Is Africa a compact unit? Are EU-African relations and cooperation about to be given a new impetus? The meeting last week between the European Commission and the Commission of the African Union (see issue 10391) made clear that there is a common desire for closer ties, but in practice, there are plenty of problems and disagreements, many of them considerable, and institutional complications to boot.
To start with the positive side, take the meeting between the two Commissions. We see that they do not have the same weight because the level of integration in the African Union (AU) is nothing like the integration in the European Union (EU). The EU institutions have practical powers that rise above the member states, but the same does not apply to the AU, and one may legitimately wonder exactly how far Africa as a whole aspires to become a genuine unit. African countries bordering on the Mediterranean are seeking special relations with the EU and all bar one are part of the EuroMed group comprising the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), some Asian countries and European countries that are not yet members of the EU but would like to join in the future. It is true that UfM has failed to meet its aims (the main one being to create a free-trade Mediterranean area, but this cannot be brought into practice until the trade barriers between Southern Mediterranean countries have been removed) and that it largely exists only on paper, being a façade rather than a concrete reality. But most of North Africa is trying all the same to develop special ties with the EU, with the exception of Libya, which has decided to build closer ties with black Africa instead, although this may change in the future.
These queries about whether Africa really wants to be a single unit do not in any way alter the fact that it has set up a body inspired by the most supranational of the EU institutions, which does not directly depend on governments and expresses its views on behalf of the entire continent. The African Union Commission has a president, a vice-president, eight commissioners, a workforce of some 1,500 and its own headquarters (in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia). For the moment, its aims amount to a wish list - unity and solidarity in the African continent, political and economic integration, the spread of democratic principles and institutions, and sustainable development. While they are nowhere near coming about, these ambitions certainly exist. The African Union is a youngster, being set up in 2002 and currently comprising 53 member states.
In my column, I have already addressed the question of goodwill and good intentions in EU-African cooperation.
Less salubrious aspects. It is pointless to try and ignore the less salubrious aspects like tribal warfare, heads of state refusing to go along with election results, permanent dictatorships, corruption, the siphoning off of state assets and so on. One gets the impression that some political regimes in black Africa are not so very different from those recently swept away in North Africa in the Arab spring. Some crimes, like the piracy by Somali armed groups and the kidnapping of Europeans, cannot be tolerated. Such things are not mentioned in official ceremonies like the meeting between the two Commissions last week and it is not the EU's job to lecture or interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign states, but nevertheless, certain questions remain in the air.
Conditional funding? Should Europe incorporate in its relations with black Africa the criterion that the European Commission has introduced into the new format of the European neighbourhood policy? I am referring to the idea of making EU funding conditional upon measurable progress towards freedom and democracy. It would probably be a step too far to make this an actual rule, because EU neighbourhood countries want to build very close ties with the EU (and some of them even want to join the EU club) and therefore a special system is justified for them, but certain conditions could nevertheless be considered for black Africa beyond the existing system for dealing with situations that are beyond the pale. Europe has no right to judge and weigh up each of the political regimes and degree of corruption in African countries and so on, but at the same time, the EU must not provide cash to political leaders who will simply use it to finance armed conflict, and the EU should pay attention to issues like the tangible impact of EU-funded projects. The European Parliament has made suggestions of this type. Would this idea clash with the political autonomy of the African countries receiving funding? This is a sensitive tissue and I will return to it tomorrow, along with other areas of EU-African relations.
(F.R./transl.fl)