Euro-American divergences could call into question a fundamental aspect of the way the WTO operates. There have been three developments in recent weeks in EU external relations: the Summit with Russia, the Summit with the United States and the announcement of reform of the management of Europe's assistance to third countries. The possibilities opened up by the meetings with Russian President Putin and American President Clinton cannot be evaluated today. The statements of principle and intent expressed are obviously positive, but their sincerity and effects remain to be verified.
With regard to Russia, the EU has been accused of abandoning its severe stance on Chechnya and the disagreements over Serbia and Kosovo were practically not mentioned. Both parties toned down divergences so as to agree on conclusions expressing considerable hope. Is this hypocrisy by the EU, which talks big with "little countries" but becomes cautious when the interlocutor is a "big" country? This may not be a true representation of reality. The Russian commitment to a democratic and free Europe is essential nonetheless, like all other commitments, be they political (sanctioning all infringements of the law committed in Chechnya, even by armed forces), or economic (reforms). Empty words? Let's not be sceptical to start. Statements of principle also have their value and significance. The Russian willingness to engage in co-operation seems to indicate a change in attitude compared to the period when relations with the United States were the only important ones for Moscow and awareness that, in the final analysis, Russia's destiny depends primarily on its relations with Europe.
The Euro-American summit reiterated a fundamental principle: what unites the EU and the United States is incomparably vaster and stronger than what separates them. Dramatising trade divergences (bananas, hormones, Foreign Sales Corporations, etc.) distorts perspectives and poisons the atmosphere. In such cases, each party defends its own interests, sometimes bitterly. It is important to be realistic: there will always be divergences because Euro-American economic and trade relations are of such vast scope that this is only natural. The main thing is that they must not mask fundamental agreement over major objectives and positions. And we should ask ourselves whether they may be zeroing in on fundamental issues related to the way the WTO works: to what extent is it justified and acceptable for a panel of three experts who base their verdicts solely on trade rules, to take decisions concerning food safety (hormones), relations with the poor countries associated with the EU (bananas), the industry/defence couple (aeronautical construction) and so on?
An unfair indictment and unconvincing calculations. And thus we come to the third subject of this comment. Who cannot but welcome the initiatives taken by European Commissioner Chris Patten to make the EU's financial aid to third countries more effective and its delivery faster. A greater and more visible European presence in the world, a more dynamic Europe that respects its undertakings and keeps its promises: these are intentions it would be absurd not to share. And Mr Patten was right to stimulate a debate by the Foreign Ministers, to ensure that they are aware of the objectives the Commission is pursuing and to make them co-responsible for their achievement.
It remains to be seen why Mr Patten found it advisable, to get his message across, to denigrate, to darken everything Europe has done and continues to do to assist third countries, by presenting the image of an ineffective and unmethodical, or even dishonest, Europe (1). Now the heroes are there and are going to change everything, because "we cannot go on as we have been doing up until now".
It is obvious that Mr Patten's indictment included several justified and very useful remarks. It is absurd that the EU's external aid is managed by a mind-boggling number of management committees and disparate regulations, that its procedures are excessively complicated, that Member States claim to look into even minor financing. But the announcement of the will to change has been cloaked in a thick mantle of useless demagogy. The calculations that, at today's rate, it would take almost 9 years to respect undertakings made to the Mediterranean countries, 7 for those made to the Asian nations, 6 and a half for the Latin American countries, that around EUR 2 billion earmarked for the ACP states have still not been used, and that even humanitarian aid is around a year and 8 months behind schedule are doubtless exact. How could we doubt them?
What is false is that responsibility for these delays lies always and solely with the EU, previous European Commissions and Community civil servants. Has no one informed Mr Patten of the fact that financing for the Democratic Republic of Congo has been suspended for several years because there is no guarantee it will be used properly? That the appropriation for Somalia has been set aside because this country has never ratified the EU/ACP Convention? Does Mr Patten realise that just a few hours after his press conference, the Spokesman's Service released a statement announcing that all financing for Ethiopia and Eritrea had been interrupted for obvious reasons? If in the coming weeks there are any new tragedies and convincing photos of the food situation in the Ogaden in Ethiopia, it might be useful to know that the EU has prepared appropriate food aid and essential supplies, which cannot reach their destination because all the ports in the area, with the exception of Djibouti, are blocked as a result of the conflict. But blame Europe, it will once again be the one responsible, incapable of respecting its undertakings.
Four instructive examples. Le Monde, a serious newspaper, investigated the cases it considered the most striking examples of the unkept EU commitments denounced so eloquently by Commissioner Patten, mentioning four instructive examples (2):
- the countries that were victims of Hurricane Mitch (Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador). The EU disbursed emergency aid of EUR 48 million, but another 250 million promised remains unused. The newspaper points out that these 250 million are earmarked for rebuilding programmes. The problem is that the programmes do not exist;
- the Gaza hospital. Construction of the hospital, financed entirely by the EU (a grant of EUR 32 million), was completed a year ago, but it is not yet operating, explains Le Monde, because it does not have any staff and has not bought any equipment yet. It is obvious that these two tasks are not incumbent upon the Union;
- mine clearance in Bosnia. There was a joint project with the United States, which has withdrawn. The European aid has not arrived, reports the newspaper. At first sight, the American pull-out could make the initial project obsolete;
- irrigation in Tibet. Le Monde speaks of a joint project with the Chinese, to which the EU should have contributed EUR 7.6 million and China the equivalent of 14.2 million. Apparently, nothing has been done, but there is nothing to suggest whether the European failure may not result from a Chinese failure.
These are the four examples mentioned by Le Monde. Orally, Mr Patten brought up the cases of Mediterranean third countries, saying that EUR 1 billion could be released immediately and that these countries could thus prepare effectively for the major Euro-Mediterranean free trade area. Naivete or demagogy? Those who are even slightly familiar with the issue know about the difficulties being encountered by the Euro-Mediterranean agreements and the free-trade area project is not dependent upon delayed European financing but upon much more fundamental factors (3); further, some financing was suspended or slowed because the interest of certain projects was questionable, as was their management.
This does not mean that delays, excessive procedural complications and lack of flexibility are not real problems, or that there is no need for improvements. The Commission's communication on reform of the management of external aid is a very good paper and the initiatives it announces are excellent on the whole. Bravo to Mr Patten, who has set the objectives of "quality, speed and visibility" for the Union's external aid. But was it necessary, to do so, to discredit Europe's past and present action? To consider negligible the action of the EDF, which for 40 years has supported the efforts of African and other countries, as one of the difficulties essentially due to the beneficiary countries themselves? To minimise EU humanitarian aid, the most generous that exists? The same Parisian article mentioned above states: "Many partner countries do not have the administrative or logistics infrastructures to absorb the aid promised to them." No such message was part of Mr Patten's statements, and this remark will not be found in the British press or a certain part of the German press, which are both only too happy to describe new examples of the incompetence and ineffectiveness of the "Brussels machinery". If Mr Patten's goal was to give the public opinion a misleading idea of the EU's action to assist third countries, having read the press, we can reassure him: he has achieved his goal.
Ferdinando Riccardi
- - - - - - - - -
(1) Agence EUROPE reported on Commissioner Patten's statements in its issue of 18 May, page 6.
(2) Le Monde of 19 May;
(3) See this column in the issue of 10 May, pp. 3-5.