In favour of the effectiveness of efforts. What is valid in the EU's internal policy is just as much so in its relations with third countries. The action of the EU and its member states to reduce the national budget deficits and monitor common expenditure is largely based on getting rid of wastage and on effective control of the use of European financing. The same concept is valid for subsidies and other funding for third countries. The advantage of verification is mutual - the EU is reassured about the effectiveness of its effort, and the beneficiary countries obtain the biggest possible result from it.
The EU will maintain, of course, its position of top aid donor to developing countries - but while monitoring the effectiveness of its action. How many times has European funding been ill used to enrich certain recipient countries' authorities? The controls have often been ineffective. Sometimes dishonest intermediaries have been jointly responsible for the distortions and they have made personal profit out of it. The abuses have to disappear - both for the financing that is entirely European and for the financing in which the EU is just a participant.
The example of Mali. The last large-scale operation was the Donor conference for the development of Mali (see EUROPE 10846 and 10853). The commitments made are generous - €3.250 billion, which could go up. Yet the payments are subject to progress by the recipient country in its democratic reforms, to good governance and to its next elections being free. The agreement constitutes a form of contract - to help the country and its people on condition that political stability and the elimination of terrorism are guaranteed. The French minister for foreign affairs, Laurent Fabius, spoke about mutual commitment - financing is subject to political development and to the satisfactory conduct of the presidential elections at the end of July.
Algeria and other Mediterranean countries. The 27 countries of the EU and Algeria will soon adopt a memorandum of understanding on energy cooperation. Current links should be made broader and deeper - with Algeria firstly bringing the raw material, and Europe the technology and investment (as well as a wider opening of its markets). The Algerian authorities want strengthened cooperation and they have distributed, in advance, the draft for a strategic agreement between Algeria and the 27 countries of the EU, “which will open a new era of cooperation” (see EUROPE 10846). On the European side, we have been more cautious because this project has still not been formally approved - the joint signature is expected in the coming weeks. A few differences of opinion remain with regard to its implementation.
As for cooperation projects with other countries of the Maghreb, let me just note for the moment that the situations are not uniform and that the EU is trying to determine as far as possible the destination of its financing (more to civil society than to political forces). Furthermore, in certain cases the European commitments are cautious - the framework agreement with Libya is described as a medium-term project, and other projects have been announced with a great deal of care. This column will return to this.
Conditions for Ukraine. The principle of subjecting European support to conditions to be respected by the other party does not only apply to the financing to developing countries, but also to relations with countries situated on the EU's border - countries that would like to strengthen their relations with the EU (and let's not exclude the long-term possibility of their becoming members of it). The most striking case is Ukraine. The association agreement is ready and the European Commission has set out the draft decision relating to its signature and to its provisional application, but while underlining that it is about a preparatory stage which does not at all prejudice the decision that the Council will take on its formal conclusion (see EUROPE 10846). This phase has been defined by the Commission as “necessary for being technically ready for the possible signature (…). The EU will only sign if Ukraine creates the crucial political conditions”.
The Commission presents these conditions in detail. In a nutshell, Ukraine must prove its determined action and tangible progress in several domains; and the Council will have at least six months to decide - because the national parliaments and member states must also give their opinions.
Kiev was quick to respond (see EUROPE 10854). The Ukrainian minister for foreign affairs, Leonid Kozhara, did not appreciate the Commission's reluctance, and asserted that delaying the signature of the association agreement would be a geopolitical failure of the EU's foreign policy and a short-sighted attitude. He added that the institutional reforms do not only consist of developing legislative texts, but also of training people - which takes time. Kozhara also contests that there are political prisoners in his country.
It should be remembered that, for Ukraine, strengthening its relations with the EU is crucial for resolving - in favourable conditions - its problem of energy from Russia destined for the European market. If Ukraine negotiates as a country associated with the EU its position will be stronger.
Importance for both parties. This overview is purely indicative and puts forward only a few cases from the current time - there are certainly other cases in the history of Europe. The new aspect is the emphasis on conditionality. It is positive that the EU - which has become vigilant in the control of its internal spending - might be just as much so for its external financing. This is not only an economic concern, but especially a way of helping the beneficiary countries make progress on the path of good governance, democracy and liberty, if they want to consolidate and develop their relations with the EU.
Could it be that Europe is becoming the mistress of civilisation? Why not? (FR/transl.fl)