe and elsewhere?
I am by no means an expert on this. The subtleties of the world of finance are beyond me, but it is rather strange, I find, that it is so complicated to give back to a country what belongs to it.
These musings on the neighbourhood policy countries are also true for other recipients of European aid - aid which does not always reach those for whom it is intended. (F.R./transl.jl)