Chief culprits. Although we have been confronted by images of Somali children dying of starvation and thirst, we have always avoided blaming those chiefly responsible for this horror story. Now that aid has arrived and the situation appears to be improving, it can no longer be justified to refrain from telling the truth. All the different observers, special press envoys and other witnesses have affirmed and shown it: the conflicts taking place there, the endless wars, cruelty and selfishness are the main reasons for what is happening in Somalia, where “the militias are the law”. The officially recognised authority is just a powerless façade. The humanitarian agencies were chased out of the zones that had been conquered by the Shabaab (a group linked to al-Qaeda) and piracy is preventing humanitarian aid arriving from the sea. Different products, especially foodstuffs that have, one way or another, managed to arrive in Somalia, are plundered by the armed militias and very rarely reach those they are supposed to help. Drought and famine are indeed very real but human beings are really those responsible. Local traditional farming is also very limited and needs to be totally redeveloped. The activity that is experiencing the highest rate of growth is the ignoble practice of piracy. Pirates have been known to hold hostages for years and never release them unless they obtain the ransom demanded. One pirate, who was captured and tried in Belgium for having participated in an attack against a ship chartered by the World Health Programme, was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Much heavier sentences would surely appear appropriate for tackling such a scourge.
Rules for European aid. Is my indignation excessive, when it comes to a country in trouble? I don't think so. My severity is a sign of respect and it means considering Africans as autonomous people who are responsible for how they behave. A recent Community document also appears to suggest this. I am referring to the European Commission communication sent to the Parliament and Council last week, which proposes the EU's position in view of the UN Forum on the efficiency of aid to developing countries or those in trouble (see EUROPE 10448). The Commission indicates that this efficiency should be strengthened and improved, particularly by taking into account the following essential positions: democratic nature of the beneficiaries; transparency and predictability of the aid; less fragmentation in European interventions; beneficiaries being responsible as regards the results; effective control of the efficiency of the aid.
Only a knowledge of the whole document will allow an evaluation of the European positions but it is clear that the EU intends to tackle the question of how efficient its aid really is and how to control its use by the beneficiaries. Too many cases have been identified where aid, far from helping the development of beneficiary countries, has been hived off to the benefit of the local authorities, or where aid is totally ineffective due to the administrative inefficiency of those allocating it, which sometimes benefits different European interests. Mr Andrew Mitchell, the British secretary of state for international development, is intent on proving to taxpayers that every last penny of aid is well used. The number of beneficiary countries will be reduced from 43 to 27 and China and Russia will, in particular, be taken off the list (although India will remain on it). On the other hand, contributions to certain multilateral aid bodies like UNICEF will be increased, while other bodies will have to prove the efficiency of their programmes if they still wish to receive support.
For genuine control. I believe that better control of how European aid is used is fully justified for at least three reasons: (a) the budgetary difficulties being experienced by the EU and its member states which are obliged to reduce their public spending in ways that are sometimes quite drastic; (b) the abuses and waste in how Community aid is used - abuses and waste which sometimes take inadmissible, not to say scandalous, forms; (c) the absurdity of funding countries like China (which has the biggest monetary reserves in the world) and other so-called “emerging” countries, not to mention abusive and anti-democratic regimes such as Libya with their accumulated wealth; and also sometimes the authorities of certain countries which own oil resources and other valuable raw materials.
Some people argue that Europe and Western indifference are responsible for the Somali tragedy, rather than the domestic conflicts and the plundering of humanitarian aid by sects well supplied (what?) with modern weaponry, and piracy. It is much easier to blame Europe, which is obviously partly responsible indirectly and guilty of some shortcomings, but it has mobilised to tackle the emergency and will help contribute to Somali reconstruction as soon as the domestic situation allows. (F.R./transl.fl)