Criminal gangs. The figures and statistics paint a very clear picture. Not so long ago, Europe represented a vast proportion of global wealth and power: wars given the epithet World were fought on its lands; in the second such conflict, the Russian territory was directly involved; the Yalta Conference was a trilateral meeting (one European, one American and one Russian) to decide on the world organisation. Today, Europe represents only a relatively modest entity among dozens of others, the countries of other continents have acquired autonomy and power on their own merits, they manage their own lands and resources and are masters of their own destinies.
And yet, we regard it as quite as it should be that the European Union, which is economically struggling and pretty small in comparison to various giants, is the largest financial donor to other continents and receives thousands of illegal immigrants from Africa and parts of Asia. Obviously, there is such a thing as a duty of human solidarity, but the criminal gangs orchestrating the abandonment of women and children in the Mediterranean cannot be tolerated. Angelino Alfano, the Italian Home Affairs Minister, told a conference in Palermo in early April that human trafficking originating in Africa is believed to be the work of 500 criminal gangs, who are prepared to take up to 600,000 desperate people across the Mediterranean.
To the detriment of young Europeans? There are a number of demagogic pseudo-organisations arguing that the EU should make all of its funding of the countries unfairly defined as Third World countries into donations. One Renaud Vivien, who is a member of the Committee for the Abolition of the Third World Debt (known by its French acronym, CADTM) got Le Soir (Belgian daily newspaper) to publish his text calling for funding in the pipeline or already paid out to Tunisia and Ukraine to be considered donations rather than, under any circumstances, loans. He argues that this measure should also be imposed on aid provided by the IMF! However, in parallel to the money it lends, the EU already makes financial donations to Tunisia, Ukraine and many other countries in a greater or lesser state of poverty than these two; doing more would mean increasing the weight of the EU's debt burden, which is already excessive. This would hit the young people of Europe the hardest, as they will one day be paying for it! How easy it is to be generous at the expense of others, to bequeath debts to the next generation, when the EU is already the world's largest donor of aid to the Third World - which, in any case, does not include Tunisia and Ukraine.
Discipline of the world of finance. A third element to be taken on board: the EU has radically transformed, and is continuing to work on this, its management of the financial world, with responsibilities and disciplines which didn't exist a short time ago. Our EUROPE/Documents 2581 featured an investigation by our deputy editor, Mathieu Bion, who brilliantly laid out information and clarifications. It bears repeating that the result will be a proper European banking union, which will carry its effects over to the everyday lives of the citizens, as it will bring with it a uniform system for protecting savers from banks going under.
Green light for “Made in EU”. The fourth aspect, which is the most complicated to define: European consumer products will be recognisable, thanks to the label made in EU. A great deal has already been done towards this in the fields of food and pharmaceutical products; the European Parliament is fighting for the system to be rolled out generally. The indication made in EU would not in itself be obligatory, as the national references which already exist (Made in France, in Italy or elsewhere) often add a great deal of value and there is no question of getting rid of them. The generic wording Made in EU would be in addition to these, and some wording or other, yet to be defined, will be obligatory for furniture, shoes and other products.
What already exists, therefore, will not be called into question. The aspect which has come under fire is moving from a voluntary system to an obligatory one. There are many terms and conditions which have to be laid down. For example: would a product made up of component parts produced in Germany, but assembled in a third country, be entitled to use the wording Made in EU or Made in Germany? And what about complex products including non-European components? For example, could a pair of trousers sewn together in one of the member states, out of cloth from Asia and with American zips, be labelled Made in EU? As you can see, the dossier is a complex one which will take years, due also to the question of sanctions. However, partial agreements will obviously come into being far sooner than that.
For an overview. All of these aspects need to be taken on board. Abuse, in some cases quite horrific, which harms Europe, must be put right. This is the condition which will enable the EU to take charge of its own future, whilst contributing to the development of other countries and other continents.
(FR)