Europe, the poor countries and the emerging countries. The EU has decided in principle to concentrate its development aid on the poorest countries of the world, leaving aside the emerging countries - which are in a clear phase of progress. This approach raises reservations or real protestations on the part of European development aid actors, who criticise the EU for neglecting the pockets of poverty that continue to exist in emerging countries. Nonetheless, the new European approach seems correct in my opinion, because pockets of poverty are increasingly visible in Europe itself. The EU and the member states have the duty of confronting it; the emerging countries must do the same in their countries. What exactly is the situation?
Within the EU, people needing food aid are estimated at 19 million. Yet the requirement to cut European spending would imply that, for the seven year 2014-2020 period, the EU food distribution programme for the most deprived persons of the Community (MDP) should be cut by 40%. The European Parliament is opposed to this, stating that in the EU poverty in the comprehensive sense affects nearly 120 million citizens. What is more, the development aid package is being cut by all OECD countries and Europe by and large is respecting its commitments. My conclusion can be summed up in a few sentences.
Hats off and congratulations to the emerging countries which have seen vigorous expansion and which are packing ever more punch at the global level. They deserve it. The also have the duty to take care of their pockets of poverty. Europe has its own pockets of poverty but it still remains the top donor of aid to poor countries.
Let me add that I slightly distrust some Community organisations that distribute aid outside the EU, because they sometimes give the impression of caring more about their importance and defending their budget resources than the real needs of the beneficiaries of their action.
Cyprus and Turkey - maritime and energy disagreements. Besides the joke of Ankara asking the Cypriots to join the monetary zone of the “Turkish pound” if they leave the eurozone, other aspects of the Turkey-Cyprus relationship are also conflictual. Ankara is opposed to the Cypriot projects to explore and extract the natural gas around the island because its own projects involving this sea are huge, being linked to the gas pipeline that goes from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. And Moscow would agree with Ankara in this case - for energy, Turkey and Russia collaborate. In their view, Cyprus does not have the right to use the offshore energy resources as a guarantee for the loans that it is trying to obtain. And account should also be taken of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which only Ankara recognises.
Other countries are also involved in the energy resources of this area. For example, Ankara suspended its collaboration with ENI (Italy) for the investment projects there. What is more, the Cyprus-Turkey disagreements had already begun in 2010 for political reasons - Ankara contested the fact that Cypriots of Greek origin be the only owners of the island.
The disagreement is growing because Cyprus intends to use the gas resources as an instrument to overcome its banking crisis. And the tens of thousands of Russians who have set up home in Cyprus have no intention of leaving. It's clear, then, that the Cypriot case is ever more confused.
Brussels' fault? It is too simplistic, in my opinion, to attribute to the EU the responsibility for the complications mentioned above. It is all the rage to attribute the entire blame to Brussels - this is simple and it's often stupid. If we had accepted from the outset the solution demanded by Cyprus to confront its difficulties, the main part of its efforts would have been borne by the European taxpayer. It's a bit like for Greece - I have read several times that “the bailout plan for this country has been the most expensive and the most ineffective in the history of capitalism”.
It is normal - and even a duty for the EU - to help its member states in trouble, offering them the possibility of recovery. Yet the member states must take account of their commitments. It is too easy for part of the European Parliament and for certain commentators to demand limitless Community aid for all the countries of the eurozone, while neglecting the responsibilities of those who are at fault and while hiding the truth about the real cost for all Europeans. I sometimes wonder if the winners of some of the deals are not in the end the unscrupulous banks. The demagoguery that consists of not challenging the responsibilities of the countries that do not respect the commitments they have signed up to is negative. And let's not forget that the abuse of the political class is sometimes the first reason for the budgetary imbalances.
(FR/transl.fl)